New Bible Code Prophecy!
Dallas James
Prophecy and the Bible Code interact perfectly for we find that the word
"asteroid" is found exactly in Zecharah 12:3 when the nations of the world
finally come against Israel and Jerusalem in particular. This will be the
method God uses when He sends the Angel of the Lord to the aid of Israel as
in ancient times. We also find the year 2006 given which author Michael
Drosnin wrote about in "The Bible Code". For more detailed information on
prophecy visit our Web Site and read our online books.
Dallas James--
The Association for Biblical Christianity
http://www.serve.com/ABC
de...@scn.org
Kevin Davidson
ze...@magicnet.net wrote:
> There are no vowls in Hebrew. So how can you get "asteroid?"
The kindest thing one can say about "the Bible code" is that it is based
on a statistical fallacy.
The same methods give remarkable insights from Moby Dick.
--
Kevin Davidson
Home - kwda...@acm.org - http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/
Office - ke...@qsinc.com - http://www.qsinc.com/
ze...@magicnet.net
Bob
Logoth wrote:
>
> >The kindest thing one can say about "the Bible code" is that it is based
> >on a statistical fallacy.
> >Kevin Davidson
>
> Can you say this despite the fact that it went through a three level peer
> review in a highly respected mathematical journal, and American NSA agents
> have verified it while attempting to disprove it? The Bible "Code" has yet
> to be debunked by the same mathematical/scientific process. Furthermore, it
> has never been asserted by the mathematicians involved that it could PROVE
> or PREDICT the future, only that that past events are positively encoded in
> the original Hebrew/Chaldean text of the Tora with uncanny accuracy.
> Methinks that you should provide some basis for your, as of yet, unfounded
> sarcasm, and at least read the first few chapters of the book. It is
> written by an American journalist in a style that is easy for even you to
> read. "A man seemeth wise until he opens his mouth." In our case,
> "...until he pounds his keys."
I think I have to disagree with both you and Kevin. Use of a computer
program and computers to hack the Bible?
I am reminded of the scriptures:
"Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto
you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." LUKE 13:24
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by
the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other
way, the same is a thief and a robber." John 10:1
If the Heavansgate people could come back they would
probably attest to this.
Why do you want to use the Bible Code system anyway?
Thinking about setting up an "Internet Hotline?". Put
the Psyics out of business? Pray and seek His face.
Repent and be baptized.
Anita
purp...@mailexcite.com
Frank Schierenberg
Frank Schierenberg wrote:
>Adam Obren let it be known:
>
>Well, I don't think 1 John 4:8 holds any water. A truly loving god would
>not let anyone go to hell. The fact that you refer to philosophical
>concepts is all the morre reason why you should submit evidence for your
>claims.
Are you an anarchist? The view that there should be no universal
applicable and ENFORCED rules is typical of anarchism. You are also a
dreamer if you think any system can exist without some form of sanction
against those not following rules. This world would be absolute hell without
courts, judgements, jail etc., why would you think any God would not have a
"hell" for "unrepentant sinners"?
The falacy of the "sanctionless society" is largely the cause of the
proliferation of todays juvenile delinquents, who were never sanctioned for
misdeeds, except for a "talking to", which is a joke to them of course.
You will not find the concept of "Grace" in any worldy system. But in
Christ Jesus there is Grace to be found.
>> Only philosophically illiterate twits bother to believe or not
>> believe in "sky daddy" and I hope you are not one of them.
>
>Who's Sky Daddy? The father of Sky? Is it "philosophically illiterate"
>to lack belief in some entity called Sky Daddy? Or is this some vague
>reference to a god that you don't believe in?
Are you new to the atheistic world? Sky Daddy=Space Pixy=God in atheist
jargon. It is the imaginary entity atheists believe Christians DO believe in
and atheists profess NOT to believe in. A futile gesture, because if
everyone were to lists all the things they DON'T believe in we would all
drown in a sea of nonsense.
Frank the Fundy
an atheist who found Christ Jesus
Hephaestus
Frank Schierenberg wrote:
>
> Frank Schierenberg wrote:
>
> >Adam Obren let it be known:
> >
> >Well, I don't think 1 John 4:8 holds any water. A truly loving god would
> >not let anyone go to hell. The fact that you refer to philosophical
> >concepts is all the morre reason why you should submit evidence for your
> >claims.
>
> Are you an anarchist? The view that there should be no universal
> applicable and ENFORCED rules is typical of anarchism. You are also a
> dreamer if you think any system can exist without some form of sanction
> against those not following rules. This world would be absolute hell without
> courts, judgements, jail etc., why would you think any God would not have a
> "hell" for "unrepentant sinners"?
Because there would be no purpose for such a hell. The purpose of
prisons in a society is twofold : i. Protect the rest of its members and
ii. (in theory) Make better citizens out of criminals (of course this
does not really work but anyway). Hell serves NONE of these purposes
since it is eternal and there is nobody to be protected. Your analogy is
quite simply wrong and I do not think you've given it a split second's
thought. Your 'kind god' is simply inconsistent with the notion of an
eternal hell and you know it, no matter how many words you put one
behind the other to defend the indefensible. Hell is meaningless,
pointless, and useless (and anyway non-existent) torture.
> The falacy of the "sanctionless society" is largely the cause of the
> proliferation of todays juvenile delinquents, who were never sanctioned for
> misdeeds, except for a "talking to", which is a joke to them of course.
> You will not find the concept of "Grace" in any worldy system. But in
> Christ Jesus there is Grace to be found.
>
>
Hephaestus
Frank Schierenberg
Hephaestus wrote in message <34421A1F...@olympian.gods>...
>
>Because there would be no purpose for such a hell. The purpose of
>prisons in a society is twofold : i. Protect the rest of its members and
>ii. (in theory) Make better citizens out of criminals (of course this
>does not really work but anyway). Hell serves NONE of these purposes
>since it is eternal and there is nobody to be protected.
Wake up to reality Hep! The Carrot and Stick approach is the only one
that works. If God wants a deterrent to make people think again before they
put their evil desires into practice, you and me should applaud God, not
frustrate His aim to make this world livable for both of us.
You may think YOURSELF like God, have fantastic superhuman intellectual
control over your emotions and actions. You may always be cool and rational,
never subject to irrational fears or uncontrolable anger.
But most people don't, that is why they inject drugs with infected
needles, have unprotected sex and generally try to kill themselves in a
multitude of ways. Totally irrational, that's the way most of us are and you
just got to learn to live with that.
But most respond to LOVE, especially GRACE. Also the thought that their
individuality survives death and is subject to judgement may but the brakes
on tendencies to commit some nasty excesses.
So lay off already, Hep. The tiger you let our of the cage may turn on
you rather than lick your hand in gratitude.
Alex Trebek
> On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:30:15 -0500, Bob <el...@swbell.com> wrote:
>
> >Logoth wrote:
> >>
> >> >The kindest thing one can say about "the Bible code" is that it is based
> >> >on a statistical fallacy.
I am sad to see that many people are taken by this book. Unfortunately,
it's a recent, all-too-human creation.
"Peer review" - whatever that may mean - may have been done, but a cursory
examination of the allegations in "The Bible Code" will show that the
researcher simply got his computer to come up with regular patterns.
This can be done regardless of the language examined by the computer. How?
Language has structure.
Consider the English standard sentence, formed in "subject-verb-object" order.
Now, recognize the commonality exhibited by all English (the most complex
language in great use today). This commonality of structure is necessary
to relieve confusion. We can't have "Bob loves his car" become "his car
loves Bob".
Other languages also have this regular structure. We call it syntax or context.
The patterns are real. They are present in the Bible, and this is possibly
the basis for some persons' expressed confidence in what it says, but
those patterns are inadvertent inclusions originating from the nature of
language.
Any computer can perform simple substitution and come up with patterns,
which can be expressed in text or by graphics. This technique can be used
on any grammatically-consistent writin.
Look for someone to produce a JPEG from the Bible next.
--
Call someone names, and you automatically forfeit your argument.
Brandon M. Gorte
Frank Schierenberg (NOSPA...@netrover.com) wrote:
: Hephaestus wrote in message <34421A1F...@olympian.gods>...
: >
: >Because there would be no purpose for such a hell. The purpose of
: >prisons in a society is twofold : i. Protect the rest of its members and
: >ii. (in theory) Make better citizens out of criminals (of course this
: >does not really work but anyway). Hell serves NONE of these purposes
: >since it is eternal and there is nobody to be protected.
:
: Wake up to reality Hep! The Carrot and Stick approach is the only one
: that works.
Those who think this are usually the ones who will only respond to such
an approach. Don't demean humanity's intelligence level by suggesting it
is the _only_ approach. Humans are smarter than you think. [1]
Brandon Gorte
a.a friend #1
[1] Well, some are smarter than others, but that can be a matter of
opinion as well as an observation.
g&g #750
Frank Schierenberg <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote in article
<61t1qb$n7v$1...@nntp1.uunet.ca>...
> Frank Schierenberg wrote:
>
> >Adam Obren let it be known:
> >
> >Well, I don't think 1 John 4:8 holds any water. A truly loving god
would
> >not let anyone go to hell. The fact that you refer to philosophical
> >concepts is all the morre reason why you should submit evidence for your
> >claims.
>
>
> Are you an anarchist? The view that there should be no universal
> applicable and ENFORCED rules is typical of anarchism. You are also a
> dreamer if you think any system can exist without some form of sanction
> against those not following rules. This world would be absolute hell
without
> courts, judgements, jail etc., why would you think any God would not have
a
> "hell" for "unrepentant sinners"?
Come on, Frank. Get real with your responses. The person said a truly
loving god would not send anyone to hell. And that is a solid concept.
There is no definition of love that can possibly include hell as a
punishment. The comment had nothing to do with discipline or accepting
responsibility for one's actions, or court processes, etc. A truly loving
god simply could not send nice folks to hell while letting really shitty
folks into heaven at the last moment because they got scared and repented
just before death. That doesn't wash. Your god isn't loving, Frank. Your
god is a psychopathic maniac.
JB
Hephaestus <hepha...@olympian.gods> wrote:
>Frank Schierenberg wrote:
>>
>> Frank Schierenberg wrote:
>>
>> >Adam Obren let it be known:
>> >
>> >Well, I don't think 1 John 4:8 holds any water. A truly loving god would
>> >not let anyone go to hell. The fact that you refer to philosophical
>> >concepts is all the morre reason why you should submit evidence for your
>> >claims.
>>
>> Are you an anarchist? The view that there should be no universal
>> applicable and ENFORCED rules is typical of anarchism. You are also a
>> dreamer if you think any system can exist without some form of sanction
>> against those not following rules. This world would be absolute hell without
>> courts, judgements, jail etc., why would you think any God would not have a
>> "hell" for "unrepentant sinners"?
>
>Because there would be no purpose for such a hell. The purpose of
>prisons in a society is twofold : i. Protect the rest of its members and
>ii. (in theory) Make better citizens out of criminals (of course this
>does not really work but anyway). Hell serves NONE of these purposes
>since it is eternal and there is nobody to be protected. Your analogy is
>quite simply wrong and I do not think you've given it a split second's
>thought. Your 'kind god' is simply inconsistent with the notion of an
>eternal hell and you know it, no matter how many words you put one
>behind the other to defend the indefensible. Hell is meaningless,
>pointless, and useless (and anyway non-existent) torture.
>
>> The falacy of the "sanctionless society" is largely the cause of the
>> proliferation of todays juvenile delinquents, who were never sanctioned for
>> misdeeds, except for a "talking to", which is a joke to them of course.
>> You will not find the concept of "Grace" in any worldy system. But in
>> Christ Jesus there is Grace to be found.
>>
>>
>
>Hephaestus
Boy, talk about handing it to the aetheists on a plate!
Yes there will be a hell (note I say will be) and, yes the wicked will
burn. But an eternal punishing? The Bible does not say that anywhere.
That is a pagan concept adopted into Christainity.
Glenn
On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:49:52 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>Yes there will be a hell (note I say will be) and, yes the wicked will
>burn. But an eternal punishing? The Bible does not say that anywhere.
>That is a pagan concept adopted into Christainity.
What about the following, using George Ricker Berry's Literal Greek:
"And these shall go away into punishment eternal,
but the righteous into life eternal." Matt. 25:46
The English "eternal" in both clauses is the same Greek, "aionios".
If the punishment is not eternal, the life cannot be either.
Glenn
Wonko the Sane
JB wrote in message <34487fd5...@news.demon.co.uk>...
[...much snippage, and there was great rejoicing...]
>Boy, talk about handing it to the aetheists on a plate!
>
>Yes there will be a hell (note I say will be) and, yes the wicked will
>burn. But an eternal punishing? The Bible does not say that anywhere.
>That is a pagan concept adopted into Christainity.
Mark 9:43, 45 and 48. Or was Mark a pagan...?
--
-Mike Lease
.
NOTE: The above address is fake; it is intended to deflect
SPAM. If you have a legitimate reason to email me, please
take my first initial, add my last name, the '@' character,
and either mail.dec.com (my work address) or concentric.net
(my home address).
g&g #750
Frank Schierenberg <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote in article
<61uem4$4gj$1...@nntp1.uunet.ca>...
> Hephaestus wrote in message <34421A1F...@olympian.gods>...
> >
<snip>
> You may think YOURSELF like God, have fantastic superhuman
intellectual
> control over your emotions and actions. You may always be cool and
rational,
> never subject to irrational fears or uncontrolable anger.
> But most people don't, that is why they inject drugs with infected
> needles, have unprotected sex and generally try to kill themselves in a
> multitude of ways. Totally irrational, that's the way most of us are and
you
> just got to learn to live with that.
Speaking of waking up to reality, Frank, I think you should practice what
you preach. I personally have hundreds of close acquaintances and
thousands of people that I know a little bit. Of those thousands of
people, only a very small percentage "inject drugs with infected needles,
have unprotected sex" (at least they aren't impregnating or getting
pregnant all the time) "or generally try to kill themselves in a multitude
of ways." You must certainly live in an entirely different world to
believe that "most" people have these characteristics. Your picture of the
world as this incredibly horrible place is not at all realistic. Yes,
Frank, there are some really bad folks out there, but they are truly in the
minority. Maybe you ought to get out more. Don't be afraid, the boogie
man won't get you.
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:49:52 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>
>>Yes there will be a hell (note I say will be) and, yes the wicked will
>>burn. But an eternal punishing? The Bible does not say that anywhere.
>>That is a pagan concept adopted into Christainity.
>
>What about the following, using George Ricker Berry's Literal Greek:
>
>"And these shall go away into punishment eternal,
> but the righteous into life eternal." Matt. 25:46
>
>The English "eternal" in both clauses is the same Greek, "aionios".
>
>If the punishment is not eternal, the life cannot be either.
>
>Glenn
Of course the punishment is eternal I didn't dispute that.
However, the punishING is not eternal.
Sam Lopez
Wonko the Sane (Wo...@Outside.the.Asylum) wrote:
: JB wrote in message <34487fd5...@news.demon.co.uk>...
: [...much snippage, and there was great rejoicing...]
: >Boy, talk about handing it to the aetheists on a plate!
: >
: >Yes there will be a hell (note I say will be) and, yes the wicked will
: >burn. But an eternal punishing? The Bible does not say that anywhere.
: >That is a pagan concept adopted into Christainity.
: Mark 9:43, 45 and 48. Or was Mark a pagan...?
Check out the "lake of fire" passages at the end of the book of Revelation!
Again, another atheist constructing strawmen to bolster up his personal
vendettas.
: --
: -Mike Lease
: .
: NOTE: The above address is fake; it is intended to deflect
: SPAM. If you have a legitimate reason to email me, please
: take my first initial, add my last name, the '@' character,
: and either mail.dec.com (my work address) or concentric.net
: (my home address).
--
+**************************************************+
+ "I met a Pentium chip +
+ that did not believe +
+ in the existence of Intel (TM)." +
+ +
+**************************************************+
Wayne Delia
In <61uem4$4gj$1...@nntp1.uunet.ca>, "Frank Schierenberg" <NOSPA...@netrover.com> writes:
>Hephaestus wrote in message <34421A1F...@olympian.gods>...
>>
>>prisons in a society is twofold : i. Protect the rest of its members and
>>ii. (in theory) Make better citizens out of criminals (of course this
>>does not really work but anyway). Hell serves NONE of these purposes
>>since it is eternal and there is nobody to be protected.
>
>that works.
If someone doesn't believe in the Carrot, beat them with the Stick?
>If God wants a deterrent to make people think again before they
>put their evil desires into practice, you and me should applaud God, not
>frustrate His aim to make this world livable for both of us.
Yay! Whee-hoo! Let's give it up for the Creator of the Universe! (Neon
sign lights up, says "Applause".)
> You may think YOURSELF like God, have fantastic superhuman intellectual
>control over your emotions and actions.
Where was all this "fantastic superhuman intellectual control over emotions
and actions" of God's in the Old Testament? Sounds like he came a little
unhinged during Noah's Flood, for example.
>You may always be cool and rational,
>never subject to irrational fears or uncontrolable anger.
That's why they call me the "Ice Man".
> But most people don't, that is why they inject drugs with infected
>needles,
Why hasn't God gotten rid of the epidemic of drug addiction?
>have unprotected sex
Riiiiight. What kind of protected sex did Adam and Eve have? What kind
of contraception was used by anyone in the Old Testament? (apart from
castration)
>and generally try to kill themselves in a multitude of ways.
Most people are that incompetent? Speak for yourself, moron. If I had it
in my mind that I wanted to kill myself, I would succeed in a brilliant
manner. Right now, I plan to die of old age at 103 years old, falling off
a barstool into the arms of a beautiful woman.
>Totally irrational, that's the way most of us are and you
>just got to learn to live with that.
Let's see if I can figure this out. You're arguing for the idea that your
religion is totally rational, on the basis that everyone is totally
irrational? If that's actually the case, then how is it possible to
communicate any meaningful ideas about your religion?
> But most respond to LOVE, especially GRACE. Also the thought that their
>individuality survives death and is subject to judgement may but the brakes
>on tendencies to commit some nasty excesses.
Then how the fuck do you explain all the nasty excesses committed by
Christians? Catholic priests molest little altar boys; high-profile
televangelists get caught with their pants down and their peckers in
hookers; ministers have affairs with married women in the church
choir. My guess is that you sweep these counter-examples under the
carpet, since they don't fit in with your idea of the way things should
be.
> So lay off already, Hep. The tiger you let our of the cage may turn on
>you rather than lick your hand in gratitude.
Or it might just go sit in the corner, purr "Meow", and go to sleep.
Wayne Delia, red...@ibm.net, Atheist #61, MSTie #37634
Narrator: "Fortunately, George had another trick up his sleeve."
George of the Jungle (sheepishly): "George no have sleeve."
Shawn Protsman
In article <61vujv$t76$1...@mrnews.mro.dec.com>, "Wonko the Sane"
<Wo...@Outside.the.Asylum> wrote:
>JB wrote in message <34487fd5...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>[...much snippage, and there was great rejoicing...]
>
>>Boy, talk about handing it to the aetheists on a plate!
>>
>>Yes there will be a hell (note I say will be) and, yes the wicked will
>>burn. But an eternal punishing? The Bible does not say that anywhere.
>>That is a pagan concept adopted into Christainity.
>
> Mark 9:43, 45 and 48. Or was Mark a pagan...?
>
Hi Mike,
I'll have to disagree with you. The Bible does say that there is eternal
punishment. Luke 16:23 states, "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being
in torment. . ." The word translated torment comes from the Greek word
basanizo which means concious punishment. The same word is also used in
Revelation 20:10, "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the
lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are
also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Thus,
not only will there be punishment but they will be totaly aware of it
unable to get rid of it.
Again, in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Scripture says, "And these will pay the
penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and
from the glory of His power." The Greek word used here is aionios
olethros. Which means perpetual destruction. Ie. a destruction that
never ceases.
Shawn
steven r. shepherd
My problem with your premise about Hell being eternal is in Rev.
20:13,14. An elderly preacher friend pointed this out to me when I
preached a message on how hot Hell would be for eternity. I went back
afterwards and apologized for the error. NOBODY EVEN CAUGHT IT! In
Baptist churches, it has been taught that Hell is eternal and then cast
into the lake of fire! If death and Hell are passed away, are they
eternal???????
Steve
Dave Haas
Hell is hell! But heaven is heaven!............ not!
Alan Torrance
In article <zeno-05109...@pm51-15.magicnet.net>,
ze...@magicnet.net says...
Biblical Hebrew is written with consonants only. However, fluent Hebrew
speakers understand words as having certain vowel-like sounds associated
with the letters, depending upon the grammatical conjugation. For folk
who are not fluent, a system of vowels was introduced a number of years
ago. The vowels are not interspersed amongst the consonants, but are
written underneath to assist.
The same could be done with English (and possibly all Latin alphabet
languages). It is just a matter of getting to know what the words look
like without the, to us, familiar vowels.
As for the word "asteroid", this word does not appear. The Hebrew
equivalent does. However, yes, in some circumstances, such as a proper
name, e.g. Lady Diana "Lady Di", her name appears as "lamed, daled, yod,
daled, yod". In Hebrew this does correspond quite accurately with her
shortened name "Lady Di".
