Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Does the human soul consciously exist following death

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
guibox

I had time to sneak this in as my daughter is now at 7cm so I need to go.
Lovely. Thanks!

Ok Guibox
Lets take a look as according to soma sight this fabulous post of yours.



jg,
\0\0BTW,yo\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0u mentioned 'Hades' as being the place where the demons reside. This is false. The place where the demons reside is 'Tartaros' which is used only the one time in 2 Peter. I figured your concordance was shady and mostly infused with preconceived notions, now I know that for a fact...

Guibox
The concordance and Dictionary I use are Strongs. In addition I can also read and understand Greek. Can you?
So lets look at the word you mentioned here ‘’ Tartaros’’
This is what the strongs def says here.

The New Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words: tartarŏō ταρταρόω
5020. ταρταρόω tartarŏō, tar-tar-ŏ´-o; from Τάρταρος Tartarŏs, (the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment: cast down to hell.

Enhanced Strong's Lexicon: 5020 ταρταρόω
5020 ταρταρόω [tartaroo /tar•tar•o•o/] v. From Tartaros (the deepest abyss of Hades); GK 5434; AV translates as “cast down to hell†once. 1 the name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds; it answers to Gehenna of the Jews. 2 to thrust down to Tartarus, to hold captive in Tartarus.

So now Guibox. I ask you. Where is ‘’ Tartaros’’ Located? I will give you a hint. Read the above definition..


Guibox Wrote:
As far as the topic goes,

You might have a bit more credibility if you argued that since the death and resurrection of Jesus righteous man has been given an 'immortal spirit'. Though not accurate, at least you would have biblical scripture and logic to support it.

LOL. How can Jesus be given anything? Guibox. I seek no credibility from you for that would bring me two steps backwards.

To say that man is inherently immortal is a falsehood that cannot be supported by scripture.


The soul will continue for all eternity. As has been proven to you and others many times with the scriptures.



Guibox wrote:
Instead (and I would like you to comment on these please) the Bible says:
1)That immortality is only an attribute of God (1 Timothy 1:16)

I am not sure you understand it but here is what this passage means.
This explains why Paul obtained mercy. It was so that he might be an exhibit of the longsuffering of Jesus Christ. Just as he had been the chief of sinners, so now he would be the chief display of the untiring grace of the Lord. He would be “Exhibit A,†a living example, of divine love rising above the most active hostility, of divine longsuffering exhausting the most varied and persistent antagonism.
Paul’s case would be a pattern. In the printing trade, pattern means a first proof. It signifies a specimen or a sample. Paul’s conversion would be a pattern of what God would do with the nation of Israel when the Deliverer comes out of Zion (Rom. 11:26).
In a more general sense the verse means that none need despair, no matter how wicked they might be. They can console themselves that since the Lord has already saved the chief of sinners, they too can find grace and mercy by coming to Him as penitents. By believing on Him, they too can find everlasting life. To those who reject him, everlasting torment in the lake of fire.



Guibox Wrote:
2) That immortality is something we seek, not something we have (Romans 2:7)

In explaining that judgment will be according to works, Paul says that God will render eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality. As I have already explained in another thread , this does not mean that these people are saved by patient continuance in doing good. That would be another gospel which is what you preach.. No one would naturally live that kind of life, and no one could live it without divine power. Anyone who really fits this description has already been saved by grace through faith. The fact that he seeks for glory, honor, and immortality shows that he has already been born again. The whole tenor of his life shows that he has been converted.
He seeks for the glory of heaven; the honor that comes only from God (John 5:44); the immortality that characterizes the resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:53, 54); the heavenly inheritance, which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading (1 Pet. 1:4).
God will award eternal life to all who manifest this evidence of a conversion experience. Eternal life is spoken of in several ways in the NT. It is a present possession which we receive the moment we are converted (John 5:24). It is a future possession which will be ours when we receive our glorified bodies (here and in Rom. 6:22). Although it is a gift received by faith, it is sometimes associated with rewards for a life of faithfulness (Mark 10:30). All believers will have eternal life, but some will have a greater capacity for enjoying it than others. It means more than endless existence; it is a quality of life, the more abundant life which the Savior promised in John 10:10. It is the very life of Christ Himself (Col. 1:27). For those who are not Born again will receive eternal life in the lake of Fire with Satan and his demons.