The comet "Shoemaker-Levy" is in similar fashion revealed, and so on. In
some circumstances dates, as well, are given - even to the day.
Some of the "revealed" secrets were revealed before (yes, before) the
events in question.
I have been given a loan of the book "The Bible Code" by Michael Drosnin.
I am now seriously considering purchasing the CD with the program so that
I can carry out my own line of investigation. Hopefully my limited (non
fluent) level of Hebrew will enable some questioning. Lack of fluency
will be restrictive.
If you have't read the book, I would earnestly suggest you do. It is
fascinating. As an exercise in multi-dimensional coding (proved
accurate by mathematicians and government code experts who set out to
disprove it!!), it is utterly incredible, but obvioulsy not impossible.
It is its own proof, after all.
Alan Torrance
Glenn
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:23:50 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>>What about the following, using George Ricker Berry's Literal Greek:
>>
>>"And these shall go away into punishment eternal,
>> but the righteous into life eternal." Matt. 25:46
>>
>>The English "eternal" in both clauses is the same Greek, "aionios".
>>
>>If the punishment is not eternal, the life cannot be either.
>>
>>Glenn
>
>Of course the punishment is eternal I didn't dispute that.
>
>However, the punishING is not eternal.
From Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd Col. Ed., 1988
"punishment...1 a punishing or being punished"
You are playing a silly, semantic game!
Glenn
JB
>Hi Mike,
>
>I'll have to disagree with you. The Bible does say that there is eternal
>punishment. Luke 16:23 states, "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being
>in torment. . ." The word translated torment comes from the Greek word
>basanizo which means concious punishment. The same word is also used in
>Revelation 20:10, "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the
>lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are
>also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Thus,
>not only will there be punishment but they will be totaly aware of it
>unable to get rid of it.
>
>Again, in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Scripture says, "And these will pay the
>penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and
>from the glory of His power." The Greek word used here is aionios
>olethros. Which means perpetual destruction. Ie. a destruction that
>never ceases.
>
>Shawn
Ok, another vote for hell... but for the eternally burning hell-fire?
Hmmm....
Luke 16:23 is a parable and does not mention eternally burning hell
fire.
Rev 20:10 is a better candidate... the words 'forever and ever' could
be better translated 'for ages and ages'. So how long does it last?
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is
the second death.
Uh-oh... 'second death' that is a finite thing. Death = cessation of
life, this verse doesn't pass the test.
1 Thess 1:9 does indeed say eternal destruction, but it doesn't say
eternal destroying. So the destruction will be eternal, i.e. those
destroyed will not be brought back to life.
So the result is.....
Hell fire - yes
Eternally burning - no
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
Absolutely not.
Answer me this:
Give me one scripture where Christ promised the wicked everlasting
life.
Form Webster's Dictionary: 3. a penalty inflicted for an offense or
fault.
I think you are playing the game as you deliberately ignored this
definition of punishment.
The Lake of Fire is described as being the second DEATH in Rev 20:14 -
that's pretty finite.
Michelle Malkin
In <3442ac91....@news.insync.net> fire...@MAPSITNA.insync.net (erikc) writes:
>
>On 13 Oct 1997 15:40:31 GMT
>"g&g #750" <gri...@gte.net>
>-- origin: alt.atheism:>>|<61t1qb$n7v$1...@nntp1.uunet.ca>...
>>|> Frank Schierenberg wrote:
>>|>
>>|> >Adam Obren let it be known:
>>|> >
>>|> >Well, I don't think 1 John 4:8 holds any water. A truly loving god
>>|would
>>|> >not let anyone go to hell. The fact that you refer to philosophical
>>|> >concepts is all the morre reason why you should submit evidence for your
>>|> >claims.
>>|>
>>|>
>>|> Are you an anarchist? The view that there should be no universal
>>|> applicable and ENFORCED rules is typical of anarchism. You are also a
>>|> dreamer if you think any system can exist without some form of sanction
>>|> against those not following rules. This world would be absolute hell
>>|without
>>|> courts, judgements, jail etc., why would you think any God would not have
>>|a
>>|> "hell" for "unrepentant sinners"?
>>|
>>|
>>|loving god would not send anyone to hell. And that is a solid concept.
>>|There is no definition of love that can possibly include hell as a
>>|punishment. The comment had nothing to do with discipline or accepting
>>|responsibility for one's actions, or court processes, etc. A truly loving
>>|god simply could not send nice folks to hell while letting really shitty
>>|folks into heaven at the last moment because they got scared and repented
>>|just before death. That doesn't wash. Your god isn't loving, Frank. Your
>>|god is a psychopathic maniac.
>>|
followers
>as well.
>
>
>
>Erikc Ag #2 | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
> | "The Truth against the World."
> | -- Bardic
Motto
If a person was that warped, why not just totally destroy his/her
essence? Why punish them for eternity? Since they were probably
mentally ill to begin with or had some kind of physically based
chemical or mental imbalance, they weren't totally responsible for
their behavior anyway. If their minds can't even be cured after death,
then snap them out of existence. Unending punishment serves no purpose.
A god that would punish someone forever sounds mentally ill itself.
Mickey
erikc
On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:51:21 -0400
"Frank Schierenberg" <NOSPA...@netrover.com>
-- origin: alt.atheism:
[===]
>| But most people don't, that is why they inject drugs with infected
>|needles, have unprotected sex and generally try to kill themselves in a
>|multitude of ways. Totally irrational, that's the way most of us are and you
>|just got to learn to live with that.
[===]
>|
>| Frank the Fundy
>|an atheist who found Christ Jesus <---------------------+
. |
So you traded off one form for insanity for another.--------+
erikc
Erikc Ag #2 | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
JB
"Wonko the Sane" <Wo...@Outside.the.Asylum> wrote:
>JB wrote in message <34487fd5...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>[...much snippage, and there was great rejoicing...]
>
>>Boy, talk about handing it to the aetheists on a plate!
>>
>>Yes there will be a hell (note I say will be) and, yes the wicked will
>>burn. But an eternal punishing? The Bible does not say that anywhere.
>>That is a pagan concept adopted into Christainity.
>
> Mark 9:43, 45 and 48. Or was Mark a pagan...?
In reverse order...
No, Mark was not a pagan.
Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for
thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell,
into the fire that never shall be quenched:
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into
the fire that never shall be quenched:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
All three of these texts say that the fire will not be quenched. To
quench a fire means to put it out. No-one will be able to put the fire
out... but it will go out of its own accord after it has finished
burning.
None of these verses say that there will be an eternal punishing, only
that the punishment will run its course.
Joel Stigliano
On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Frank Schierenberg wrote:
> Frank Schierenberg wrote:
>
> >Adam Obren let it be known:
> >
> >Well, I don't think 1 John 4:8 holds any water. A truly loving god would
> >not let anyone go to hell. The fact that you refer to philosophical
> >concepts is all the morre reason why you should submit evidence for your
> >claims.
>
>
> Are you an anarchist? The view that there should be no universal
> applicable and ENFORCED rules is typical of anarchism. You are also a
> dreamer if you think any system can exist without some form of sanction
> against those not following rules. This world would be absolute hell without
> courts, judgements, jail etc., why would you think any God would not have a
> "hell" for "unrepentant sinners"?
> The falacy of the "sanctionless society" is largely the cause of the
> proliferation of todays juvenile delinquents, who were never sanctioned for
> misdeeds, except for a "talking to", which is a joke to them of course.
> You will not find the concept of "Grace" in any worldy system. But in
> Christ Jesus there is Grace to be found.
>
> >> Only philosophically illiterate twits bother to believe or not
> >> believe in "sky daddy" and I hope you are not one of them.
> >
> >Who's Sky Daddy? The father of Sky? Is it "philosophically illiterate"
> >to lack belief in some entity called Sky Daddy? Or is this some vague
> >reference to a god that you don't believe in?
>
> Are you new to the atheistic world? Sky Daddy=Space Pixy=God in atheist
> jargon. It is the imaginary entity atheists believe Christians DO believe in
> and atheists profess NOT to believe in. A futile gesture, because if
> everyone were to lists all the things they DON'T believe in we would all
> drown in a sea of nonsense.
>
> Frank the Fundy
> an atheist who found Christ Jesus
>
>
-Something curious I was thinking about the other day...They say God is
all good, all knowing, and all powerful. So if he's all knowing he knows
that evil exists in the world today. If he's all powerful he has the power
to destroy the evil in a thought, and if he's all good he's not going to
let the evil exist.
Question: How, then, can he exist? > > >
Joel of many questions
Wonko the Sane
<sarcastic "scoreboard" in subject line deleted -- I'm trying to have a
serious discussion here, please>
JB wrote in message <34501463...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>"Wonko the Sane" <Wo...@Outside.the.Asylum> wrote:
>
>>JB wrote in message <34487fd5...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>[...much snippage, and there was great rejoicing...]
>>
>>>Boy, talk about handing it to the aetheists on a plate!
>>>
>>>Yes there will be a hell (note I say will be) and, yes the wicked will
>>>burn. But an eternal punishing? The Bible does not say that anywhere.
>>>That is a pagan concept adopted into Christainity.
>>
>> Mark 9:43, 45 and 48. Or was Mark a pagan...?
>
>In reverse order...
>
>No, Mark was not a pagan.
Ok, good to get that straight.
>Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for
>thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell,
>into the fire that never shall be quenched:
>
>45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
>enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into
>the fire that never shall be quenched:
>
>48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
>
>All three of these texts say that the fire will not be quenched. To
>quench a fire means to put it out. No-one will be able to put the fire
>out... but it will go out of its own accord after it has finished
>burning.
Hmm.... But "their worm dieth not" seems to say that the torture
will continue indefinitely. And the interpretation that "to quench" a fire
means *only* "to put it out" seems a bit strained; I don't have a dictionary
handy just at the moment, but I believe that going out of it's own accord
constitutes a "quenching" as well.
>None of these verses say that there will be an eternal punishing, only
>that the punishment will run its course.
It does seem to me that something so important should be expressed
a bit more clearly to those of us who are supposed to believe it's the
Word of God. As I mentioned to someone else, other Christians tell me
that Hell is for eternity, and cite Bible verses (other than the ones I
happened
to remember off the top of my head) to support that point of view. How am
I supposed to figure out which interpretation is correct?
Wonko the Sane
Sam Lopez wrote in message <620c4j$n...@nntp.seflin.org>...
>Wonko the Sane (Wo...@Outside.the.Asylum) wrote:
>: JB wrote in message <34487fd5...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>: [...much snippage, and there was great rejoicing...]
>
>: >Boy, talk about handing it to the aetheists on a plate!
>: >
>: >Yes there will be a hell (note I say will be) and, yes the wicked will
>: >burn. But an eternal punishing? The Bible does not say that anywhere.
>: >That is a pagan concept adopted into Christainity.
>
>: Mark 9:43, 45 and 48. Or was Mark a pagan...?
>
Specific cites would be helpful. But in any case, I've already had
someone
email me a response (thinking they were disagreeing with me, rather than the
poster I was quoting) citing several other passages which seem to bolster
the notion that those who go to Hell get to enjoy the amenities thereof for
all eternity. I haven't seen it here yet, though I did see someone else's
response to it.
>Again, another atheist constructing strawmen to bolster up his personal
>vendettas.
I'm not constructing any strawmen. Some Christians tell me that Hell
is for eternity and I'd better get my act together if I want to stay out of
it.
Others insist that it's not eternal, or that eternal means something other
than forever(?). Both types offer me Bible verses that support their own
point of view, and tell me that the other guys are all wet. Now, how am I
supposed to figure out which ones to believe?
As for "personal vendettas," what precisely are you talking about? I'm
basically a "live and let live" type. I couldn't care less what you
believe,
though I'd like you guys to get straight just what that is. But I do like
to
discuss different points of view, etc., and if a thread strikes my fancy,
I'll jump in and start chatting. It's the theists, in my experience, that
get
all hot and bothered that somebody out there doesn't believe what they
do. I don't especially care whether I can convince you that I'm right; I'm
just going to defend my own position when it's attacked.
To me, the concept of a just and loving God who could throw people
into Hell to be tortured for all eternity is self-contradictory at best.
Some
apologists realize this, and say that that's not what *real* Christianity
teaches after all. But it seems fairly clear that the Bible *does* support
this view, at least in certain parts, and that those who deny this may be
engaged in just a bit of rationalization to sweep it under the rug.
--
-Mike Lease
.
NOTE: The above address is fake; it is intended to deflect
SPAM. If you have a legitimate reason to email me, please
take my first initial, add my last name, the '@' character,
and either mail.dec.com (my work address) or concentric.net
(my home address).
>
>: --
>: -Mike Lease
>: .
>: NOTE: The above address is fake; it is intended to deflect
>: SPAM. If you have a legitimate reason to email me, please
>: take my first initial, add my last name, the '@' character,
>: and either mail.dec.com (my work address) or concentric.net
>: (my home address).
>
>
>
>
>
Jason Pinn
Dave Haas wrote:
>
> steven r. shepherd wrote:
> >
> > My problem with your premise about Hell being eternal is in Rev.
> > 20:13,14. An elderly preacher friend pointed this out to me when I
> > preached a message on how hot Hell would be for eternity. I went back
> > afterwards and apologized for the error. NOBODY EVEN CAUGHT IT! In
> > Baptist churches, it has been taught that Hell is eternal and then
> > into the lake of fire! If death and Hell are passed away, are they
> > eternal???????
> >
> > Steve
>
> Hell is hell! But heaven is heaven!............ not!
Hell is not eternal - this is indeed clear from Rev.20, as you say.
however, the lake of fire is - and all those in hell will eventually be
case into the lake of fire (which sounds an evenmore frightening
prospect than hell).
Jason.
--
Jason Pinn - BSc(Hons) Software Engineering
De Montfort University, Leicester, ENGLAND
TheFloor
1¾ « C
(Based on an article by John Fleck of
the ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL,
August 28, 1997, titled "Expert Bashes Bible Code: NM Scientist
Calls 'Bible Code' Bogus". Copyright Albuquerque Journal).
“Roswell” and “UFO” are also inextricably linked in the Bible,
according to New Mexico mathematician and computer expert Dave Thomas’
analysis. Also, the rise of tabloid television. Thomas found multiple
references to Regis Philbin, linked to what passes for a reference to
“The X Files.” Jay Leno and Oprah are there, too.
Thomas and Australian mathematician Brendan McKay have found
remarkable-seeming predictions in everything from the texts of US
Supreme Court decisions to “Moby Dick.”
In a June interview with Newsweek magazine, BIBLE CODE author Michael
Drosnin stated: “When my critics find a message about the
assassination
of a prime minister encrypted in ‘Moby Dick,’ I’ll believe them.”
Guess what! McKay found “Moby Dick” “predicting” the assassinations of
Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Lebanese President Rene Moawad
-- twice. Martin Luther King Jr.’s name was ominously paired with the
phrase “to be killed by them,” and there were numerous references to
Robert F. Kennedy’s killer, Sirhan Sirhan, along with the words
“butchery” and “murder”.
Just as Drosnin did in the Bible, Thomas found the words "Hitler" and
"Nazi" interlinked in Chapter Two of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace".
Also, in the Book of Genesis (King James version), Thomas found
the message: "The code is bogus." And over 60 cases of linking the
words "code" and "bogus".
As Harvard mathematician and rabbi Shlomo Sternberg commented on
Drosnin's opus, the "Bible Code" is "patently ridiculous".
Glenn
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 01:50:16 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>>>Of course the punishment is eternal I didn't dispute that.
>>>
>>>However, the punishING is not eternal.
>>
>>From Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd Col. Ed., 1988
>>
>>"punishment...1 a punishing or being punished"
>>
>>You are playing a silly, semantic game!
>>
>>Glenn
>
>Absolutely not.
>
>Answer me this:
>
>Give me one scripture where Christ promised the wicked everlasting
>life.
Where have I stated that Christ has promised the wicked "everlasting
life"? I have not stated such, nor do I believe such, so why should I
defend it? Its your statement, you defend it!
>Form Webster's Dictionary: 3. a penalty inflicted for an offense or
>fault.
>
>I think you are playing the game as you deliberately ignored this
>definition of punishment.
Where on earth did you learn to use the English dictionary? The usual
layout of a dictionary lists the most common meaning first. So, when
I found your exact word in the 1st meaning which is the most common;
why go further? Your word "punishing" was not listed again so there
was no point.
>The Lake of Fire is described as being the second DEATH in Rev 20:14 -
>that's pretty finite.
Ge 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die."
Adam lived to be over 900 years old. Death in Scripture is not
restricted to the body. The soul can die as well, and in this case,
it died the very day of the transgression or was Yahweh God mistaken?
Glenn
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 01:50:16 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>
>>>>Of course the punishment is eternal I didn't dispute that.
>>>>
>>>>However, the punishING is not eternal.
>>>
>>>From Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd Col. Ed., 1988
>>>
>>>"punishment...1 a punishing or being punished"
>>>
>>>You are playing a silly, semantic game!
>>>
>>>Glenn
>>
>>Absolutely not.
>>
>>Answer me this:
>>
>>Give me one scripture where Christ promised the wicked everlasting
>>life.
>
>Where have I stated that Christ has promised the wicked "everlasting
>life"? I have not stated such, nor do I believe such, so why should I
>defend it? Its your statement, you defend it!
You've totally missed the point... if the wicked are burning eternally
in an everlasting fire then ipso facto they must be living eternally.
Now, you have stated the premise that their punishing is eternal,
inferring that they live eternally. Please prove that with a statement
from the Bible that says the wicked have everlasting life. My
understanding is that it is the righteous that have everlasting life.
>
>>Form Webster's Dictionary: 3. a penalty inflicted for an offense or
>>fault.
>>
>>I think you are playing the game as you deliberately ignored this
>>definition of punishment.
>
>Where on earth did you learn to use the English dictionary? The usual
>layout of a dictionary lists the most common meaning first. So, when
>I found your exact word in the 1st meaning which is the most common;
>why go further? Your word "punishing" was not listed again so there
>was no point.
>
I learnt to use the English Dictionary in an English School. We were
taught there that when alternative meanings were listed it was because
a word may have another meaning other than the most common (or
commonly assumed) one. Should we use the meaning for the greek word?
The first meaning listed in my greek dictionary is 'penal infliction'.
So we are talking about an everlasting penal infliction, not an
everlasting penal inflicting.
>>The Lake of Fire is described as being the second DEATH in Rev 20:14 -
>>that's pretty finite.
>
> Ge 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
>shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
>shalt surely die."
>
>Adam lived to be over 900 years old. Death in Scripture is not
>restricted to the body. The soul can die as well, and in this case,
>it died the very day of the transgression or was Yahweh God mistaken?
>
No, you are mistaken. God is not a Kharmic God and therefore does not
inflict the punishment instantaneously. It was sure from the time that
Adam sinned that he would eventually die. But God is gracious and gave
Adam time to repent so that he may die to be resurrected with the
righteous. God takes the same line with us today (thankfully). BTW:
No, the soul doesn't die the very day of transgression (thankfully).
>Glenn
Wayne Delia
In <3444DD...@dmu.ac.uk>, Jason Pinn <j...@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Hell is not eternal - this is indeed clear from Rev.20, as you say.
>
>however, the lake of fire is - and all those in hell will eventually be
>case into the lake of fire (which sounds an evenmore frightening
>prospect than hell).
Lake Erie was said to have been observed to catch fire somewhere
near Cleveland. It was so polluted it actually maintained the fire for
several minutes.
JB
"Wonko the Sane" <Wo...@Outside.the.Asylum> wrote:
><sarcastic "scoreboard" in subject line deleted -- I'm trying to have a
>serious discussion here, please>
Wonko, sorry if the scoreboard offends you but it is actually there to
make a point (it also helps me to keep track of who is replying to
what). As to the serious discussion... I think we can allow some
good-natured humour as well (for example your nick and your first
comment). My intention is not to offend.
>
>JB wrote in message <34501463...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>"Wonko the Sane" <Wo...@Outside.the.Asylum> wrote:
>>
>>>JB wrote in message <34487fd5...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>>
>>>[...much snippage, and there was great rejoicing...]
>>>
>>>>Boy, talk about handing it to the aetheists on a plate!
>>>>
>>>>Yes there will be a hell (note I say will be) and, yes the wicked will
>>>>burn. But an eternal punishing? The Bible does not say that anywhere.
>>>>That is a pagan concept adopted into Christainity.
>>>
>>> Mark 9:43, 45 and 48. Or was Mark a pagan...?
>>
>to remember off the top of my head) to support that point of view. How am
>I supposed to figure out which interpretation is correct?
What one has to remember is that the doctrine of an eternally burning
hell fire is something that was adopted into Christianity from
paganism. The Roman Catholic church of the Middle Ages made particular
capital out of this doctrine (and its sister, the doctrine of
purgatory).
The dictionary definition of quench is:
1. to satisfy; allay (thirst, desires, passion, etc.) 2. to put out;
extinguish (fire, flames, etc.) 3. to cool suddenly by plunging into a
liquid, as in tempering steel by immersion in water. 4. to overcome;
quell.
Now certainly the 'fires of hell' cannot be put out. The question is
will they go out?
Bear with me whils I put this into context. The definition of
hell-fire is found in Rev 20:9-15 -
"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp
of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God
out of heaven, and devoured them. [10] And the devil that deceived
them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and
the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever
and ever. [11] And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it,
from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was
found no place for them. [12] And I saw the dead, small and great,
stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was
opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of
those things which were written in the books, according to their
works. [13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death
and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
judged every man according to their works. [14] And death and hell
were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [15] And
whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the
lake of fire."
This scripture clearly shows that hell-fire takes place on this earth.
Matt 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Notice that the earth is the inheritance of the meek. Is their
inheritance to be a ball of fire?
Mal 4:1-3 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven;
and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble:
and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts,
that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. [2] But unto you
that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in
his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
[3] And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under
the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD
of hosts.
Notice that the ashes of the wicked shall be trodden underfoot. For
the meek to tread the ashes of the wicked under their feet the fire
must have gone out.
The doctrine of an eternally burning hell-fire is one of the most
un-Godly doctrines that is found in Christianity. No wonder aetheists
and others turn away from the idea of God when so many Christians
claim that their God of love wants to torture those that disobey him
for time without end. A God of love is by definition not a vindictive
God.
Is this a fair God? One that will burn someone who has told one lie
for the same length of time that Adolf Hitler will burn?
God wants people with Him who love, not people who fear Him. The Bible
often uses the analogy of the redeemed being the bride of Christ. When
a man marries he wants a woman who weds him out of love not a woman
who says she will be with him because she fears what he will do to her
if she doesn't marry.
As you know, there is only one true definitions of the doctrine of
hell. No-one is deny the truth of hell-fire, only the time-scale.
Please put all the information together as it comes in, listen to both
sides of the argument and read all of the scriptures quoted (in
context). But most importantly, before you do any of this, pray for
the Lord to give you enlightenment so that you will know and
understand what He is saying in these scriptures.
God bless you in your studies.
Jimmy
So what's difference in hell and the lake of fire? I always thought they
were the same.
Jimmy
Jason Pinn wrote in message <3444DD...@dmu.ac.uk>...
>Dave Haas wrote:
>>
>> steven r. shepherd wrote:
>> >
>> > My problem with your premise about Hell being eternal is in Rev.
>> > 20:13,14. An elderly preacher friend pointed this out to me when I
>> > preached a message on how hot Hell would be for eternity. I went back
>> > afterwards and apologized for the error. NOBODY EVEN CAUGHT IT! In
>> > Baptist churches, it has been taught that Hell is eternal and then
>> > cast
>> > into the lake of fire! If death and Hell are passed away, are they
>> > eternal???????
>> >
>> > Steve
>>
>> Hell is hell! But heaven is heaven!............ not!
>
>Hell is not eternal - this is indeed clear from Rev.20, as you say.
>
>however, the lake of fire is - and all those in hell will eventually be
>case into the lake of fire (which sounds an evenmore frightening
>prospect than hell).
>
Reed
Wayne Delia (red...@ibm.net) wrote:
> In <3444DD...@dmu.ac.uk>, Jason Pinn <j...@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> >
> >however, the lake of fire is - and all those in hell will eventually be
> >case into the lake of fire (which sounds an evenmore frightening
> >prospect than hell).
> Lake Erie was said to have been observed to catch fire somewhere
> near Cleveland. It was so polluted it actually maintained the fire for
> several minutes.
> Wayne Delia, red...@ibm.net, Atheist #61, MSTie #37634
> Narrator: "Fortunately, George had another trick up his sleeve."
> George of the Jungle (sheepishly): "George no have sleeve."
Wow, a lake catching on fire?! That's pretty eerie....
Mike
#585
Glenn
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 05:39:20 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>>>The Lake of Fire is described as being the second DEATH in Rev 20:14 -
>>>that's pretty finite.
>>
>> Ge 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
>>shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
>>shalt surely die."
>>
>>Adam lived to be over 900 years old. Death in Scripture is not
>>restricted to the body. The soul can die as well, and in this case,
>>it died the very day of the transgression or was Yahweh God mistaken?
>>
>No, you are mistaken. God is not a Kharmic God and therefore does not
>inflict the punishment instantaneously. It was sure from the time that
>Adam sinned that he would eventually die. But God is gracious and gave
>Adam time to repent so that he may die to be resurrected with the
>righteous. God takes the same line with us today (thankfully). BTW:
>No, the soul doesn't die the very day of transgression (thankfully).
>
>>Glenn
Do you believe the Bible or do you not? What sort of denial of
Scripture is the preceding paragraph. Genesis 2:17 states:
"for in the day of your eating from it surely you shall die." That is
the literal Hebrew from The Interlinear Hebrew-Aramaic O. T. Jay P.
Green, Sr.
"for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." NRSV
"for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." NASB
"for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Amp. Bible
There is no difficulty in the translation of the phrase from Gen.
2:17. So, a man can be spiritually dead while physically alive:
Eph 2:1, 5 " And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses
and sins;......... Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us
together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)" KJV
Lu 9:60 "Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go
thou and preach the kingdom of God." KJV
They are certainly, physically alive if they are going to perform the
act of burial, but they are called "dead" by Jesus. So, what can be
dead, other than their spirit or soul? The same immaterial part of a
man which died in Adam the very day in which he ate the forbidden
fruit.
I have trimmed the n.g. list for my reply to avoid excess cross
posting. Glenn
Noah
SATAN HIMSELF HAS RISEN OUT OF THE EUROPEAN KINGDOM
HEADED BY THE GLORY OF EUROPE, AMERICA. THE SOLE
SUPERPOWER. FOUNDATION BUILT ON CULTURAL
SUPERIORITY. THE MURDER AND THEFT OF THE NATIVE
AMERICAN. THE MURDER, RAPE, SLAVERY OF THE AFRICANS,
AND THE GLOBAL DOMINATION OF ALL NON-EUROPEAN PEOPLE.
Babylon System
Global Domination and Oppression
The Sole Superpower
BABYLON IS ADMIRED & DESIRED
...... and the whole world wondered after the Beast.
(Revelation 13:3)
BABYLON IS GLOBAL DOMINATION
The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth,
which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall DEVOUR the
WHOLE EARTH and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
(Daniel 7:23)
BABYLON IS GLOBAL LEADER
And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which
reigneth over the kings of the Earth. (Revelation 17:18)
THE CRUSADES OF YESTERDAY & TODAY:::PROPERGANDA
Woe unto you, Scribe and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass
sea and land to make one followers, and when he is made, ye
make twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.(Matthew 23:15)
BABYLON GIVEN POWER TO DOMINATE ALL
And it was given unto him to make war with the Saints, and to
overcome them: and power was given him over ALL kindreds,
and tongues, and nations. (Revelations 13:7)
JUDGEMENT:::IS IT WORTH IT
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the Whole World and
lose his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ?
(Matthew 16:26)
BABYLON IS ECONOMIC POWER
For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication
with her, and the merchants of the Earth are waxed rich through the
abundance of her delicacies. (Revelation 18:3)
BABYLON HAS NO REGARD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
...... and shouldest destroy them which destroy the Earth.
(Revelation 11:18)
BABYLON OPPRESSES THE POOR & INNOCENT
The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor ... in the secret
places doth he murder the innocent.(Psalm 10:2)
BABYLON DISTORTS HISTORY
He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten; He hideth His face;
he will never see it. (Psalm 10:11)
BABYLON SEEMS PURE ON OUTSIDE BUT IS TRULY WICKED
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like
unto Whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward,
but are within full of dead man's bones, and all uncleanness.
(Matthew 23:27)
BABYLON IS A MURDERER & LIAR
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and a father of it. (John 8:44)
Woe unto them! For they have gone the way of Cain.(Jude 1:11)
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,
from the blood of righteous Able unto the blood of Zechariah, son of
Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the alter.
Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come to this generation.
(Matthew 23:35)
BABYLON IS GREAT OPPRESSOR
They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they
speak loftily. (Psalm 73:8)
And upon her head was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE
GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF
THE EARTH. (Revelations 17:5)
Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen and is become the habitations
of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and the cage of every
unclean and hateful bird. (Revelation 18:2)
And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of
all that were slain upon the earth. (Revelation 18:24)
BABYLON DOES NOT FOLLOW THE ANCIENT ORDER
And the angels which kept not their FIRST estate, but left their
own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under
darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6)
Even so faith, if hath not works is Dead. (James 2:17)
Van Isaac Anderson
Wayne Delia wrote:
> In <3444DD...@dmu.ac.uk>, Jason Pinn <j...@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> >Hell is not eternal - this is indeed clear from Rev.20, as you say.
> >
> >however, the lake of fire is - and all those in hell will eventually be
> >case into the lake of fire (which sounds an evenmore frightening
> >prospect than hell).
>
> Lake Erie was said to have been observed to catch fire somewhere
> near Cleveland. It was so polluted it actually maintained the fire for
> several minutes.
Does that mean Cleveland is Hell? That would explain a lot. ;-)
> Wayne Delia, red...@ibm.net, Atheist #61, MSTie #37634
> Narrator: "Fortunately, George had another trick up his sleeve."
> George of the Jungle (sheepishly): "George no have sleeve."
--
Van Isaac Anderson alt.atheist #716
mailto:vani...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/8250/mtime.htm
"Faith is an island in the setting sun, but proof is the bottom line for
everyone." -- Paul Simon
Daniel Kuehne
Uh, not exactly Noah... the four "beasts" of Daniel are Babylon, Persia,
Greece and Rome... the fourth beast is not Europe... it is Rome.
Noah wrote:
>
> European Conquests ::: Global Domination
>
> And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to
> overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds,
> and tongues, and nations. (Revelation 13:7)
>
> For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and
> lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his
> soul (Matthew 16:26)
>
> The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which
> shall be diverse from all kingdoms, an shall devour the whole
> earth and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. (Daniel 7:23)
>
> 1420 Portugal colonizes Madera.
> 1462 Portugal settlement on Cape Verde Islands
> Spain takes Gibraltar
> 1482 Portugal builds Elmina Castle in Ghana
> 1492 Christopher Columbus "discovers" America
> 1497 Spain takes Melilla
> 1501 Spain colonizes Bonaire
> 1505 Portugal "discovers" the Camoros Islands.
> 1510 Diego Velasquez commissioned to conquer and settle Cuba.
> 1511 Portugal establishes trading post on Malacca.
> 1513 Juan Ponce de Leon "discovers" and names Florida
> 1514 Diego Velasquez completes conquest of Cuba
> 1518 The King of Spain granted a trader the right to ship 4000
> Africans to Spanish Islands as Slaves.
> 1521 Magellan Lands on Guam and the Marianas and claims them for
> Spain
> 1523 Francisco Pizarro of Spain explores west coast of South America
> and conquers Peru
> 1524 Giovanni da Verrazano of Italy "discovers" New York and
> Narragansett bays
> 1525 Rodrigo de Bastidas establishes first settlement in Columbia
> 1526 Portuguese land in Papua
> 1532 Portugal establishes first permanent settlement in Brazil
> 1533 Spaniards conquer Cuzco, the Inca Capital, in Peru.
> Last Indian resistance crushed in Cuba.
> 1535 Diu is ceded to Portugal
> 1539 Hernamdo de Soto of Spain explores the southeastern United States
> 1541 Pedro de Valdivia establishes first permanent settlement in Chile
> 1557 Portugal establishes "trading post" on Mocao
> 1559 Portugal annexes Daman
> 1565 Spain takes part of Marianas
> 1570 Portugal establishes "trading post" in Nagasaki
> 1574 Portugal establishes colony in Angola
> 1583 Spanish colony established at Buenos Aires
> 1592 John Davis "discovers" Falkland Islands
> 1597 Dutch establish "trading post" on Bali
> 1598 Dutch seize Mauritius
> 1603 Samuel de Champlain of France explores the east coast of North
> America southward from Nava Scotia to Vineyard Haven, and
> "founds" and names Quebec
> Dutch establish "trading post" on Borneo
> 1604 French settlement begins at Cayenne in what becomes French Guiana
> 1607 England colony at Jamestown, Virginia established
> Dutch established "trading post" in Makassar
> 1608 England established colony on Grenada
> 1610 Dutch settlement "founded" in Guiana and Amizon region
> 1620 English colony at Plymouth, Massachusetts established
> 1621 Dutch East India Company conquers the Banda Islands
> 1623 English settlement at Portsmouth, New Hampshire
> 1624 Great Britain "settles" St. Kitts
> 1625 Dutch establish the colony of New Netherlands
> 1626 First French settlement on Madagascar
> French establishes fort at St. Louis, Senegal
> 1629 English establish a settlement of northeastern Brazil
> 1630 Dutch begin the conquest of northeastern Brazil
> 1632 England settlers colonize Montserrat
> 1635 France establish colony on Guadeloupe
> France claim Martinique
> 1638 Dutch capture Elmina in Guinea and begin conquest of coastal Ceylon
> British sailors establish settlement in Honduras
> Swedish settlement established in Delaware
> 1643 France annexes Reunion
> 1651 Great Britain takes St. Helena
> 1652 Van Riebeeck founds the Dutch settlement in Cape Town
> 1658 Dutch complete the conquest of coastal Ceylon
> 1663 English colonies of the Carolinas established
> 1672 Denmark settles St. Thomas
> 1680 New Hampshire becomes a separate British colony
> 1715 France seizes Mauritius
> 1745 British troops conquer Louisbourg
> 1756 France seizes Seychelles Islands.
> 1783 Great Britain receives control over Dominica
> 1786 British East India Company acquires Pinang
> 1788 Great Britain establish settlement at Sierra Leone
> 1803 United States buys the Louisiana Purchase from France
> 1806 First English invasion of Buenos Aires
> 1807 Second English invasion of Buenos Aires
> Sierra Leone placed under control of British Crown
> 1813 United States siezes West Florida from Spain
> 1819 United States purchase East Florida from Spain
> 1822 America colonization society establishes colony in what is Liberia
> Today
> 1826 British establishes colony in western Australia
> 1839 Great Britain takes Aden
> 1840 Britain establishes a crown colony in New Zealand
> 1842 France annexes Marquesas
> Treaty of Nanking declares Hong Kong a British colony
> 1843 Gambia becomes a separate British colony
> 1845 United States annexes Texas
> 1847 Great Britain takes control of Labuan
> 1853 France seizes New Caledonia
> 1855 United States establishes consulate in Guam
> 1858 France establishes colony in Cochin China
> 1863 France establishes "protectorate" in Cambodia
> 1864 France annexes the Loyalty Islands
> 1865 First Chinese laborers arrive in Hawaii
> 1867 United States acquire Alaska from Russia
> United States occupy Midway Islands
> 1869 Germany acquires land in Carolinas
> 1874 British annexes Fiji
> 1878 First Japanese laborers arrive in Hawaii
> 1882 British army occupies Cairo
> French takes Tonkin
> 1884 Germany controls New Guinea, northern Solomon Islands,
> German Southwest Africa, Cameroon.
> French troops occupy Dahomey
> 1886 Germany takes Marshals,
> Spain takes Carolines
> 1894 Great Britain "protectorate" over Uganda
> 1898 United States siezes Guam, Philippines, Puerto Rico,
> and Wake Islands from Spain and Hawaii
> 1899 United States formally annexes Wake Islands
> 1903 United States acquires Panama Canal Zone
> 1910 Union of South Africa Created
> 1916 United States purchases Virgin Islands from Denmark
> 1927 Canary Island becomes provinces of Spain
> 1948 Israel established
> 1959 Hawaii becomes U.S.A. 50th state
> Wallis and Futuna becomes French territories
Daniel Kuehne
Not exactly, Noah... "Mystery Babylon" spoken of in the book of Revelation
has nothing whatsoever to do with Europe... this falsehood was popularized
by the late C.I. Scofield of "Scofield Bible" fame. The Babylon that shall
arise in the end-times (aka Mystery Babylon) was none other than ancient
Jerusalem before it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. We know this
because Mystery Babylon is described as being a great city (Rev. 14:8,
16:19, 17:18, 18:10,16,18,19,21). Now look at Rev. 11:8. Here it clearly
identifies the "great city" as the one "where also our Lord was crucified."
This can refer only to the city of Jerusalem. Hence, Mystery Babylon is
none other than Jerusalem!
Noah wrote:
>
> SATAN HIMSELF HAS RISEN OUT OF THE EUROPEAN KINGDOM
> HEADED BY THE GLORY OF EUROPE, AMERICA. THE SOLE
> SUPERPOWER. FOUNDATION BUILT ON CULTURAL
> SUPERIORITY. THE MURDER AND THEFT OF THE NATIVE
> AMERICAN. THE MURDER, RAPE, SLAVERY OF THE AFRICANS,
> AND THE GLOBAL DOMINATION OF ALL NON-EUROPEAN PEOPLE.
>
> Babylon System
> Global Domination and Oppression
> The Sole Superpower
>
> BABYLON IS ADMIRED & DESIRED
> ...... and the whole world wondered after the Beast.
> (Revelation 13:3)
>
> BABYLON IS GLOBAL DOMINATION
> The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth,
> which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall DEVOUR the
> WHOLE EARTH and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
> (Daniel 7:23)
>
> BABYLON IS GLOBAL LEADER
> And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which
> reigneth over the kings of the Earth. (Revelation 17:18)
>
> THE CRUSADES OF YESTERDAY & TODAY:::PROPERGANDA
> Woe unto you, Scribe and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass
> sea and land to make one followers, and when he is made, ye
> make twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.(Matthew 23:15)
>
> BABYLON GIVEN POWER TO DOMINATE ALL
> And it was given unto him to make war with the Saints, and to
> overcome them: and power was given him over ALL kindreds,
Akbar
Noah wrote:
>
> SATAN HIMSELF HAS RISEN OUT OF THE EUROPEAN KINGDOM
> HEADED BY THE GLORY OF EUROPE, AMERICA. THE SOLE
> SUPERPOWER. FOUNDATION BUILT ON CULTURAL
> SUPERIORITY. THE MURDER AND THEFT OF THE NATIVE
> AMERICAN. THE MURDER, RAPE, SLAVERY OF THE AFRICANS,
> AND THE GLOBAL DOMINATION OF ALL NON-EUROPEAN PEOPLE.
>
> Babylon System
> Global Domination and Oppression
> The Sole Superpower
>
> BABYLON IS ADMIRED & DESIRED
> ...... and the whole world wondered after the Beast.
> (Revelation 13:3)
>
This post is provided as an important reminder to always take your
prescription medicine.
Akbar
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
You're joking, right?
Sometimes such weird stuff comes out in this ng that I don't know if
it's some crazy aetheist or somebody just trying a wind-up?
Ok' I'll go for it,....
So you're saying God executed an immediate judgement, Adam's soul, his
'nephesh' (Hebrew) was killed. The soul (nephesh) being that unique
part of a man that sets him apart from anyone else, his emotions,
etc., now suddenly it's dead yet Adam continues living?
Man is made of 3 parts... the spirit give by God for life and returns
to God when a man dies. The body, the physical shell that he inhabits
for 'three score and ten' years and which rots in the ground when he
dies. And the soul which is the unique part of man which gives us
awareness of ourselves and is the being that we refer to as me. Whilst
physical body and the spirit (breath) of God are united there is the
soul. When the physical body dies the spirit returns to God and there
is no soul.
No, this is just too ridiculous. If you can't see the plain meaning of
what this scripture is saying... It doesn't matter how many times you
say it from as many versions as you like... the meaning of Gen 2:17 is
simple.
When man sinned he passed from a state of conditional immortality to a
state of conditional mortality. That's why he was driven from the
Garden of Eden and denied access to the tree of life. From that day on
he was destined to die as a result of his disobedience.
If not, if it was the soul that died, why then did Adam physically die
afterwards. Was there another pronouncement that 'in the day that you
eat the fruit you shall die, and then in about another 900 years
you'll die' - two punishments for one sin?
Now, I really can't believe that you can be serious in what you said,
so stop being silly and behave yourself.
Rob
In <626r4g$7gs$1...@news2.atl.bellsouth.net> "Jimmy"
<jim...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>So what's difference in hell and the lake of fire? I always thought
they
>were the same.
>
>Jimmy
Jimmy,
I see your problem.*You thought.*As soon as you get rid of that bad
habit it'll be easy to accept these apparent inconsistancies.You
know...loving god....eternal suffering...birth defects...child
abuse...and on and on.
IROB
Wonko the Sane
JB wrote in message <34460b0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>"Wonko the Sane" <Wo...@Outside.the.Asylum> wrote:
>
>><sarcastic "scoreboard" in subject line deleted -- I'm trying to have a
>>serious discussion here, please>
>
>Wonko, sorry if the scoreboard offends you but it is actually there to
>make a point (it also helps me to keep track of who is replying to
>what).
The point being made is that you are more interested in keeping
score and arrogantly setting yourself up as arbiter of who has scored
points and who hasn't (and guess what, it's only you and those who
agree with you who have "scored" -- surprise, surprise!) than in
engaging in a serious discussion.
> As to the serious discussion... I think we can allow some
>good-natured humour as well (for example your nick and your first
>comment). My intention is not to offend.
That's not "good-natured humor;" it's arrogance. Given your inability
to understand that, I see no purpose in reading or responding to the
rest of your article.
Glenn
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:24:34 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
I've clipped the earlier remarks down to my quote of Scripture:
>>"for in the day of your eating from it surely you shall die." That is
>>the literal Hebrew from The Interlinear Hebrew-Aramaic O. T. Jay P.
>>Green, Sr.
>>
>>"for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." NRSV
>>"for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." NASB
>>"for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Amp. Bible
>> Glenn
>You're joking, right?
Did you see any winking smiley faces in God's word above? I didn't
either, so I'm not joking with it.
>Sometimes such weird stuff comes out in this ng that I don't know if
>it's some crazy aetheist or somebody just trying a wind-up?
I suppose that defines you pretty well when you call the orthodox
Christian position on that passage above, crazy or weird. The
opposite of orthodox is heretic. By orthodox position I mean
considering man: body and immortal soul.
>So you're saying God executed an immediate judgement, Adam's soul, his
>'nephesh' (Hebrew) was killed. The soul (nephesh) being that unique
>part of a man that sets him apart from anyone else, his emotions,
>etc., now suddenly it's dead yet Adam continues living?
I said nothing of the sort! Go back and you'll see you are quoting
your own thoughts, not mine. I did not mention God's judgment, nor
execution, nor anything being "killed". I simply stated what is
obvious from the text. Something other then Adam's physical body died
the day he ate. I quoted earlier the statement of Jesus about the
"dead" burying the "dead". I also quoted Ephesians 2:1, 5 which
speaks of the sinner as being "dead" in his sins. You must be
'schizoid' the way you project your ideas onto others and then think
it is them! Earlier you wanted me to defend the application of
"everlasting life" to the wicked when I have never used that of the
wicked. Okay, how does Adam still live physically though he "died"
when he ate? As the passages I earlier quoted indicate, a certain
separation from God or alienation from God is spoken of as being
"dead" and that refers to the soul, or moral seat of man.
>Man is made of 3 parts... the spirit give by God for life and returns
>to God when a man dies. The body, the physical shell that he inhabits
>for 'three score and ten' years and which rots in the ground when he
>dies. And the soul which is the unique part of man which gives us
>awareness of ourselves and is the being that we refer to as me. Whilst
>physical body and the spirit (breath) of God are united there is the
>soul. When the physical body dies the spirit returns to God and there
>is no soul.
Again, just where did I say any such ridiculous thing as that?! I do
not believe in the trichotomous nature of man, nor do the great
majority of the orthodox. That comes from Plato, not Scripture! Some
fundamentalists may believe that, but I'll not defend their position.
>what this scripture is saying... It doesn't matter how many times you
>say it from as many versions as you like... the meaning of Gen 2:17 is
>simple.
It was simple until you began to deny it in disbelief of God's clear
word.
>When man sinned he passed from a state of conditional immortality to a
>state of conditional mortality. That's why he was driven from the
>Garden of Eden and denied access to the tree of life. From that day on
>he was destined to die as a result of his disobedience.
The passage does NOT say Adam would be "subject to death"; but that he
would "die"! Mortality means "subject to death". Most of the
orthodox see a threefold dying in this declaration of God. Upon his
sin, Adam would die spiritually,or in his moral seat, that instant;
death would set in on his body and he would eventually die,
physically; and after that the wicked will die eternally. If you did
not reject the Biblical teaching of the soul living apart from the
body, you'd not have such a struggle with the plain declarations of
Scripture. Yet, man's normal state is body/soul... as a whole being.
That is why the resurrection is such a blessed thing.
>If not, if it was the soul that died, why then did Adam physically die
>afterwards. Was there another pronouncement that 'in the day that you
>eat the fruit you shall die, and then in about another 900 years
>you'll die' - two punishments for one sin?
As above, Adam is body and soul, a whole being. He died as a whole,
yet his estrangement from God was "death" immediately in his soul, and
death of his body later.
Does "dead" mean that the body is non-existent or destroyed of
consciousness? Not hardly, again the words of Jesus:
"I know your works; you have a name of being alive, but you are dead."
Revelation 3:1 NRSV
>Now, I really can't believe that you can be serious in what you said,
>so stop being silly and behave yourself.
Serious, orthodox, and biblical in what I said. Now, why don't you
repent and join the faith once delivered to the saints, and held to
through the ages?
Glenn
Glenn
On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:08:55 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>Hmmm... now here's a good question? Did the early church regard the
>soul as immortal, and if they did were they right?
I wrote: "By orthodox position I mean considering man: body and
immortal soul." I meant what the Encyclopedia Britannica states in
Vol. 4, page 557, article 'Christian Philosophy':
"Man is not a composite of two ultimately incompatible parts that
struggle together in this life while awaiting separation at death.
The biblical view allows no Gnostic dualism of body and spirit, the
one evil and the other good, but stresses rather the unity of the
human self.......The soul is not eternal, pre-existing and later
reincarnated, but is created by God. While man's soul survives death
and so is capable of immateriality, his destiny involves not a
disembodied immortality but the resurrection of the body."
I meant what the majority of Bible believing Christians believe about
man's nature. I mean Christians before the mushrooming of cults and
sects in the 1800's.
>Everlasting life for the wicked:
>Now, if you look at the original post I stated that the punishMENT
>will be eternal but that the punishING wont be. You then jumped in to
>argue against that. So if you are saying that the punishING is also
>eternal (without end) then ipso facto the person being punished must
>have everlasting life for the eternal punishing to continue eternally.
>Or, in other words, you ARE saying that the wicked have everlasting
>life.
The believer's "life" is something which has nothing to do with the
wicked who experience eternal judgment. In the following verse, a
person who is living physically, and is a believer, has passed "from
death unto life". That is a realm of "life" which can never apply to
the reprobate. Hence, "everlasting life" for the wicked is not a term
which fits. The term "immortal consciousness" is true, NOT
"everlasting life for the wicked".
Joh 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."
>I don't think there is more than one interpretation to be made here?
>Your statement clearly inferred that you believe the soul ceases to
>exist on the day of transgression. Now if you meant alienation or
>separation why didn't you say that?
>(And you used the word schizoid about me?)
I used the term "schizoid" for the very reason you've just
illustrated. If you go back to one of my first replies I gave Luke
9:60 and Eph. 2:1&5 to illustrate what the Scriptures meant by death
in the context, when Adam lived 900+ years. You are the one who
infers by projecting from out of your own perceptions.
>>The passage does NOT say Adam would be "subject to death"; but that he
>>would "die"!
>
>Exactly, that he would, eventually, die.
Again, where on earth did you learn to use English? Where did you
find "eventually" in my sentence or more importantly, where did you
find that in Genesis 2:17? "...for on the day you eat of it you shall
most surely die." Jerusalem Bible
>Now where do you get this 'Biblical teaching of the soul living apart
>from the body'?
"As her soul was departing (for she died), she named him Ben-oni; but
his father called him Benjamin." Genesis 35:18
"But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again?
I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Samuel 12:23
"Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of
animals goes downward to the earth?" Ecclesiastes 3:21
"Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather
fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt. 10:28
"Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands
I commend my spirit.'" Luke 23:46
"While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit.'" Acts 7:59
"I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be
with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is
more necessary for you." Philippians 1:23, 24
>The first lie that satan made (the same lie that continues down
>through the ages) was 'You shall not surely die' (Gen 3:4). This lie,
>the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, is the basis of
>'Christian spiritualism', the Catholic worship of the saints and the
>worshipping and listening to the messages of the demon that calls
>itself 'Mary'.
You, who deny Genesis 2:17 dares to point a finger at Rome?!
>IF the body and soul are a whole being in the sense you suggest and he
>died 'as a whole' then he must have been... er, ... dead?
I stated in the last post: "Yet, man's normal state is body/soul...
as a whole being. That is why the resurrection is such a blessed
thing." I said nothing about him dying "as a whole" being for the
unsaved are dead while they live!
>Well I don't know where you get your definitions from but here's the
>first three that come up in my dictionary:
>1. no longer living; deprived of life. 2. brain-dead. 3. not endowed
>with life; inanimate.
>Now I guess that would kind of infer 'destroyed of consciousness'
>wouldn't you say?
My unabridged dictionary has 40 meanings listed for "dead". But,
since we are speaking of Scripture, except when you drift into sinful
rejection of Scripture, I'll give the definition as it applies to Luke
9:60 and Eph. 2:1&5 from Thayer's English-Greek Lexicon:
"[spiritually dead i. e.] destitute of a life that recognizes and is
devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins; inactive as
respects doing right".
>Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
>kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul
>and body in hell.
>
>That's Jesus' words. He said that the body and soul can both be
>destroyed in hell.
>
>Maybe you are aguing with the Lord on this one?
No, because I know what "destroy" means! Thayer's English-Greek
Lexicon again, 'apollu' which is translated "destroy" in Mt.10:28...
"metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery: Mt. x.28;
Jas.iv.12..."
The same "apollu" or English "destroy" is used here:
Ro 14:15 "But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest
thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ
died."
Are you aware that the word "apollu" means "lost" as well. It is the
*lost* sheep of Israel, Mt.10:6; the Son came to save the *lost* Mt.
18:11.
Glenn
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:08:55 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>
>>Hmmm... now here's a good question? Did the early church regard the
>>soul as immortal, and if they did were they right?
>
>I wrote: "By orthodox position I mean considering man: body and
>immortal soul." I meant what the Encyclopedia Britannica states in
>Vol. 4, page 557, article 'Christian Philosophy':
>
So your 'orthodox Christian position' is taken from an encyclopedia
definition of 'Christian Philosophy'. Not surprisingly it is a
rebuttal of Gnosticism. Why didn't you just say you were getting it
from an encyclopedia?
>"Man is not a composite of two ultimately incompatible parts that
>struggle together in this life while awaiting separation at death.
>The biblical view allows no Gnostic dualism of body and spirit, the
>one evil and the other good, but stresses rather the unity of the
>human self.......The soul is not eternal, pre-existing and later
>reincarnated, but is created by God. While man's soul survives death
>and so is capable of immateriality, his destiny involves not a
>disembodied immortality but the resurrection of the body."
>
I have not argued the case for Gnosticism, neither have I suggested a
'dualism of body and spirit, the one evil and the other good', nor
that the soul is eternal (I believe that is closer to your position)
or pre-existing.
>I meant what the majority of Bible believing Christians believe about
>man's nature. I mean Christians before the mushrooming of cults and
>sects in the 1800's.
>
Er, which Christians were these exactly? Perhaps from one of the
pre-1800s cults?
>>Everlasting life for the wicked:
>
>>Now, if you look at the original post I stated that the punishMENT
>>will be eternal but that the punishING wont be. You then jumped in to
>>argue against that. So if you are saying that the punishING is also
>>eternal (without end) then ipso facto the person being punished must
>>have everlasting life for the eternal punishing to continue eternally.
>>Or, in other words, you ARE saying that the wicked have everlasting
>>life.
>
>The believer's "life" is something which has nothing to do with the
>wicked who experience eternal judgment.
> In the following verse, a
>person who is living physically, and is a believer, has passed "from
>death unto life". That is a realm of "life" which can never apply to
>the reprobate. Hence, "everlasting life" for the wicked is not a term
>which fits. The term "immortal consciousness" is true, NOT
>"everlasting life for the wicked".
>
Hmmm... 'immortal consciousness' is ok,... 'everlasting life' is
not...
Let's see...
'immortal' = 'not liable to perish or decay; everlasting'
'consciousness' = 'full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking
life'.
'everlasting' = 'lasting forever; eternal'
'life' = 'a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence
conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life'.
Ok, so the wicked have an immortal consciousness which is completely
different from having an everlasting life. (Yeh, right)
> Joh 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
>and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
>not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."
>
So now does the 'person' referred to here never die? Or is it that
they are not subject to the second death?
>>I don't think there is more than one interpretation to be made here?
>>Your statement clearly inferred that you believe the soul ceases to
>>exist on the day of transgression. Now if you meant alienation or
>>separation why didn't you say that?
>>(And you used the word schizoid about me?)
>
>I used the term "schizoid" for the very reason you've just
>illustrated. If you go back to one of my first replies I gave Luke
>9:60 and Eph. 2:1&5 to illustrate what the Scriptures meant by death
>in the context, when Adam lived 900+ years. You are the one who
>infers by projecting from out of your own perceptions.
>
Seeing as you choose to snip this part out, let me paste it back in:
>Now regarding your definition of 'dead' this is getting confusing... In an earlier post you said:
>
>>Death in Scripture is not restricted to the body. The soul can die as well,
>> and in this case, it died the very day of the transgression'.
Which, when connected to your statement below...
>>>The passage does NOT say Adam would be "subject to death"; but that he
>>>would "die"!
Now you pull this 'alienation and separation' out of the hat and say
that was what you really meant all along. So what are we arguing
about? What you really meant to say was that at that moment Adam
became alienated and separated from God? So why didn't you say so in
the first place? Why did you say die, which means 'cease to exist'?
>>
>>Exactly, that he would, eventually, die.
>
>Again, where on earth did you learn to use English? Where did you
>find "eventually" in my sentence or more importantly, where did you
>find that in Genesis 2:17? "...for on the day you eat of it you shall
>most surely die." Jerusalem Bible
>
Oh sorry, I must have been looking at where you said:
>death would set in on his body and he would eventually die,
>physically;
There, and I thought you said "eventually", how silly of me. (More
importantly, it looks as if you were trying to get that word from Gen
2:17)
>>Now where do you get this 'Biblical teaching of the soul living apart
>>from the body'?
>
>"As her soul was departing (for she died), she named him Ben-oni; but
>his father called him Benjamin." Genesis 35:18
>
Soul departed (presumably from body) where does it say it continued
its 'consciousness'?
(Ecc 9:5-6 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know
not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of
them is forgotten. [6] Also their love, and their hatred, and their
envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever
in any thing that is done under the sun.)
>"But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again?
>I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Samuel 12:23
>
(Job 14:21 His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they
are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them.)
>"Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of
>animals goes downward to the earth?" Ecclesiastes 3:21
>
Uh-oh... let's read the WHOLE text...
Ecc 3:19-21 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth
beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the
other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no
preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. [20] All go unto one
place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. [21] Who
knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the
beast that goeth downward to the earth?
What did vs 19 say? 'they all have one breath' is this the soul (Heb.
nephesh) no, no... this is a totally different word (Heb. ruach) which
is never used to denote an intelligent entity capable of sentient
existence apart from a physical body.
Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the
spirit (Heb. ruach) shall return unto God who gave it.
This is not the soul.
>"Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather
>fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matt. 10:28
>
Showing that the soul does not have an immortal consciousness but is
destroyed (ceases to exist) in hell.
> "Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands
>I commend my spirit.'" Luke 23:46
>
Note: Spirit (gk. pneuma) not soul (gk. psuche)
>"While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my
>spirit.'" Acts 7:59
>
Same as comment above. The word pneuma is never used to denote an
entity in man capable of conscious existence apart from the body.
Neither is such usage ever implied.
Psalm 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in
that very day his thoughts perish.
>"I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be
>with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is
>more necessary for you." Philippians 1:23, 24
>
Did Paul believe his 'departure' would mean immediate entrance into
heaven?
2 Tim 4:6-8 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my
departure is at hand. [7] I have fought a good fight, I have finished
my course, I have kept the faith: [8] Henceforth there is laid up for
me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge,
shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also
that love his appearing.
No, because he speaks of the crown that is 'laid up for me' to be
given 'at that day' with 'all them also that love His appearing'.
Psalm 115:17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down
into silence.
>>The first lie that satan made (the same lie that continues down
>>through the ages) was 'You shall not surely die' (Gen 3:4). This lie,
>>the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, is the basis of
>>'Christian spiritualism', the Catholic worship of the saints and the
>>worshipping and listening to the messages of the demon that calls
>>itself 'Mary'.
>
>You, who deny Genesis 2:17 dares to point a finger at Rome?!
>
Yes, I dare point a finger at a cult that teaches that the sacrifice
of Christ on the cross was not enough for salvation; that Mary is the
Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix with
Christ. At a cult that claims that the pope is Jesus Christ veiled in
the flesh; also God on earth. A cult that using the heresy of the
indulgence extorted money from rich and poor of the Middle Ages and
beyond; that murdered 55, 000,000 men women and children because they
disagreed with its teachings. A cult that claims the authority to
change the commandments of God and devised the arts of torture and
hypnotism to control those in its power. Oh, yes. I dare.
>>IF the body and soul are a whole being in the sense you suggest and he
>>died 'as a whole' then he must have been... er, ... dead?
>
>I stated in the last post: "Yet, man's normal state is body/soul...
>as a whole being. That is why the resurrection is such a blessed
>thing." I said nothing about him dying "as a whole" being for the
>unsaved are dead while they live!
>
>>Well I don't know where you get your definitions from but here's the
>>first three that come up in my dictionary:
>>1. no longer living; deprived of life. 2. brain-dead. 3. not endowed
>>with life; inanimate.
>>Now I guess that would kind of infer 'destroyed of consciousness'
>>wouldn't you say?
>
> My unabridged dictionary has 40 meanings listed for "dead". But,
>since we are speaking of Scripture, except when you drift into sinful
>rejection of Scripture, I'll give the definition as it applies to Luke
>9:60 and Eph. 2:1&5 from Thayer's English-Greek Lexicon:
>"[spiritually dead i. e.] destitute of a life that recognizes and is
>devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins; inactive as
>respects doing right".
>
Speaking about learning English... do you know the difference between
a meaning and an interpretation?
The word used each time is 'nekros'... it means 'dead'.
>>Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
>>kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul
>>and body in hell.
>>
>>That's Jesus' words. He said that the body and soul can both be
>>destroyed in hell.
>>
>>Maybe you are aguing with the Lord on this one?
>
>No, because I know what "destroy" means! Thayer's English-Greek
>Lexicon again, 'apollu' which is translated "destroy" in Mt.10:28...
>"metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery: Mt. x.28;
>Jas.iv.12..."
>
No, that's an interpretation again. The word means: 'to destroy fully'
It may also means 'lose' in the figurative sense. Now, depending on
where you learnt your Greek what do you say Matt. 10:28 means?
Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul
and body in hell.
OR:
Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to devote or give
over to eternal misery both soul and body in hell.
If you're going for the latter then you are saying that both the body
and soul exist eternally.
So which is it?
Glenn
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 03:46:41 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>Now you pull this 'alienation and separation' out of the hat and say
>that was what you really meant all along. So what are we arguing
>about? What you really meant to say was that at that moment Adam
>became alienated and separated from God? So why didn't you say so in
>the first place? Why did you say die, which means 'cease to exist'?
Oh, the selective literalism you use. Random House Unabridged
Dictionary of the English language on "die":
"1. to cease to live; undergo the complete and permanent cessation of
all vital functions.
2. (of something inanimate) to cease to exist
7. 'Theol.' to lose spiritual life"
[This dictionary has 17 meanings for "die"!]
The definition you arbitrarily selected to prop up your system is not
even applicable to human beings! Aside from that, a dead body does
not "cease to exist" but is in the ground in a differing form. That
is at the very core of the doctrine of resurrection: "all the dead
shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other". Baptist
Confession of 1689AD. If the body has ceased to exist, it cannot be
raised up. The raising of the same body, that is orthodoxy!
>Speaking about learning English... do you know the difference between
>a meaning and an interpretation?
>
>The word used each time is 'nekros'... it means 'dead'.
Let us try out your idea in English usage as well as the Greek
"nekros".
Same unabridged Random House English dictionary:
"dead, (4) bereft of sensation; numb.....((5) lacking sensitivity or
feeling; insensitive....(6) incapable of being emotionally moved;
unresponsive...." This dictionary has 40 "meanings" listed!
For the Greek, "nekros" 1st from Strong's Lexicon:
"..from an appar. prim. ...nekus (a corpse); dead (lit. or fig;..."
From The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol.
1, page 446:
"Matt. 8:22 and the par. Lk. 9:60 set the word in its lit. sense
alongside a figurative usage. 'Let the dead bury their dead' puts
'those who resist the call of Jesus ... on the same level as the dead'
(R. Bultmann, TDNT IV 893). For the true life is found only in
following Christ. In Mk. 9:26 (the state of the epileptic boy) and
Matt. 28:4 (the state of the guards) 'nekros' is used with 'hos', like
in a simile. Thus strictly speaking the old, literal meaning is
present only in Acts 5:10 (of Sapphira)."
Your willful rejection of clear Bible teaching shows through clearly.
I believe Scriptures refer to this as "willingly ... ignorant"!
Glenn
Glenn
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 03:46:41 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>> "Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands
>>I commend my spirit.'" Luke 23:46
>>
>Note: Spirit (gk. pneuma) not soul (gk. psuche)
>
>>"While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my
>>spirit.'" Acts 7:59
This thread has become ridiculously long, so I've shortened it to the
core issue here. You are a trichotomist, and view "soul" and "spirit"
as two distinct entities. You follow Greek philosophy rather than the
Bible:
"Pythagoras, and after him Plato, and subsequently the mass of Greek
and Roman philosophers, maintained that man consists of three
constituent elements: the rational spirit, ...the animal soul... the
body. Hence this usage of the words became stamped upon the Greek
popular speech....... Hence some theologians conclude that it is a
doctrine given by divine inspiration that human nature is constituted
of three different elements." A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology
The important question is, does Scripture distinguish the two terms or
does it use them with latitude and interchangeability?
"pneuma" = "spirit": "psuche" = "soul"
"psuche/soul" as well as "pneuma/spirit" is used for the higher
intellectual level:
Mt 16:26 "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul[psuche]? or what shall a man give in
exchange for his soul[psuche]?"
1Pe 1:22 "Seeing ye have purified your souls[psuche] in obeying the
truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see
that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:"
Mt 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
kill the soul[psuche]: but rather fear him which is able to destroy
both soul[psuche] and body in hell."
"pneuma/spirit" is used as well of the lower animating principle of
life:
Jas 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit[pneuma] is dead, so
faith without works is dead also."
The physically dead, are referred to by BOTH terms:
By "psuche" or soul:
Ac 2:27&31 "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt
thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption..... He seeing this
before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left
in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."
Rev. 6:9 & 20:4 "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under
the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and
for the testimony which they held......And I saw thrones, and they sat
upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of
them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,......"
By "pneuma" or spirit:
Lu 24:37 "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that
they had seen a spirit..... Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as
ye see me have."
Heb 12:23 "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which
are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits
of just men made perfect,"
"Soul" and "spirit" are used interchangeably just as we do in everyday
life. Hence the dictionary definition: "soul,...the principle of
life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct
entity separate from the body; the spiritual part of humans as
distinct from the physical". Random House Webster's Col. Dict.
Therefore, I repeat:
"Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands
I commend my spirit.'" Luke 23:46
"While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit.'" Acts 7:59
Glenn
Glenn
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 03:46:41 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>>>Hmmm... now here's a good question? Did the early church regard the
>>>soul as immortal, and if they did were they right?
>>
>>I wrote: "By orthodox position I mean considering man: body and
>>immortal soul." I meant what the Encyclopedia Britannica states in
>>Vol. 4, page 557, article 'Christian Philosophy':
>>
>So your 'orthodox Christian position' is taken from an encyclopedia
>definition of 'Christian Philosophy'. Not surprisingly it is a
>rebuttal of Gnosticism. Why didn't you just say you were getting it
>from an encyclopedia?
I see you enjoy being argumentative above being a seeker for truth. I
did not say I took my "orthodox Christian position" from the
Encyclopedia Britannica. I stated that the article means the same as
I do about orthodoxy. But, since you brought up the early church
view, I'll quote from Irenaeus(140-202AD); Book II; Chapter 34......
"1. The Lord has taught with very great fullness, that souls not only
continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that
they preserve the same form(2) [in their separate state] as the body
had to which they were adapted, and that they remember
the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which
they have now ceased,--in that narrative which is recorded
respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom
of Abraham. In this account He states(3) that Dives
knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each
one of these persons continued in his own proper
position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve
him--[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even
the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the
answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with
what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did
not wish to come into that place of torment to believe
Moses and the prophets, and to receive(4) the preaching of Him who
was(5) to rise again from the dead. By these things,
then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do
not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a
man, so that they may be recognized, and retain the memory of things
in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was
possessed by Abraham, and that each class of souls] receives a
habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment."
I am not a follower of 'tradition' as a replacement for Bible, or on a
par with it. But the historical record in such 'tradition' is very
important to know what the early church did think, or at least some
within it. Irenaeus is "a Father of the Orthodox Church", not Roman
Catholic, so no sense in railing at the Roman Catholics again.
Though, being Baptist, I find the Presbyterian Larger Catechism
Biblical in its statement: Q17, A17 "...he created man male and
female; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground....endued
them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls...."
Where do we find "soul sleep" and "annihilation of the wicked"? What
current groups teach that against the historic witness of the church
and Scripture?
Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses teach it! Yeah, I'm
going to take the knowledge of the Adventists who predicted the return
of Christ in 1844; and the Russelites who predicted Christ's return in
1914! The cults teach such foolishness and I'm going to consider it?
Glenn
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
<big snip of man's ideas>
>Where do we find "soul sleep" and "annihilation of the wicked"? What
>current groups teach that against the historic witness of the church
>and Scripture?
>
>Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses teach it! Yeah, I'm
>going to take the knowledge of the Adventists who predicted the return
>of Christ in 1844; and the Russelites who predicted Christ's return in
>1914! The cults teach such foolishness and I'm going to consider it?
>
No Glenn, you're going to continue following the teachings of Iraneus
and other men.
As for me, well...
Soul sleep:
Psalm 13:3 Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyes,
lest I sleep the sleep of death;
Annihilation of the wicked:
Rev 20:13-15 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death
and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
judged every man according to their works. [14] And death and hell
were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [15] And
whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the
lake of fire.
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 03:46:41 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>
>>Now you pull this 'alienation and separation' out of the hat and say
>>that was what you really meant all along. So what are we arguing
>>about? What you really meant to say was that at that moment Adam
>>became alienated and separated from God? So why didn't you say so in
>>the first place? Why did you say die, which means 'cease to exist'?
>
>Oh, the selective literalism you use. Random House Unabridged
>Dictionary of the English language on "die":
>
>"1. to cease to live; undergo the complete and permanent cessation of
> all vital functions.
> 2. (of something inanimate) to cease to exist
> 7. 'Theol.' to lose spiritual life"
>[This dictionary has 17 meanings for "die"!]
>
>The definition you arbitrarily selected to prop up your system is not
>even applicable to human beings! Aside from that, a dead body does
>not "cease to exist" but is in the ground in a differing form. That
>is at the very core of the doctrine of resurrection: "all the dead
>shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other". Baptist
>Confession of 1689AD. If the body has ceased to exist, it cannot be
>raised up. The raising of the same body, that is orthodoxy!
Man, are you for real or what?
First, I didn't take the meaning of dead from a dictionary, I just
happened to know what it meant. But thanks for quoting the dictionary
as it shows that I was absolutely right in my definition. BTW: If you
don't like 'cease to exist' shall we try 'cease to live'? That still
means 'without life' whatever way you want to try and twist it. (And
you talk of 'selective literalism'? Semnatic hair-splitting, hah!!)
Second, the body is 'in the ground in a differing form'!! I think what
you mean is that it rots away and become the earth that it was
originally made from. Ever heard the verse 'ashes to ashes and dust to
dust'?
Thirdly, I prefer the Word of God rather than your Baptist Confession:
1 Cor 15:35-54 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and
with what body do they come? [36] Thou fool, that which thou sowest is
not quickened, except it die: [37] And that which thou sowest, thou
sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of
wheat, or of some other grain: [38] But God giveth it a body as it
hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. [39] All flesh is
not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another
flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. [40] There
are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of
the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
[41] There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and
another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star
in glory. [42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in
corruption; it is raised in incorruption: [43] It is sown in
dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised
in power: [44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual
body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. [45] And
so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last
Adam was made a quickening spirit. [46] Howbeit that was not first
which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that
which is spiritual. [47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the
second man is the Lord from heaven. [48] As is the earthy, such are
they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also
that are heavenly. [49] And as we have borne the image of the earthy,
we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. [50] Now this I say,
brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. [51] Behold, I shew you
a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52]
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and
we shall be changed. [53] For this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. [54] So when
this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall
have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that
is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
Hmmm... seems that Paul doesn't agree with your definition of how the
body is raised up. I'll go with the Bible rather than your
'orthodoxy'.
>
>>Speaking about learning English... do you know the difference between
>>a meaning and an interpretation?
>>
>>The word used each time is 'nekros'... it means 'dead'.
>
>Let us try out your idea in English usage as well as the Greek
>"nekros".
>
>Same unabridged Random House English dictionary:
>
>"dead, (4) bereft of sensation; numb.....((5) lacking sensitivity or
>feeling; insensitive....(6) incapable of being emotionally moved;
>unresponsive...." This dictionary has 40 "meanings" listed!
>
each of which mean 'dead'.
>For the Greek, "nekros" 1st from Strong's Lexicon:
>
>"..from an appar. prim. ...nekus (a corpse); dead (lit. or fig;..."
So it still means 'dead' then?
>
>From The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol.
>1, page 446:
>
>"Matt. 8:22 and the par. Lk. 9:60 set the word in its lit. sense
>alongside a figurative usage. 'Let the dead bury their dead' puts
>'those who resist the call of Jesus ... on the same level as the dead'
>(R. Bultmann, TDNT IV 893). For the true life is found only in
>following Christ. In Mk. 9:26 (the state of the epileptic boy) and
>Matt. 28:4 (the state of the guards) 'nekros' is used with 'hos', like
>in a simile. Thus strictly speaking the old, literal meaning is
>present only in Acts 5:10 (of Sapphira)."
>
Interesting, notice the words "on the same level as the dead"? i.e.
not dead, but on the same level as... a simile.
Well, thanks for that, appears I was right then.
>Your willful rejection of clear Bible teaching shows through clearly.
>I believe Scriptures refer to this as "willingly ... ignorant"!
Look in the mirror when you say that.
Now I'll sit back and wait for the next round of contradictions and
hair-splitting from you.
mar...@usit.net
ir...@ix.netcom.com(Rob) wrote:
> IROB
>
>
A critical factor is missing from the apparent aimlessness of this
dialogue; the influence of Satan the Devil.(2CO.11:14) He was the
originator of sin, hence causing the "eternal suffering, birth
defects, child abuse" etc. God's original purpose for the earth was
established in the Garden of Eden but was subsequently lost by our
first human's parents' disobediance to God. Because of God's love for
us he doesn't want anyone to be destroyed but is being patient with
those who sincerely want to repent before Judgement Day occurs and the
earth is cleansed.(2Peter3:9) Concerning the scripture sighted at
1John4:9 remember that the first part of that verse says that those
that don't know love don't know God. That's plain enough to me.
Obviously if that is the case then a believer in God's word would
approach their study from a different angle. I wholeheartedly agree
with the premise that 1John4:9 would not hold water IF it was
parrelled with the common perception of hell. The word hell cannot be
found in the Bible and anyone interested in the various correct
interpretations of the meanings can continue this discussion w/
me.(EC9:5)
peace to you - Sandra
JB
"Jimmy" <jim...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>So what's difference in hell and the lake of fire? I always thought they
>were the same.
>
>Jimmy
>
>Jason Pinn wrote in message <3444DD...@dmu.ac.uk>...
>>Dave Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> steven r. shepherd wrote:
>>> >
>>> > My problem with your premise about Hell being eternal is in Rev.
>>> > 20:13,14. An elderly preacher friend pointed this out to me when I
>>> > preached a message on how hot Hell would be for eternity. I went back
>>> > afterwards and apologized for the error. NOBODY EVEN CAUGHT IT! In
>>> > Baptist churches, it has been taught that Hell is eternal and then
>>> > cast
>>> > into the lake of fire! If death and Hell are passed away, are they
>>> > eternal???????
>>> >
>>> > Steve
>>>
>>> Hell is hell! But heaven is heaven!............ not!
>>
>>Hell is not eternal - this is indeed clear from Rev.20, as you say.
>>
>>however, the lake of fire is - and all those in hell will eventually be
>>case into the lake of fire (which sounds an evenmore frightening
>>prospect than hell).
>>
>>Jason.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Jason Pinn - BSc(Hons) Software Engineering
>>
>>De Montfort University, Leicester, ENGLAND
>
Yes, Jimmy, they are both the same. So if one is not eternal then
neither is the other. (BTW: The effect IS eternal, but just the effect
- if I dare use the word 'just' here.)
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 03:46:41 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>
>>>>Hmmm... now here's a good question? Did the early church regard the
>>>>soul as immortal, and if they did were they right?
>>>
>>>I wrote: "By orthodox position I mean considering man: body and
>>>immortal soul." I meant what the Encyclopedia Britannica states in
>>>Vol. 4, page 557, article 'Christian Philosophy':
>>>
>>So your 'orthodox Christian position' is taken from an encyclopedia
>>definition of 'Christian Philosophy'. Not surprisingly it is a
>>rebuttal of Gnosticism. Why didn't you just say you were getting it
>>from an encyclopedia?
>
Glenn, you have to get some consistancy in your argument. You cannot
produce Irenaeus as a trustworthy authority without accepting all of
his teachings as equally valid. Whether you believe that Irenaeus was
a 'Father' of the Catholic church or not is rather beside the point as
the Roman Catholic Church itself lauds him as one of the fathers of
their church.
Irenaeus is one of, if not the, first to argue for the apostolic
succession of the Church of Rome and its primacy. He was an advocate
of pugatory and taught that Christ descended into purgatory and
preached salvation to the souls held there. He also contended that all
the apostles went into purgatory at death and remain there. (Id., book
5, chap.31, para.2)
Irenaeus also taught that the 10 commandments were not abrogated at
the cross and that the original Sabbath was still in force. (So if you
were to follow tradition you would have to be a Seventh-Day Baptist
and also believe in the primacy of the Pope - Seventh-Day
Baptist-Roman Catholic? The Baptist church was a great advance in
understanding of the Christianity that Christ taught, baptism by
immersion being a significant point. However, you must test all things
by the Bible and not fallible men.)
Irenaeus taught that the word 'Jesus' means 'heaven' and 'earth' in
Hebrew, (book 2, chap.24, para.2) and that the word Sabbath had two
spellings in Greek, one meaning 'a voluntary agent' the other meaning
'the first heaven' (book 2 chap.35, para.3).
Irenaeus also taught that Jesus began His ministry just before the age
of 30 and continued until almost 50 years old (book 2, chap.22,
para.5,6).
Translators and authorities alike declare that Irenaeus was obscure,
ignorant and contradictory, and you wish to uphold his writings as
authoratitive?
BTW: The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is just that, a parable.
If not, then Christ Himself is contradicting Scripture. There are
several concepts within this parable which, if taken as fact, deny
other scriptural positions. I won't enumerate them now, but if you are
interested I will provide them.
I'm glad that you are not a follower of tradition, but please be very
careful who you quote as an authority. A scripture comes to mind:
Matt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men.
This scripture is not meant as a personal rebuke to you but more as a
reminder that all of us can all too easily follow men rather than
Christ.
Glenn
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:05:43 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>Baptist-Roman Catholic? The Baptist church was a great advance in
>understanding of the Christianity that Christ taught, baptism by
>immersion being a significant point.
The Orthodox Church will be surprised to learn this! <G> The
Standard Manual for Baptist Churches (1890) by Edward T. Hiscox goes
to the history of the Greek Church in the "Witness of History" section
on baptism, page 95 "The Greek Church in all its branches does still
use immersion, and so do all other Christians in the world except
Latins."
Lest one thinks it is necessary to adopt all of a man or Church's
beliefs in order to quote in an agreement, the above Manual later
states: "It is a notable fact, and worthy of record in this
discussion, that the Greek Church has always retained immersion in
baptism......Like the Latin Church, it has corrupted the primitive
purity of gospel doctrine and practice with many absurd glosses and
superstitious rites.........But in all its branches immersion is
retained." page 100.
I'll add, I believe I have brethren in both the Latin and the Orthodox
Churches.
Glenn
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>
>You have to learn to read! I did not quote Irenaeus as an "authority"
>on doctrinal matters. I quoted Irenaeus to make a point of history.
>Furthermore, I do not need to agree with 100% of anyone's doctrine in
>order to agree in some points of it. There was no Roman Catholic
>Church, defined as it is today, when Irenaeus lived and the Funk &
>Wagnall's Encyclopedia is who classed him as "a Father of the Orthodox
>Church". I'm quite aware of his stand on apostolic succession and his
>statements regarding the virgin Mary as well. That is beside the
>point since he showed the same position on immortality of the soul as
>the orthodox Christians do today.
>
>Glenn
Yes, and he also belived that Lot's wife as a pillar of salt was a
type of Christ's church.
As I stated, Irenaeus and his teacher Papias are hardly the best
people to use to uphold a theory. If you want to follow 'orthodoxy'
that is up to you, but for 'orthodoxy' to be of any value whatsoever
it must support Biblical doctrines. The quote that you used from
Irenaeus does not follow sound Bible doctrine.
As to the existence of the Roman Catholic Church I suggest that you
avoid presenting your argument to a Catholic theologian. They call
Peter the first pope so I think that they would disagree with your
viewpoint. From apostolic times paganism began to creep into the
church, remember, Plato also advocated the idea of the immortality of
the soul and he had a great influence on some of the founding fathers.
The Ancient Egyptians believed in the immortality of the soul, as did
the Babylonians, and as I mentioned previously the first creature to
come up with this idea was satan himself:
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
I prefer to quote a more reliable 'father of orthodoxy':
1 Cor 15:53-55 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and
this mortal must put on immortality. [54] So when this corruptible
shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on
immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory. [55] O death, where is thy sting? O
grave, where is thy victory?
Rom 2:6-7 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: [7] To
them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and
honour and immortality, eternal life:
BTW: Have you found one doctrine on which all the 'fathers of the
orthodox church' were in complete agreement? (And I mean with
themselves, let alone the Bible.)
Glenn
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:05:24 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>
><big snip of man's ideas>
>
>>Where do we find "soul sleep" and "annihilation of the wicked"? What
>>current groups teach that against the historic witness of the church
>>and Scripture?
>>
>>Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses teach it! Yeah, I'm
>>going to take the knowledge of the Adventists who predicted the return
>>of Christ in 1844; and the Russelites who predicted Christ's return in
>>1914! The cults teach such foolishness and I'm going to consider it?
>>
>
>No Glenn, you're going to continue following the teachings of Iraneus
>and other men.
>
>As for me, well...
>
>Soul sleep:
>
>Psalm 13:3 Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyes,
>lest I sleep the sleep of death;
"sleep....to lie in death" Random House Webster's Col. Dict. 1996
A reference of course to the body.
>Annihilation of the wicked:
>
>Rev 20:13-15 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death
>and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
>judged every man according to their works. [14] And death and hell
>were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [15] And
>whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the
>lake of fire.
"....where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched" Mark
9:48 NRSV
Glenn
Glenn
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:22:58 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>BTW: Have you found one doctrine on which all the 'fathers of the
>orthodox church' were in complete agreement? (And I mean with
>themselves, let alone the Bible.)
Infallibility is not prerequisite to historical figures and
institutions being valuable to understand the history of a Biblical
doctrine. How does the ancestral line run for soul sleep and
annihilation of the wicked? Is it in any official statements of the
Church in any branch? The Forty-two Articles of Edward VI, which
preceded the Thirty-nine Articles stated: "They which say that the
souls of those who depart hence to sleep being without all sense,
feeling or perceiving till the Day of Judgment, do utterly dissent
from the right belief disclosed to us in Holy Scripture."
"The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error;
and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ,but
synagogues of Satan..." Baptist Confession of 1689AD, Chap 26.3
That's the important question, do you need to quote from heretics or
can you remain within the church to show historical witness to your
"soul sleep" and "annihilation of the wicked"?
Glenn
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
Your attitude becomes quite wearisome at times.
It is a shame that there is no Bible text to go with the Articles that
you quote. I have tried, in the main, to present the argument 'sola
Scriptura'. Reluctantly I will give in to your wish for statements
from men, although I prefer divine authority as opposed to profane. Of
course you will decide who is a heretic and who is 'within the
church'.
I have taken the following quotes from my library, the only liberty
that I have taken being that I prefer to try (once again) to steer
this thread back towards the original premise and address the notion
of immortality of the soul as a Biblical concept. However, in an
attempt to escape to great an attack from you I have included some
quotations regarding 'soul sleep' and 'annihilation of the wicked'.
I am beginning to conclude that this thread has gone on long enough
and as I see that you have started a new thread with a statement or
your erroneous views on this subject I may well just post a final
Biblical discourse on the subject and let it drop.
But as for now, perhaps for the last time, in reply to your post:
Who has immortality? The Bible says:
1 Tim 6:13-16 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth
all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate
witnessed a good confession; [14] That thou keep this commandment
without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus
Christ: [15] Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and
only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; [16] Who only
hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach
unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power
everlasting. Amen.
What should the Christian seek? The Bible says:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for
glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
How did the soul come into being? The Bible says:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul.
OR: body + spirit (breath) = soul
The word 'soul' occurs in the original Scriptures 873 times; but it is
never once called immortal. The word 'immortal' is found only once in
all the Bible and there it is applied not to man, but to God.
1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only
wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
The Bible plainly teaches that immortality is something that we should
seek for, it is a gift from God.
"The immortality of the soul, is rather supposed, or taken for
granted, than expressly revealed in the Bible." (Bishop Tillotson -
1774 AD, Sermons vol.2)
"The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and the name, are alike
unknown to the entire Bible." (Olhausen, Commentary on 1 Cor.15:13)
"In the Bible, we think, there is no passage which can be strictly
said to declare that all human souls are immortal." (Dr.Bagnall in the
Methodist Quarterly Review, April 1852)
"That the soul is naturally immortal,... is contradicted by the
Scripture, which makes our immortality a gift dependent on the will of
the giver." (Richard Watson, Theol. Inst. vol.2, part 2, chap.18)
"But I permit the pope to make articles of faith for himself and his
faithful, such as, the pope is emperor of the world, and the king of
heaven, and God upon earth; the soul is immortal, with all those
monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals."
(Martin Luther, 'Defense', Prop.27)
"Luther held that the soul died with the body, and that God would
hereafter raise both the one and the other." (Cardinal Du Perron,
'Historical View', p.344)
A Lutheran minister denied this statement, and in endeavoring to
refute it made the following admission:
"The origin of this calumny is a letter he [Luther] wrote to Amsdorf
in the year 1522; in which he appears much inclined to believe that
the souls of the just sleep to the day of Judgement, without knowing
where they are. He does not pretend to say that they are dead in this
interval, but only lie in a profound rest and sleep, in which opinion
he followed many other fathers of the ancient church." (ibid., p.347)
"If we search the Scriptures for passsages expressive of the state of
man at death, we find such declarations as expressly exclude any trace
of sense, thought, or enjoyment." (Dr.Priestly, Reg.Ency., p.784)
"Among Christians I know of but one [S.Drew] who has regarded the
immortality of the soul as susceptible of demonstration. Should we
believe with this ingenious writer that the soul, metaphysically
considered, is so formed as naturally to be immortal, we must still
acknowledge, because it cannot be denied, that its existence may
terminate at death, or any other supposable period. Whatever has been
created, can certainly be annihilated by the power which created it."
(Timothy Dwight, D.D., LL.D., 'Sermons' vol 1, p.163)
The last two quotes may particularly interest you:
"If in these days of multiplied fallibilities, it may be allowed us to
prefer an apostolic and inspired exposition of the original record, we
shall respectfully take leave to affirm that there is no expression on
the opening page of a progressive revelation, which teaches the
unutterably grand prerogative of an uncontingent immortality for all
mankind." (H.H.Dobney, Baptist minister, in 'Future punishment',
p.120)
"VI. They believed that the soul, between death and the resurrection
at the last day, has neither pleasure nor pain, but is in a state of
insensibility." (Mosheim, speaking of the 'General Baptists', who
flourished in England during the 16th century. From: Eccl.Hist.,
vol.3, book 4, p.218)
So, we are told by the Bible that ONLY God is immortal and that we
should SEEK immortality. We also have the testimony of many
'authorities' that this doctrine is not to be found within the pages
of the Bible.
It is a doctrine that came from satan through the paganism of Babylon,
Egypt, Greece and Rome. It leads directly to the false doctrines of
praying to saints, worshiping Mary, purgatory and eternally burning
souls in hell. It gives lie to that beloved Bible text of John 3:16
("For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.") as the unbelievers also receive everlasting life, via their
immortal soul in hell.
It gives lie to Rev 20:14 ("And death and hell were cast into the lake
of fire. This is the second death."), for if the soul is immortal then
there can be no second death.
And it gives breath to the demonic 'religion' of Spiritualism which is
supposed to 'attest' to the truth of the immortality of the soul and
immediate life after death.
In closing, one last quotation, from Edward White's "Life of Christ":
"In every other instance we obtain from the prophets and apostles
clear and frequent expressions of the doctrines which they were
commissioned to deliver, even of those which unaided reason was able
to discover, as the existence of God and the difference between good
and evil. But in thie instance, nearly a hundred writers have by some
astonishing fatality omitted, with one consent, all reference to the
immortality of the soul; no sentence of the Bible containing that
brief declaration 'from God', or even a passing reference, which would
have set the controversy forever at rest. In our own times scarcely a
religious work issues from the press addressed to sinful men, scarcely
a public exhortation directed to them, without a distinct exhibition
of the doctrine of immortality, of deathless being in the nature of
man, as the basis of the whole theological superstructure. Now, how
shall we explain the remarkable fact that neither apostles nor
prophets have ever once employed this argument in dealing with the
wicked: 'You have immortal souls and must live forever in joy or woe,
therefore repent!' - an argument of almost irresistible force, if it
be true? How, otherwise than by concluding that this was not their
philosophy, that this doctrine formed no part of 'the wisdom of God',
and that they were withheld from proposing it to the world by Him who
has declared that the eternal life of the righteous is the gift of His
grace, and that 'all the wicked he will destroy'?" (p.248, pub.1876)
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:05:43 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>
>>Baptist-Roman Catholic? The Baptist church was a great advance in
>>understanding of the Christianity that Christ taught, baptism by
>>immersion being a significant point.
>
>The Orthodox Church will be surprised to learn this! <G> The
>Standard Manual for Baptist Churches (1890) by Edward T. Hiscox goes
>to the history of the Greek Church in the "Witness of History" section
>on baptism, page 95 "The Greek Church in all its branches does still
>use immersion, and so do all other Christians in the world except
>Latins."
>
>Lest one thinks it is necessary to adopt all of a man or Church's
>beliefs in order to quote in an agreement, the above Manual later
>states: "It is a notable fact, and worthy of record in this
>discussion, that the Greek Church has always retained immersion in
>baptism......Like the Latin Church, it has corrupted the primitive
>purity of gospel doctrine and practice with many absurd glosses and
>superstitious rites.........But in all its branches immersion is
>retained." page 100.
>
>I'll add, I believe I have brethren in both the Latin and the Orthodox
>Churches.
>
>Glenn
Yeah, fine Glenn, whatever.
It may have escaped your notice that the Roman Catholic Church, which
was the dominant church in Europe for hundreds of years, practised
(and still practices) baptism by sprinkling. Many of the Protestant
churches also cling to this unscriptural doctrine. The Anglican church
(which is the other big church where I live) also practices baptism by
immersion.
"Not by any decree of council or parliament, but by the general
sentiment of Christian Liberty, this remarkable change was effected.
Beginning in the thirteenth century, it has gradually driven the
ancient catholic usage out of the whole of Europe." ("Christian
Institutions" by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Dean of Westminster, chap.1,
par.2 pp.19,20 pub. 1881)
The point that I was trying to make was that I didn't want you to
think that I was slamming you for being a Baptist as I appreciate the
Baptist church's stand for Biblical truth in this area and happen to
have Baptist friends (with whom I agree in much doctrine but not all).
I also have 6 Baptist reference works in my personal library from
which I have gleaned much useful information (that's how I know about
the 7th-Day Baptists, for example).
But it seems that you are more interested in picking a fight with
everything I say.
BTW: Is your use of the word 'Orthodox' now to be applied in the sense
of the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church?
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:05:24 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>
>>sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>>
<snip snip>
>>Soul sleep:
>>
>>Psalm 13:3 Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyes,
>>lest I sleep the sleep of death;
>
>"sleep....to lie in death" Random House Webster's Col. Dict. 1996
>A reference of course to the body.
Yes, 'of course' the body... and the soul. Doesn't the 'I' refer to
the whole man, the spiritual being, the seat of the emotions, the
consciousness... It's the soul as well as the body.
>
>>Annihilation of the wicked:
>>
>>Rev 20:13-15 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death
>>and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
>>judged every man according to their works. [14] And death and hell
>>were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [15] And
>>whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the
>>lake of fire.
>
>"....where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched" Mark
>9:48 NRSV
I am not too sure what you are trying to prove here? The flames and
worms of 'gehenna' represent the total annihilation and obliteration
of sin and sinners. Earlier apostacy and idol worship in the valley of
Hinnom (Jer 32:35), and God's judgements on Israel as a consequence,
marked it as a symbol of punishment and judgement. God warned in Jer
7:31-33 that it would become the 'valley of slaughter' where the
'carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven.'
With the fires of 'gehenna' burning before their eyes, Jesus could not
have spoken a more graphic word to the Pharisees to describe the final
total destruction of the wicked.
Does this non-quenchable fire prove the immortality of the souls of
the wicked? No, because the fire and worms are working not upon
disembodied souls but upon the bodies of the wicked.
According to Jesus those who are cast into the Lake of Fire will go in
bodily form, and this text confirms this truth. The verses before and
after this text speak of the hands, feet and bodies of those who
suffer in this 'gehenna' fire. (cf. Matt 5:30)
In Isa 66:24 it is made more plain:
"And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that
have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither
shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all
flesh."
'their worm shall not die' means that they will be totally annihilated
as in Isa 51:8:
"For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat
them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my
salvation from generation to generation."
Oh yes, the 'fire shall not be quenched' means that the fire will not
be PUT out, not that it will not GO out when it has nothing left to
burn. Now, is that a Biblical idea? Consider the following:
Jer 17:27 But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath
day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of
Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates
thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall
not be quenched.
A conditional prophecy regarding the palaces of Jerusalem being burnt
with a fire that 'shall not be quenched'.
Fulfilment of prophecy:
2 Kings 25:8 And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month,
which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,
came Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of
Babylon, unto Jerusalem:
9 And he burnt the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all
the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with
fire.
There's the fulfilment of that prophecy, the palaces of Jerusalem
being burnt.
Now the question is, are the palaces of Jerusalem still burning today?
No, of course not. Why not? Because that fire that 'shall not be
quenched' burnt everything and then went out. Same as the 'gehenna'
fire.
Edward Stevenson
Ew...@concentric.net (Ed LaBonte) wrote:
>> why would you think any God would not have a
>>"hell" for "unrepentant sinners"?
>
>That does not answer the question concerning eternal damnation. If the
>reason for punishment is correctional it is useless if it is eternal.
>If it is solely a deterant then it is only effective if it is known
>and understood by everyone. But we are talking about an all-powerful
>God. Why would a God create humans that are unreformable? To say that
>he is incapable of reforming his creation is to say that he is not
>all-powerful.
>
>
>_______________________________
>Ed LaBonte e...@atheism.org
>http://www.concentric.net/~ewla
God does things HIS way. He created humans with the capacity to make of
themselves what they would. Those that acted humane, with 'eternity in
their hearts', those acting out beastly instincts, to the fate of the
beast of the field.
However, 'hell fire' was literally the city dump at Jerusalem. To
understand the symbolism one must understand the culture of the Jews at
the time.
JB
ir...@ix.netcom.com(Rob) wrote:
>
> Sandra,
> Good try,but am I not correct in my understanding that god created the
>devil?
> Hiring (creating) someone to do your dirty work does not absolve you
>of responsability or guilt.
> I still cannot resolve the conflict between a loving god and the
>reality of his creation and treatment of humanity.
>
Often the first thing one has to do is to get over past
misconceptions. The idea of satan as being 'in charge' of hell is
another outgrowth of the idea of an eternally burning hell fire.
Once men allowed this lie into the church they then started to develop
the concept along pagan lines.
However, the truth of the matter is somewhat different. Satan was the
first one to sin, and so for that reason satan will also suffer the
penalty.
Read Rev 20:10, it says that satan will be thrown in the fire and vs
14 says that the lake of fire (hell) is the second death.
God does the 'dirty work' Himself, He describes it as a 'strange
work'. God is a God of love and it is out of love that He doesn't
reform everyone. He wants people in heaven who want to be there and
would enjoy being there.
The man who enjoys visiting the bar and getting drunk every day (just
to give a simple example) would not be happy in heaven as there are no
bars there. So, out of His love for the drunk He won't force the drunk
to live in heaven where he wouldn't be happy.
God treats us in a similar way to the way that we treat our children.
For example we may tell our children that if they play with fire we
will smack them.
God said:
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If you sin, you die. What is sin?
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for
sin is the transgression of the law.
Sin is breaking the law of God. The law of God is His 10 commandments
which can be summed up by saying: 1. Love God, and; 2. Love your
fellow man. God also promised us that we could have forgiveness for
sin through the blood of Christ and that the Holy Spirit would enable
us to keep the Law.
Now, if we choose to ignore all of that then we receive the wages for
our work. God doesn't want to kill anyone, that is why He made ample
provision for us to avoid paying the penalty.
We make the choice and decide whether we will be at the receiving end
of God's 'strange work'.
Rob
In <344f48c0...@news.demon.co.uk> J...@home.with.thecat (JB) writes:
>
>ir...@ix.netcom.com(Rob) wrote:
>>
>> Sandra,
>> Good try,but am I not correct in my understanding that god created
the
>>devil?
>> Hiring (creating) someone to do your dirty work does not absolve you
>>of responsability or guilt.
>> I still cannot resolve the conflict between a loving god and the
>>reality of his creation and treatment of humanity.
>>
>
>Often the first thing one has to do is to get over past
>misconceptions. The idea of satan as being 'in charge' of hell is
>another outgrowth of the idea of an eternally burning hell fire.
>
>Once men allowed this lie into the church they then started to develop
>the concept along pagan lines.
>
>However, the truth of the matter is somewhat different. Satan was the
>first one to sin, and so for that reason satan will also suffer the
>penalty.
>
>Read Rev 20:10, it says that satan will be thrown in the fire and vs
>14 says that the lake of fire (hell) is the second death.
>
>God does the 'dirty work' Himself, He describes it as a 'strange
>work'. God is a God of love and it is out of love that He doesn't
>reform everyone. He wants people in heaven who want to be there and
>would enjoy being there.
JB,
No,god is not the god of love.He is the god of vengence,the creator of
everything including all that is evil.And now a passive observer of all
evil who has no compassion,none,zero,nada.
If I was to observe someone torture murdering a child I would
intervene as soon as I realized what was happening.Wouldn't you???And
what would you think of a person who would stand idly by and watch?I
would consider that person as horrible as the perpetrator.
Your god watches this and many other horrible acts all day every day
and does not intervene!
How can you judge this god to be loving????Get real man.Any
being,mortal,immortal,man or god guilty of such behavior can only be
judged as a violent and despicable being.
>
>The man who enjoys visiting the bar and getting drunk every day (just
>to give a simple example) would not be happy in heaven as there are no
>bars there. So, out of His love for the drunk He won't force the drunk
>to live in heaven where he wouldn't be happy.
>
>God treats us in a similar way to the way that we treat our children.
Absolutely not.Would you watch someone molest and kill your child and
not intervene????No,god treats us as the worst in humanity treat
children.
>For example we may tell our children that if they play with fire we
>will smack them.
>
>God said:
>
>Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
>eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
>
>If you sin, you die. What is sin?
>
>1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for
>sin is the transgression of the law.
>
>Sin is breaking the law of God. The law of God is His 10 commandments
>which can be summed up by saying: 1. Love God, and; 2. Love your
>fellow man. God also promised us that we could have forgiveness for
>sin through the blood of Christ and that the Holy Spirit would enable
>us to keep the Law.
>
>Now, if we choose to ignore all of that then we receive the wages for
>our work. God doesn't want to kill anyone, that is why He made ample
>provision for us to avoid paying the penalty.
Wrong,god does want to kill those who cannot solve the riddle he
riddled us and become a believer.Thats a fundemental part of his
creation.Right?
>
>We make the choice and decide whether we will be at the receiving end
>of God's 'strange work'.
>
Ted Bundy's,John Wayne Gacy's,Jeffery Dahmer's "STRANGE WORK".
Does the above sentenence change for you the nature of these peoples
acts?
Call me crazy or a lost sinner,but it doesn't change a thing for me.
IROB
Rob
In <62m7u6$n...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> Edward Stevenson
<KLONDY...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>mar...@usit.net wrote:
>
>>A critical factor is missing from the apparent aimlessness of this
>>dialogue; the influence of Satan the Devil.(2CO.11:14) He was the
>>originator of sin, hence causing the "eternal suffering, birth
>>defects, child abuse" etc. <
>
>hardly likely that Satan was the first creature in all the billions of
>years to sin. He was just the beginning of sin on earth.
>
>God also made a solution to 'eternal suffering, birth defects, child
>abuse', and so on. THe tree of life. Only HE took it back until humans
>could reach cultural maturity.
Great!So while god waits for the human race to reach "cultural
maturity" he condemns billions to suffering the worst his creation has
to offer.
Yep,thats how I define love.Think I'll go home and beat my wife,abuse
my kids,and kill the neighbor while I wait for humanity to reach
"cultural maturity".
Created in the image of god
IROB
Rob
In <62paom$7cg$1...@csu-b.csuohio.edu> "S,Erik" <e...@technologist.com>
writes:
>
>Ed LaBonte wrote in message <344e74e5...@news.concentric.net>...
>>On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 01:59:58 -0400, "Frank Schierenberg"
>><NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Frank Schierenberg wrote:
>>>
>>>>Adam Obren let it be known:
>>>>
>>>>Well, I don't think 1 John 4:8 holds any water. A truly loving god
would
>>>>not let anyone go to hell. The fact that you refer to
philosophical
>>>>concepts is all the morre reason why you should submit evidence for
your
>>>>claims.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you an anarchist? The view that there should be no universal
>>>applicable and ENFORCED rules is typical of anarchism. You are also
a
>>>dreamer if you think any system can exist without some form of
sanction
>>>against those not following rules. This world would be absolute hell
>without
>>>courts, judgements, jail etc., why would you think any God would not
have
>a
>>>"hell" for "unrepentant sinners"?
>>
>>That does not answer the question concerning eternal damnation. If
the
>>reason for punishment is correctional it is useless if it is eternal.
>>If it is solely a deterant then it is only effective if it is known
>>and understood by everyone. But we are talking about an all-powerful
>>God. Why would a God create humans that are unreformable? To say that
>>he is incapable of reforming his creation is to say that he is not
>>all-powerful.
>
>
JUSTICE,
>that is, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Would God be just
if He
>let someone beat you and didn't repay that person according to what
they had
>done?
>
>If you punch someone else, then it's easy to repay in human terms
because
>someone could punch you back. If you pluck out someone's eye, your
eye can
>be plucked out.
>
>This is fare and even because you, a (wo)man, plucked out another
(wo)man's
>eye, and your eye is that of (wo)man, and therefore it's even.
>
>However, if you punch God, then how can God punching you be equal?
You
>punched God, the supreme being, your creator. Yet, God punching you
is not
>equal. Particularly since you never have the right to punch God and
God
>always has the right to punch you (although that's not his will.)
>
> MAN <-- punches --> MAN
>
>
> --> GOD
> /
> punches
> /
> MAN <--
>
>So, man and God are left with the dilemma that man can never pay for
his own
>sins. Yet, his sins must be paid for. Therefore, those who are
judged will
>have to pay, but can never complete the payment. Thus, punishment is
>eternal.
>
>God solved the problem through Jesus Christ. He so loved the world
that He
>gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him shall
not
>die, but shall have everlasting life.
>
>Jesus, being God, was able to pay for man's sins. Yet, to pay for
them, to
>take your place, He had to become man. It was a beautiful plan.
Jesus took
>the punches that we deserved, only he completed the payment. This
way, as
>man, he stood in for us. And, as God, he fulfilled the "eye for an
eye"
>requirement of pure justice.
>
>Thus, those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life. Those who
don't
>will have to pay for there own sins, and they will have to pay
eternally
>since they can never pay the debt.
>
>Hell was created for the devil and his angels, not for man. Yet, when
man
>sinned he had to die. And when he died, God had to put him somewhere
until
>Judgement day. So, when you die without the blood of Christ to wash
away
>your sins, you will go to hell, joining the devil and his angels.
>
>In this sense, hell is a waiting room until judgement day.
>
>On judgement day, all sins will be judged, and receive their just
>recompense. Then, death and hell, and all who bore sins, will be
thrown in
>the Lake of Fire. The smoke of their torment will go up forever and
ever.
>
>At that point you will be forgotten by all the saints (those were
washed
>clean by Jesus blood,) and even God will not hear your cries. In this
>sense, you will have suffered the second death. You will be dead to
God and
>all the living, the eternal living.
>
>I pray you find the truth and put your trust in Christ and the love of
God.
>His ways are good. He is kind and forgiving.
>
>God's servant
Absolutely amazing!You have a real talent for doublethink.After
describing a god who is anything but kind and forgiving you end with
the sentence above.
IROB
Matthew S. Cramer
On 24 Oct 1997 18:35:33 GMT, Edward Stevenson
<KLONDY...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Paul G. Wenthold" <qe...@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
>>Edward Stevenson wrote:
>
>>>
>>> No he's not. We must remember that Satan is engaged in a massive
>>> dis-information campaign against God and HIS purposes. Any teaching that
>>> would paint God as, 'cruel and merciless', is a part of that
>>> dis-information campaign.
>----------
>>
>>So you are saying the bible was written by Satan? Cool...
>>
>>paul
>------------
>
>This is an example of that disinformation.
No, your post was. ;-)
Matt
--
Matthew S. Cramer
http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/home.html
cramer <at> voicenet <dot> com
Paul G. Wenthold
Edward Stevenson wrote:
>
> "Paul G. Wenthold" <qe...@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
> >Edward Stevenson wrote:
>
> >>
> >> No he's not. We must remember that Satan is engaged in a massive
> >> dis-information campaign against God and HIS purposes. Any teaching that
> >> would paint God as, 'cruel and merciless', is a part of that
> >> dis-information campaign.
> ----------
> >
> >So you are saying the bible was written by Satan? Cool...
> >
> >paul
> ------------
>
> This is an example of that disinformation.
You said it, not me.
Unless you don't consider wiping out everyone on earth
to be cruel and merciless.
Or requiring a woman to marry her rapist.
Or having a bear maul kids because they made fun of a
bald man.
Oh wait, I guess that's not so bad...
paul
Rockett Crawford
Paul G. Wenthold wrote:
>
> Edward Stevenson wrote:
> >
> > Yang Hu <"yangh@"@uci.edu(Yang Hu)> wrote:
> > >S,Erik wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I pray you find the truth and put your trust in Christ and the love of God.
> > >> His ways are good. He is kind and forgiving.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Yang
> > >#28
> >
> > No he's not. We must remember that Satan is engaged in a massive
> > dis-information campaign against God and HIS purposes. Any teaching that
> > would paint God as, 'cruel and merciless', is a part of that
> > dis-information campaign.
>
>
> paul
Really..., Satan comes out a choir boy next to all the Genocides and
killing of little children by Yahweh in the OT.
Yahweh *is* imagined by the ancient primitive Jews as cruel and
merciless.
It is in the OT in black and white for anyone to see.
Just open up the Bible to the first half, wet your finger, twirl it
around a couple of times and plant it on a page. Odds are you won't
be more than a couple of pages away from a mass killing or torture
either ordered by or directly excuted by Yahweh.
--
Capella #5
It's new and it's blue
See the cow-in-the-moon at Capella's Observatory
Edward Stevenson
"S,Erik" <e...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>Every sin must be paid for. Also, it must be paid for with PURE JUSTICE,
>that is, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Would God be just if He
>let someone beat you and didn't repay that person according to what they had
>done?
>
Humans do not need this type of justice. Humans realize that there are
circumstances that must be taken into consideration. God is certainly not
less just than humans.
Most child abusers were themselves abused as children. Their minds have
been warped, even broken, by the experience.
Most rapists are, 'getting back', at some female authority figure from
their childhood. They are acting out violence against women, not
sexuality.
And when kiddos are raised during the Bosnian war, can we not expect
antisocial results?
See, 'pure justice' contains a high percentage of healing compassion.
Paul G. Wenthold
Mean Mister Mustard
Rob (ir...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I have never seen,smelled,heard,touched,or experianced anything that
: would cause me to beleive that the god spoken of in the bible exists.I
: have no evidence that he does not exist.Whenever I encounter this
: situation I for some crazy reason do not accept the unproven assertion
: as true.
: How about you?
Me? I don't do things for crazy reasons.
Were you ever curious about what your crazy
and seemingly unknown reason is?
As I understand the "God" which alleged
individuals attempt to speak of in the bible,
"God" somehow encompasses both "existence"
and the opposite of "existence", and thus
could not possibly (be limited/bound to) exist(ence).
What we think or believe about it, though,
probably doesn't mean shit anyway. At least,
there's no evidence that it does....
--
.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`.
/ Steven R. Champagne | : | : | The words are mine; | : | : \
\ scham...@mhv.net | : | : | the meaning is you. | : | : /
`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'~`._.'
whateverman
Rob wrote:
{someone ELSE wrote this below...]
> >However, if you punch God, then how can God punching you be equal?
> >You
> >punched God, the supreme being, your creator. Yet, God punching you
> >is not
> >equal. Particularly since you never have the right to punch God and
> >God
> >always has the right to punch you (although that's not his will.)
> >
> > MAN <-- punches --> MAN
> >
> >
> > --> GOD
> > /
> > punches
> > /
> > MAN <--
> >
> >So, man and God are left with the dilemma that man can never pay for
> >his own
> >sins. Yet, his sins must be paid for. Therefore, those who are
> judged will
> >have to pay, but can never complete the payment. Thus, punishment is
> >eternal.
[...]
> Absolutely amazing!You have a real talent for doublethink.After
> describing a god who is anything but kind and forgiving you end with
> the sentence above (snipped).
Also, couldn't an 'All-Powerful God' do something as simple as punching
a man like a man would?
You hafta admire someone with a philosophy that's so well defined, but
contradicts itself so deftly...
--
Whateverman
Email is good, so long as yer able
to send it to
whateverman @ e r o l s . c o m
"Science without religion is lame;
religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein
C. K. Lester
In article <344c7d8...@news.infi.net>, sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>
>>Annihilation of the wicked:
>>
>
>"....where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched" Mark
>9:48 NRSV
>
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with everlasting, or eternal, fire (Jude 7),
and that fire turned them "into ashes" as a warning to "those that after
should live ungodly." 2 Peter 2:6. These cities are not burning today. The
fire went out after everything was burned up. Likewise, everlasting fire will
go out after it has turned the wicked to ashes (Malachi 4:3). The effects of
the fire are everlasting, but not the burning itself.
C. K. Lester
In article <344c7d8...@news.infi.net>, sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>
>>Annihilation of the wicked:
>
>"....where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched" Mark
>9:48 NRSV
Unquenchable fire is fire that cannot be put out, but which goes out when it
has turned everything to ashes. Jeremiah 17:27 says Jerusalem was to be
destroyed with unquenchable fire, and in 2 Chronicles 36:19-21 the Bible says
this fire burned the city "to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of
Jeremiah" and left it desolate. Yet we know this fire went out, because
Jerusalem is not burning today.
C. K. Lester
In article <344e74e5...@news.concentric.net>, e...@atheism.org wrote:
>
>That does not answer the question concerning eternal damnation. If the
>reason for punishment is correctional it is useless if it is eternal.
Hell is not correctional (as we all know). It is meant to destroy that which
is "harmful."
>If it is solely a deterant then it is only effective if it is known
>and understood by everyone.
Nor is it a deterrent (I looked it up in Webster's). :)
Well, some "Christians" have used it to "scare" some people to "follow"
Christ.
God's original intent was to warn us of what would happen if we were to go the
way of Satan. It's like He was warning us, "If you jump off the Empire
State Building, you will die."
God's not killing us... and He could stop us. But we are creatures with free
will... or aren't we? Uh oh, new thread.
>But we are talking about an all-powerful
>God. Why would a God create humans that are unreformable? To say that
>he is incapable of reforming his creation is to say that he is not
>all-powerful.
He is capable, but He wants us to love Him, not fear Him. He doesn't want
robots, he wants... um... us.
C. K. Lester
In article <344e833e...@news.infi.net>, sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>
>
>The term "immortal" soul uses the term in the sense of "not liable to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where does the Bible ever refer to an "immortal soul?" I don't care what sense
you make of it, first demonstrate that the Bible actually says "immortal
soul."
C. K. Lester
>the Scripture reads "souls of them" it means the spiritual part of a
>person distinct from his body!
>
Rev. 16:3 says, "Every living soul died in the sea."
What are these souls? Are they "persons," or are they "spiritual parts of a
person(s)?"
Man is mortal. (Job 4:17)
Only God is immortal. (1 Timothy 6:15,16)
C. K. Lester
In article <34516a86...@news.infi.net>, sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>to many of your quotes, I wrote "who?" because for any quote from
>history to be meaningful they must be important enough to represent
>some branch of the church and be available in an encyclopedia for
>people to check.
STICK WITH SCRIPTURE ONLY! Why do you insist on propping up men above the Word
of God?
>the resurrection is held from day one in the church and can be traced
>through the historical record. The idea of eternal misery for the
>damned is taught as well with quotes most laymen can check.
Historical record-schmecord. I've got the Bible. That's all I need.
Who teaches "eternal misery for the damned?" Whoever it is cannot justify
their position with the Bible. They must invent traditions or new teachings.
>manner to teach "soul sleep" and "annihilation of the wicked". Once a
>cult member shows his dishonesty in that sort of thing, I do not waste
>any more time on the thread for all can see it who have eyes to see.
Stop name calling and stick with the issue. We're all mature adults here,
right? :)
All I've seen is some Baptist coming up way short in a debate about man's
soul. Fervent prayer and Bible study will provide you with the truth. (Stop
consulting all those "teachers" from the past and focus on The Word.)
Frank Schierenberg
Rob wrote in message <62qq9a$o...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> I have never seen,smelled,heard,touched,or experianced anything that
>would cause me to beleive that the god spoken of in the bible exists.I
>have no evidence that he does not exist.Whenever I encounter this
>situation I for some crazy reason do not accept the unproven assertion
>as true.
> How about you?
The Bible is Highly allegorical as you well know and your interpretation
of "the God of the Bible" is your own only. As I said, I gladly concur with
your unbelief in your private interpretation of "the God of the Bible".
Myself I tend to dismiss ANY interpretation, including my own, knowing that
the God that I can interpreted IS NOT God.
However Jesus is another matter, as He is a known quantity, full of
Grace, mercy and love, and to Him be all the Glory of heaven, as well as our
worship and thanks for ever and ever, because He filled my empty atheistic
heart.
Frank the Fundy
an atheist who found Christ Jesus
Abner Mintz
>>reason for punishment is correctional it is useless if it is eternal.
>>God. Why would a God create humans that are unreformable? To say that
>>he is incapable of reforming his creation is to say that he is not
>>all-powerful.
S,Erik <e...@technologist.com> wrote:
> Every sin must be paid for.
"Why?"
> Also, it must be paid for with PURE JUSTICE,
"'PURE JUSTICE' means 'no mercy', correct?"
> that is, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
"Q.E.D. A sin for a sin. So, for each time we sin against God, God
must sin against us, eh?"
"Ever heard the adage 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in
the end leaves us all blind and toothless'? If I went around
deliberately hurting others because they had accidentally hurt me,
wouldn't that be the behavior of a jerk? So, why is your version
of God such a jerk?"
> Would God be just if He let someone beat you and didn't repay that
> person according to what they had done?
"Perhaps a being with some concept of mercy and forgiveness would
take into account the fallability of humans, and wouldn't go around
beating up people after they die and it's too late for them to
change their behavior ...?"
> If you punch someone else, then it's easy to repay in human terms
> because someone could punch you back. If you pluck out someone's eye,
> your eye can be plucked out.
"Better yet, instead of doing evil to those who do evil, why don't
you try trying to teach them not to do evil, and restrain them
until such point that they learn so that they don't hurt people in
the meantime? i.e. put them in jail and try to get them to learn
better than to pluck out eyes, instead of plucking out their eyes."
"Look at it this way: If person A plucks out someone's eye, and you
pluck out their eye as punishment, and I pluck out your eye as
punishment, how long before none of us can look at anything?"
"Doing evil to those who do evil only leads to you becoming as
monstrous as they."
>This is fare and even because you, a (wo)man, plucked out another (wo)man's
>eye, and your eye is that of (wo)man, and therefore it's even.
"Life isn't fair, and thank goodness for that. If everyone got
exactly what they deserved for any infraction, how many of us
do you think would survive the 'terrible twos'?"
>However, if you punch God, then how can God punching you be equal?
"And just how am I supposed to punch a noncorporeal and quite
possibly nonexistant being? But even if such a being existed ...
since I couldn't harm it with my punch, what call would it have
to harm me? Isn't damaging me for lack of damaging it unjust?"
> You punched God, the supreme being, your creator.
"No, I haven't. I haven't even met the being, much less assaulted
it. If lack of belief is my 'crime', then the *worst* it should
do to me, to be just, is not believe in me - and, given *any*
amount of understanding and mercy on its part, even such a minor
response to lack of belief is uncalled for, since my lack of
belief would be, in such circumstances, an honest mistake."
> Yet, God punching you is not
> equal. Particularly since you never have the right to punch God and God
> always has the right to punch you (although that's not his will.)
"Listen to this: your God does not have the 'right' to punch me. I
am not a play-toy for it to break if it gets bored or annoyed - I
am a sentient being. I have feelings and an intellect - for it to
punch me would be undeserved and, frankly, evil."
"Happily, I don't think your God exists - I have trouble imagining
a cosmic architect that would be as petty and evil as you seem to
want it to be." :)
>So, man and God are left with the dilemma that man can never pay for his own
>sins. Yet, his sins must be paid for. Therefore, those who are judged will
>have to pay, but can never complete the payment. Thus, punishment is
>eternal.
"Thus, your hypothetical God is an evil monster."
"How would you feel about a person who you found raping his daughter,
and who, when challenged on this, said 'I created her, so I can do
whatever I want to her, and she burned the toast this morning. There's
nothing she could do to pay for this crime, since everything she has
or could do is mine by right, so I'm going to punish her forever by
hurting her horribly for the rest of her life?' Now, take this one
step further and imagine that the guy found an immortality serum
and made himself and his daughter immortal, and still made the
above decision ..."
"The God that you are imagining to exist is as monstrous as the
above example. It would be an evil outstripping your imagined
devil, or any other being I can think of. It makes Hitler look
like Mahatma Ghandi. And you appear to *approve* of this being?"
>God solved the problem through Jesus Christ. He so loved the world that He
>gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him shall not
>die, but shall have everlasting life.
"And, for those of you who don't guess right, too bad - it's eternal
agony for you. Too bad."
"This is justice? No - it's more like 'wheel of morality' - spin
the wheel, and take a guess as to how bad your punishment will be.
Oops, you guessed Hindu (just because you were born in India), and
the right answer was Kali - guess she's going to devour your soul
now. No, even worse, it turned out that S. Erik's version of God
is the version that exists - get ready for eternal torture just
for trying to do what you thought was right! Next contestant ...?"
[snip evil gloating about eternal torment in hell for all non-Christians]
>On judgement day, all sins will be judged, and receive their just
>recompense. Then, death and hell, and all who bore sins, will be thrown in
>the Lake of Fire. The smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever.
>At that point you will be forgotten by all the saints (those were washed
>clean by Jesus blood,) and even God will not hear your cries. In this
>sense, you will have suffered the second death. You will be dead to God and
>all the living, the eternal living.
>I pray you find the truth and put your trust in Christ and the love of God.
>His ways are good. He is kind and forgiving.
"'Kind and forgiving?' 'Kind' and 'forgiving'? Rigggggggght - your
version of God is less 'kind and forgiving' than any human I've
ever heard of. Do you realize just how incompatible your depiction
of your God is with 'kind and forgiving'?"
"Hopefully, if there turns out to be a God, he really will be kind
and forgiving to all of us ... including you, no matter how much
you displeased him by your (hopefully) slandering him. In other
words, I'd like to think that if such a being exists, it's better
than us, not worse. And the being you depict is definitely worse."
Libertarius
In <62rqka$t4$2...@goblin.uunet.ca> "Frank Schierenberg"
about the real Jesus, the Messianic King of the Jews who was executed
by the Romans for his sedicious, subversive activities.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
C. K. Lester
In article <62g3kc$9...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, ir...@ix.netcom.com(Rob) wrote:
>
> Good try,but am I not correct in my understanding that god created the
>devil?
He created Lucifer. God says of him, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the
day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." Ezekiel 28:15
Ezekiel here is referring to Satan under the figure "king of Tyrus." (See
verse 12). This, and the statement in John 8:44, that he "abode not in the
truth," show that Satan was once perfect, and in the truth. Peter speaks of
"the angels that sinned" (2 Peter 2:4); and Jude refers to "the angels which
kept not their first estate" (Jude 6). These angels were once in a state of
sinlessness.
God is telling us, the way of life is my way. The way of death is the devil's.
You have a choice to make. God isn't forcing any issue.
> Hiring (creating) someone to do your dirty work does not absolve you
>of responsability or guilt.
:x
> All part of his design.How do you absolve god from responsability for
>what is a natural outcome of his creation?
What was the natural outcome of His creation?
> God must not be too swift if he can't figure out how to avoid
>destroying any of us.Even I can speculate how an all powerful being
>could manage that.If there is a god and he truely loves his creation
>he,she,it could figure it out.
He figured it out. Instead of us being destroyed by sin, He sent His Son in
our place, who sacrificed His own life for us. Now all we have to do is
realize that, yes, God's way IS the best way for the universe. If you desire
true freedom... freedom from fear, sadness, death, etc., you must realize that
God's way is the only way. Satan's way (which we have seen is selfish,
prideful, etc.) leads to sickness, fear, etc.
>to cause the suffering god has brought on humanity.The love I know has
>no component of causing my beloved pain and suffering.How about you?
God's love has never caused suffering and pain. Only peace and hope.
> Hell is not the only thing I hold god responsable for in his creation.
I'm sure He's trembling in His shoes. :)
"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." 1 John 4:8
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is
longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all
should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9
"'As I live,' says the Lord God, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the
wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your
evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?" Ezekiel 33:11
C. K. Lester
> Absolutely not.Would you watch someone molest and kill your child and
>not intervene????No,god treats us as the worst in humanity treat
>children.
You are raving from the viewpoint of a child who has abandoned his father. The
father was not responsible... the child ran away and has chosen to walk his
own way.
Father God treats us (His children) with love. Certainly He could come down
and stop the suffering. Even Jesus said that with a word He could call 10,000
angels to come down and kick some major butt.
But God sacrificed His son so that ALL may live eternally, happily. God could
have stopped the death of his own Son, but didn't.
He also says it shall rain on the just and unjust.
We do not see all the workings of God. We don't comprehend all His ways. If
you want to ask Him about the sufferings of this world, come to Him in faith
and say, "Father, I am a sinner, and I accept Christ's redeeming death on the
cross for my sins." Then, when he returns, you can ask Jesus (or God the
Father) personally, "Why all the suffering?"
> Wrong,god does want to kill those who cannot solve the riddle he
>riddled us and become a believer.Thats a fundemental part of his
>creation.Right?
He wants to destroy sin so that humans might live in peace. There are many
humans who will cling to Satan's way, and thus be destroyed. But if they would
just open their eyes and see that God's law (or way) is perfect and right,
they could turn from selfishness and enjoy an eternity of happiness.
C. K. Lester
In article <62qq9a$o...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, ir...@ix.netcom.com(Rob) wrote:
>
> I have never seen,smelled,heard,touched,or experianced anything that
>would cause me to beleive that the god spoken of in the bible exists.I
>have no evidence that he does not exist.Whenever I encounter this
>situation I for some crazy reason do not accept the unproven assertion
>as true.
> How about you?
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork."
S,Erik
It's hard to answer everything that everyone said, so I'll do my best to
remember the main things that stand out.
Abner Mintz <a...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message <62qplv
Because God is just. His justice is impartial.
> > Also, it must be paid for with PURE JUSTICE,
>
> "'PURE JUSTICE' means 'no mercy', correct?"
Pure justice means that it is paid for in full, without partiality.
> > that is, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
>
> "Q.E.D. A sin for a sin. So, for each time we sin against God, God
> must sin against us, eh?"
I think you know the answer to this. But, I'll answer anyway. How is it a
sin for God to judge? How is it a sin for him to repay the wicked according
to their deeds? How is it a sin for the one how created and owns everything
to do what is right in his eyes? Justice from the judge is not a sin.
> "Ever heard the adage 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in
> the end leaves us all blind and toothless'? If I went around
> deliberately hurting others because they had accidentally hurt me,
> wouldn't that be the behavior of a jerk? So, why is your version
> of God such a jerk?"
He knows all. If you can tell the difference between an accident and
willful act, don't you think he can?
> > Would God be just if He let someone beat you and didn't repay that
> > person according to what they had done?
>
> "Perhaps a being with some concept of mercy and forgiveness would
> take into account the fallibility of humans, and wouldn't go around
> beating up people after they die and it's too late for them to
> change their behavior ...?"
Have you ever been seriously wronged? I'm going to trial for a third degree
felony charge because someone is accusing me of something I never did. What
he's doing is inconceivably evil, accusing an innocent man because you want
to get him sent away. It blows away all the talk about man being basically
good.
Yet, what do I pray? I pray that he repents, and finds forgiveness in
Christ Jesus. If he confesses because he is repentant, I will insist that
he not be prosecuted. I will rejoice that good has reigned.
If he doesn't confess, I pray he be stopped from hurting innocent people,
from selling crack and cocaine and other drugs, and from falsely accusing
people. If this means he gets caught and goes to prison, and that will stop
him, then it will be good. As far as pure justice is concerned, well, I
leave that to God.
Yet, as long as I'm falsely accused, I cry out vindication. I cry out for
THE TRUTH! All I want right now is for everyone to know the truth... that
I'm innocent! I've lost much because of this. I am in agony waiting for
the trial. Working for my defense. Rebuilding my career, hoping I can keep
it. Where is justice? I leave that to God.
> > If you punch someone else, then it's easy to repay in human terms
> > because someone could punch you back. If you pluck out someone's eye,
> > your eye can be plucked out.
>
> "Better yet, instead of doing evil to those who do evil, why don't
> you try trying to teach them not to do evil, and restrain them
> until such point that they learn so that they don't hurt people in
> the meantime? i.e. put them in jail and try to get them to learn
> better than to pluck out eyes, instead of plucking out their eyes."
> "Look at it this way: If person A plucks out someone's eye, and you
> pluck out their eye as punishment, and I pluck out your eye as
> punishment, how long before none of us can look at anything?"
>
> "Doing evil to those who do evil only leads to you becoming as
> monstrous as they."
The Lord says, "'Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, in due time their foot
will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, and the impending things
are hastening upon them.' For the Lord will vindicate his people, and will
have compassion on His servants;..." Duet. 32:36,37
Although an eye for an eye is perfect justice, it is for God to disperse,
not us.
> >This is fare and even because you, a (wo)man, plucked out another
(wo)man's
> >eye, and your eye is that of (wo)man, and therefore it's even.
>
> "Life isn't fair, and thank goodness for that. If everyone got
> exactly what they deserved for any infraction, how many of us
> do you think would survive the 'terrible twos'?"
That's why we need a savior. Do you think that Jesus suffered and died in
vain?
> >However, if you punch God, then how can God punching you be equal?
>
> "And just how am I supposed to punch a noncorporeal and quite
> possibly nonexistant being? But even if such a being existed ...
> since I couldn't harm it with my punch, what call would it have
> to harm me? Isn't damaging me for lack of damaging it unjust?"
>
> > You punched God, the supreme being, your creator.
Every time you sin you "punch" the one who loves you, your creator.
>
> "No, I haven't. I haven't even met the being, much less assaulted
> it. If lack of belief is my 'crime', then the *worst* it should
> do to me, to be just, is not believe in me - and, given *any*
> amount of understanding and mercy on its part, even such a minor
> response to lack of belief is uncalled for, since my lack of
> belief would be, in such circumstances, an honest mistake."
Shall the creature tell the creator what is just or pure? What inherent
quality does the creature have that makes him wiser than the creator? For
even the foolishness of God is greater then man's greatest wisdom.
You do not have to acknowledge that GOD IS to sin against him. If you seek
the truth, you'll find it. If you don't find it, it's because you didn't
seek it. If you didn't seek it, it's because you didn't want it. This will
be revealed on the day of judgement. Every motive, every thought, every
aspect of our lives will be revealed on the day of judgement. When all is
made plain, there will be nothing that we will be able to say to oppose the
great wisdom of the Lord.
> > Yet, God punching you is not
> > equal. Particularly since you never have the right to punch God and God
> > always has the right to punch you (although that's not his will.)
>
> "Listen to this: your God does not have the 'right' to punch me. I
> am not a play-toy for it to break if it gets bored or annoyed - I
> am a sentient being. I have feelings and an intellect - for it to
> punch me would be undeserved and, frankly, evil."
He has the "right" to do whatever he wills. What he actually chooses to do,
well that's a different story. He loves you, and wants to be with you and
share Himself and all He owns with you. That is what He wills. That is
what He offers.
> "Happily, I don't think your God exists - I have trouble imagining
> a cosmic architect that would be as petty and evil as you seem to
> want it to be." :)
All the evil originates with personalities. Explain to me how falsely
accusing someone is not evil. Explain to me how rape is not evil. If
everyone loved God and loved each other, how could these things happen?
Yet, because man sins, and many angels left God, there is evil. This is
reality, sad as it may be.
> >So, man and God are left with the dilemma that man can never pay for his
own
> >sins. Yet, his sins must be paid for. Therefore, those who are judged
will
> >have to pay, but can never complete the payment. Thus, punishment is
> >eternal.
>
> "Thus, your hypothetical God is an evil monster."
"For God so loved the world, that HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON..." My God
is one of salvation, and love, yet without sacrificing justice. For, my
Redeemer PAYS for my sins. He paid for them with His life, being marred
worse than any other man, suffering more than we can imagine.
> "How would you feel about a person who you found raping his daughter,
> and who, when challenged on this, said 'I created her, so I can do
> whatever I want to her, and she burned the toast this morning. There's
> nothing she could do to pay for this crime, since everything she has
> or could do is mine by right, so I'm going to punish her forever by
> hurting her horribly for the rest of her life?' Now, take this one
> step further and imagine that the guy found an immortality serum
> and made himself and his daughter immortal, and still made the
> above decision ..."
>
> "The God that you are imagining to exist is as monstrous as the
> above example. It would be an evil outstripping your imagined
> devil, or any other being I can think of. It makes Hitler look
> like Mahatma Ghandi. And you appear to *approve* of this being?"
First of all, man does not create. Conception gives us the ability to have
some control of the reproduction process, but hardly constitutes creating.
In any case, physical birth is forming, not creating. God created man then
He formed Adam.
Secondly, comparing God to someone who rapes innocent girls is hardly in
accordance with anything I've said. Let's keep this civil and not stretch
our imaginations to the extreme.
Also, God is good. He has the right to do anything, but chooses to love.
He's also just, but to balance the two he offered salvation, as a free gift,
from his love. It's up to you to receive it.
> >God solved the problem through Jesus Christ. He so loved the world that
He
> >gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him shall
not
> >die, but shall have everlasting life.
>
<SNIP>
> >On judgement day, all sins will be judged, and receive their just
> >recompense. Then, death and hell, and all who bore sins, will be thrown
in
> >the Lake of Fire. The smoke of their torment will go up forever and
ever.
>
> >At that point you will be forgotten by all the saints (those were washed
> >clean by Jesus blood,) and even God will not hear your cries. In this
> >sense, you will have suffered the second death. You will be dead to God
and
> >all the living, the eternal living.
>
> >I pray you find the truth and put your trust in Christ and the love of
God.
> >His ways are good. He is kind and forgiving.
>
> "'Kind and forgiving?' 'Kind' and 'forgiving'? Rigggggggght - your
> version of God is less 'kind and forgiving' than any human I've
> ever heard of. Do you realize just how incompatible your depiction
> of your God is with 'kind and forgiving'?"
>
> "Hopefully, if there turns out to be a God, he really will be kind
> and forgiving to all of us ... including you, no matter how much
> you displeased him by your (hopefully) slandering him. In other
> words, I'd like to think that if such a being exists, it's better
> than us, not worse. And the being you depict is definitely worse."
Judgement day will be the saddest day that God has ever had. Do you think
he will be rejoicing? No, it will be harder for Him than you can imagine.
The person who falsely accused me, when I prayed for Him, God made clear he
wants to give Him time to repent. God loves Him as much as me, and both God
and I would love to see him turn his life over to God. God will forgive
him, and I will have no trouble rejoicing to see Him be blessed with
salvation, and the wonderfulness of knowing Jesus.
If he doesn't repent and follow Jesus, then he chooses to pay for his own
sin. He rejects salvation. Shall God force the wicked to follow His ways?
Do you think if he won't repent now on earth he'd automatically repent in
heaven? Did Lucifer, who was in the throne room of God, find it impossible
to rebel? I tell you this, not a single sin shall enter the Kingdom of
Heaven.
God, in his love, is not hastily bringing judgement, but is instead giving
us all time to repent. All the way up until His coming he will have
repentance preached throughout the earth. If he did not love sinners, he
would just destroy them, without warning. But, loving as He is, he is
warning us all. The closer we get to the end, the louder his warnings will
be. For, before he flooded the earth, did He not continually warn them, and
open the ark for all who would enter? Was not Jonah disciplined for not
warning the city Nineveh that God was going to destroy it. And, after Jonah
warned them, and they repented, did not God change his mind concerning the
calamity he was going to bring?
"And should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there
are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their
right and left hand, as well as many animals?" (Jonah 4:11)
God is love. God is just. For although we have sinned, which brings us
death, Jesus offered us life by dying for us. What greater love has a man
than this, that he lay down his life for his brother?
Don't forget that Jesus didn't just die physically, but died spiritually.
For, when our sins were thrown on him while he was on the cross, He was, for
the first time in eternity, separated from God the Father.
"Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth
hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying
'ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?' that is, 'My God, My God, why has though
forsaken Me?'" (Math. 27:45,46)
He indeed paid for our sins. Believe in Him, and you will be reconciled
with your loving creator. You'll experience His love, and understand His
burden. Believe in Jesus, so that your sins may go on Him between the sixth
and the ninth hour, and you shall be united with God.
"...The day of the Lord is indeed great and very awesome, and who can endure
it? 'Yet even now,' declares the Lord, return to Me with all your heart,
and with fasting, weeping, and mourning; and rend your heart and not your
garments.' Now return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and
compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness, and relenting of
evil." (Joel 2:11-13)
Jesus' servant
S,Erik
Rob wrote in message <62o2t4$h...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <344f48c0...@news.demon.co.uk> J...@home.with.thecat (JB) writes:
<SNIP>
> No,god is not the god of love.He is the god of vengence,the creator of
>everything including all that is evil.And now a passive observer of all
>evil who has no compassion,none,zero,nada.
> If I was to observe someone torture murdering a child I would
>intervene as soon as I realized what was happening.Wouldn't you???And
>what would you think of a person who would stand idly by and watch?I
>would consider that person as horrible as the perpetrator.
> Your god watches this and many other horrible acts all day every day
>and does not intervene!
> How can you judge this god to be loving????Get real man.Any
>being,mortal,immortal,man or god guilty of such behavior can only be
>judged as a violent and despicable being.
>
On the one hand, God wants to return and stop it all. On the other hand, by
returning Jesus will bring Judgement on the world. Many can still repent.
So, God wants to give people time to repent before He returns. Only the
Father can balance these two, and decide when it's time for Christ's return.
In the meantime, God is in anguish whenever he sees the suffering that sin
is causing on the earth. He calls on us to stop it, but there are few of us
that are willing to pray, repent, or intervene. Even so, He doesn't expect
us to totally stop evil. God is a realist. Our ability to intervene is
limited.
Yet, for those who wait for God to intervene...
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but
is
longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all
should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9
As a brother stated, this is too complex to cover in a simple post. Until
you know God, it will be hard for you to understand His ways, and His
wisdom. At least, if you know how God feels when He sees the innocent
suffer, you might understand that his lack of apparent intervention is
hardly a statement of His love. He hears all the cries of the innocent, and
promises to bring justice on earth. He will return.
God's servant
Unicron
You have to understand that the god from the old testiment is a vengful
and murderous god, while the god in the new test. is a loving and caring
god. This way xtians and support any action that they do this way. "you
must forgive me my sins and give me a second chance because it says so
in the new test." "I can execute or punish others because of the old
test."
--
Reverend Bob of the Universal Life Church
Atheist #341
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE BUT YOU WILL NEVER FIND IT
My views do not always represent those of the
Universal Life Church
JB
sedO...@roanoke.infi.net (Glenn) wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 04:49:20 GMT, J...@home.with.thecat (JB) wrote:
>
>
>Now that we see that you'd place an out of context quote from Martin
>Luther as support for your position in such a dishonest manner, we
>know not to believe anything which you post.
Haha, Glenn, is this desperation creeping in here? My quote from
Luther out of context? Oh, please. It only appears out of context to
you because it shows that Luther rejected the idea of the natural
immortality of the soul as being a papal invention.
>From your response on
>your quote from Watson, you must have placed that deceitfully as well.
Yeh, right, like anything else that goes against what you would like
to think. But now I'm 'deceitful'... another one of your attacks that
takes the place of reasoned argument. So, why won't you accept what
Watson said? Did I fabricate the quote? Can you prove that I 'placed
that deceitfully as well'? No, it's just another cheap shot in place
of reasoned argument. I suggest you go back and read what I said when
I originally posted that quote.
>Did he believe in "soul sleep" AND "annihilation of the wicked"? As
>to many of your quotes, I wrote "who?" because for any quote from
>history to be meaningful they must be important enough to represent
>some branch of the church and be available in an encyclopedia for
>people to check. As to the General Baptists, they were not only
>heretic in that manner, but were so radical they faded away and into
>gross heresy. Not hardly representative of Baptists! My reference to
>the URL was where I do my best to give the reader a way to check how I
>quote and see if I misrepresent my position from history. The belief
>of the saint's soul going to be with his Lord and not sleeping until
>the resurrection is held from day one in the church and can be traced
>through the historical record. The idea of eternal misery for the
>damned is taught as well with quotes most laymen can check.
>
Glenn, if you are telling me that your encyclopedia's don't contain a
reference to Tillotson or Olshausen then I suggest that you get some
better ones. C'mon, even 'Infopedia' has a reference to both of them.
>As to going to be with the Lord upon death coming before judgment, you
>show your idea of merited salvation in that. God knows(2Tim.2:19)
>those who are His when He elected them before the foundations of the
>world, (Eph. 1:4). We know today if we are of the elect of God,
>(1John 5:13). Judgment will show the righteousness of God in His
>work, not our righteousness in our merited salvation(1Cor.1:29-31).
>
OH boy, here we go again... 'just let me label you and attack the
label'. Glenn, playing 'straw men' doesn't cut it with me. (Did you go
to a Jesuit school by any chance?)
If you want to believe in predestination I guess that's your affair.
Strangely enough the last person I discussed that with was reduced to
insults and accusations to 'support' their case. Let me get this
right... you've been pre-destined to be saved and if I haven't, right?
(And there is nothing that either of us can do about it, eh?) I don't
suppose you'd like to show me the quotes that lead to your conclusion
that I believe in 'merited salvation' would you? No, I didn't think
so.
So when, according to you, does judgement take place, and where does
the souls go to at death?
>As to the words "soul" and "spirit" being both used in the same
>context and the meaning of it. Because two terms are used side by
>side does not mean that they are two totally different things, but may
>indicate the same concept viewed from 2 perspectives.
Well, when they are two totally different words meaning two totally
different things I kinda get the impression that they are different.
>The terms
>"kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" are different perspectives,
>but the same identical thing, Matt. 19:23&24. Using a parallel
>approach in the synoptics shows the same. So, two terms can indicate
>the same thing even in the same context. As I've posted before,
>"spirit" and "soul" are used interchangeable in the N.T. just as we do
>in everyday common English! Only by turning to Greek philosophy do
>you find a distinction as you try to make.
>
Glenn, you really do make me laugh! The best definition of the natural
immortality of the soul comes from Plato. If you really understand
Greek philosophy you will see that what Homer and Plato said was very
different from what I have presented.
Let me give you a couple of quotes:
Herodutus, a Greek, born 484 BC, regarded as the first and one of the
most reliable of profane historians, said,
"The Egyptians were also the first who asserted the doctrine that the
soul of man is immortal." (Herod. Euler. 2 par. 123)
Bunsen, in his work on Egypt, says,
"The Egyptians were the first who taught the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul, a fact mentioned by all Greek writers from
Herodutus to Aristotle, and one brilliantly confirmed by the
monuments." (Egypt in Universal Hist. vol 4, p.639)
Warburton, speaking of Pythagoras, says,
"He and Plato, with others, traveled to Egypt, like their
predecessors... The ancients tell us of their long abode there; their
hard condition of admittance into the sacred colleges; and their
bringing away with them all the secret science of the priesthood."
(Div. Lega., vol 2, pp.108,109)
Dowling, speaking of how Papal Rome's doctrines came from Pagan Rome,
says,
"In tracing the origin of the corrupt doctrines and practices of the
Romish Church, we have had frequent occassion, in the preceding
chapters, to allude to the fact that most of its anti-scriptural rites
and ceremonies were adopted from the pagan worship of Greece, Rome and
other heathen nations." (Hist. of Romanism, book 2, chap. 2)
>As for Irenaeus being a heretic, I am not surprised at YOUR
>definition. He may have believed a lot of things which I do not. He
>may have made a lot of statements which were later enlarged upon
>making for heresy, but I do not know that he is a heretic. I do not
>see that stated or hinted at in the Funk & Wagnall's, the Britannica,
>nor my broad based theological references. Could it be that Irenaeus
>is not the one who is the heretic here?
>
Did you forget so soon all the heretical statements I quoted from
Irenaeus?
>Its enlightening how you attempt to hop from the Reformation back to
>the New Testament and omit the hundreds of years in between. Luther
>and the Reformers did not do such as that for the church has not
>ceased to exist in all those years. Its more interesting how you
>misquoted Luther and possibly Richard Watson as well in a deceitful
>manner to teach "soul sleep" and "annihilation of the wicked".
Where did I misquote Luther? Face it, Glenn, Luther did not believe in
the natural immortality of the soul, no matter how much you may want
him to. And as for the 'possible' misquotation of Watson and my
'deceitfulness' I think you need to look up what the Bible says about
making assumptions and judging others.
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that I very plainly stated that
I was not necessarily quoting them to support 'soul sleep' and
'annihilation of the wicked' but that I was quoting them to support a
belief in the non-immortality of the soul. Please go back and re-read
what I said in that post. I expect an apology from you for your
willfully accusing me of something that you know (or should know) that
I didn't do.
Do be honest, Glenn, I have misjudged you... I thought that you had
more integrity.
>Once a
>cult member shows his dishonesty in that sort of thing, I do not waste
>any more time on the thread for all can see it who have eyes to see.
>
Again, reasoned agrument has been thrown out and replaced by the
unChristian attitude of attack, assumption and accusation.
Before you back out of this thread would you care to answer the
questions that you have carefully avoided answering?
1. 1 Tim 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which
no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom
be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
In this verse God is described as the only being who has immortality.
Can you give ONE Bible quote that says that man, his soul, or his
spirit has immortality?
2. Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for
glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
If the soul has natural immortality why does Paul tell us to seek for
immortality?
3. Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This
is the second death.
What IS the second death, if the soul is immortal?
4. Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able
to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell.
If the soul is immortal why did Christ say that it could be killed?
5. Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
IF the wages of sin are death, how is it that the soul can have
immortality?
6. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life.
7. IF eternal life is the gift of God to those who believe in Jesus
Christ, how can the soul of the wicked have eternal life
(immortality)?
8. Gen 3:22-23 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as
one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: [23]
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till
the ground from whence he was taken.
If man was going to live forever anyway, why did God send him out of
the Garden of Eden?
9. 1 Cor 15:51-54 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all
sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52] In a moment, in the twinkling
of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the
dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. [53] For
this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality. [54] So when this corruptible shall have put on
incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then
shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is
swallowed up in victory.
If the soul is immortal why did Paul make this statement?
10. 1 John 5:11-13 And this is the record, that God hath given to us
eternal life, and this life is in his Son. [12] He that hath the Son
hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. [13]
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the
Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye
may believe on the name of the Son of God.
If the soul is immortal why did John make this statement?
So, once again, I'm going to ask you to return to Scripture, and this
time, instead of just ignoring these questions, please answer them.
Cabrutus
...are incompatible.
S,Erik <e...@technologist.com> wrote in article
<62uar4$b67$1...@csu-b.csuohio.edu>...
> It's hard to answer everything that everyone said, so I'll do my best to
> remember the main things that stand out.
> Abner Mintz <a...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message <62qplv
> > S,Erik <e...@technologist.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > > that is, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
> >
> > "Q.E.D. A sin for a sin. So, for each time we sin against God, God
> > must sin against us, eh?"
>
> I think you know the answer to this. But, I'll answer anyway. How is it
a
> sin for God to judge? How is it a sin for him to repay the wicked
according
How it a sin for us to judge?
> to their deeds? How is it a sin for the one how created and owns
everything
Just because you created it doesn't mean you own it. And just because you
own it doesn't mean you can mete out justice to it.
> to do what is right in his eyes? Justice from the judge is not a sin.
>
> > "Ever heard the adage 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in
> > the end leaves us all blind and toothless'? If I went around
> > deliberately hurting others because they had accidentally hurt me,
> > wouldn't that be the behavior of a jerk? So, why is your version
> > of God such a jerk?"
>
> He knows all. If you can tell the difference between an accident and
Then He knew billions would go to hell when He created the universe, but
let it happen anyway. So God willfully condemned billions to eternal
torture. Nice guy, that God.
> willful act, don't you think he can?
>
> > > Would God be just if He let someone beat you and didn't repay that
> > > person according to what they had done?
> >
> > "Perhaps a being with some concept of mercy and forgiveness would
> > take into account the fallibility of humans, and wouldn't go around
> > beating up people after they die and it's too late for them to
> > change their behavior ...?"
>
> Have you ever been seriously wronged? I'm going to trial for a third
degree
> felony charge because someone is accusing me of something I never did.
What
Well, that's God's fault too -- free will and everything I guess.
> he's doing is inconceivably evil, accusing an innocent man because you
want
> to get him sent away. It blows away all the talk about man being
basically
> good.
>
> Yet, what do I pray? I pray that he repents, and finds forgiveness in
And if your prayers aren't answered, then what? God doesn't exist?
> Christ Jesus. If he confesses because he is repentant, I will insist
that
> he not be prosecuted. I will rejoice that good has reigned.
Oh come on, you're letting an evil person get away. And you guys say
atheists are immoral.
>
> If he doesn't confess, I pray he be stopped from hurting innocent people,
But what if he doesn't get stopped? That means God didn't want him to
stop, I guess.
[snip]
--
Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820
loc...@geocities.SPAM,.I.CAST.THEE.OUT.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587
"If words were wisdom I'd be talking even more."
--The Offspring, in "I Choose"
ACv1.0 DUR4 STR5 BIT3 ACT3 DEF4
DEB4 CON1 SLM2 XTN2 PUB2
Zarkov
On 27 Oct 1997 01:16:15 GMT, Edward Stevenson
<KLONDY...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>What's really happening here is a total lack of comprehension of the
>problems God is solving in the different situations.
>
How are we supposed to understand them when you, the expert
christians, won't explain them to us? Define god. Define how he
works. Then, we'll understand all of this. You really enjoy begging
the question, don't you? How did you get to be so good at it? Can I
take a class called "Petitio Principii 101"?
>This is typical of the teachings of the AntiChrist.
>
Listen, here, buddy. Don't tell me what's typical about my teachings!
:-)
--Zarkov #951
zar...@netnitco.net
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5999
mak...@mailexcite.com
http://biblecodes.com
It is amazing !!!
Unicron
Edward Stevenson wrote:
> problems God is solving in the different situations.
>
Hey I have been promoted for a simple Athiest trying to make enough
money to upgrade my computer, to the Antichrist. Mybe I can get the
Statanist cults to seen me money. COOL !!!