Guibox Wrote:
3) That David himself hasn't gone to heaven in any form (Acts 2:29,34)

Peter argues that David could not have been saying these things about himself, because his body had seen corruption. His tomb was well known to the Jews of that day. They knew he had not been raised.
When he wrote the Psalm, David was speaking as a prophet. He remembered that God had promised to raise up One of his descendants to sit on his throne forever. David realized that this One would be the Messiah, and that though He would die, His soul would not be left in the disembodied condition, and His body would not decay.
Now Peter repeats an announcement that must have shocked his Jewish audience. The Messiah of whom David prophesied was Jesus of Nazareth. God had raised Him from among the dead, as the apostles could all testify because they were eyewitnesses to His resurrection. Following His resurrection, the Lord Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God, and now the Holy Spirit had been sent as promised by the Father. This was the explanation of what had happened in Jerusalem earlier in the day.
Had not David also predicted the exaltation of the Messiah? He was not speaking of himself in Psalm 110:1. Instead he was quoting Jehovah as saying to the Messiah, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.†(Note carefully that verses 33–35 predict a waiting time between the glorification of Christ and His return to punish His enemies and set up His kingdom.)


Guibox wrote:
4) That immortality/eternal life is a gift of God only bestowed on mankind AFTER Christ's giving of it by his resurrection, and not before (John 3:16)

I WAS GOING TO SKIP COMMENTATING ON THIS, but then realized that perhaps you and others here really need to grasp this. This Verse after all is the Gospel. OK, This is one of the best known verses in all the Bible, doubtless because it states the gospel so clearly and simply. It summarizes what the Lord Jesus had been teaching Nicodemus concerning the manner by which the new birth is received. God, we read, so loved the world. The world here includes all mankind. God does not love men’s sins or the wicked world system, but He loves people and is not willing that any should perish.
The extent of His love is shown by the fact that He gave His only begotten Son. God has no other Son like the Lord Jesus. It was an expression of His infinite love that He would be willing to give His unique Son for a race of rebel sinners. This does not mean that everyone is saved. A person must receive what Christ has done for him before God will give him eternal life. Therefore, the words are added, “that whoever believes in Him should not perish.†There is no need for anyone to perish. A way has been provided by which all might be saved, but a person must acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior. When he does this, he has eternal life as a present possession.
I should also note that the word Parish here in the Greek is a A primary particle of qualified negation, meaning that it will go on for ever and ever through all eternity.
So if one is not Born from above, he will forever and ever be in the lake of fire and not perish.



Guibox wrote:
5) That man is given immortality not at death by some inherent nature, but at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:51-55)

The answer as I have stated in another thread is in the form of a mystery. As a mystery is a truth previously unknown, but now revealed by God to the apostles and made known through them to us.
We shall not all sleep, that is, not all believers will experience death. Some will be alive when the Lord returns. But whether we have died or are still alive, we shall all be changed. The truth of resurrection itself is not a mystery, since it appears in the OT, but the fact that not all will die and also the change of living saints at the Lord’s Return is something that had never been known before.
The change will take place instantly, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. The last trumpet here does not mean the end of the world, or even the last trumpet mentioned in Revelation. Rather, it refers to the trumpet of God which will sound when Christ comes into the air for His saints (1 Thess. 4:16). When the trumpet sounds, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. What a tremendous moment that will be, when the earth and the sea will yield up the dust of all those who have died trusting in Christ down through the centuries! It is almost impossible for the human mind to take in the magnitude of such an event; yet the humble believer can accept it by faith. I hope I am alive to see this….
I believe that verse 53 refers to the two classes of believers at the time of Christ’s Return. This corruptible refers to those whose bodies have returned to the dust. They will put on incorruption. This mortal, on the other hand, refers to those who are still alive in body but are subject to death. Such bodies will put on immortality.
When the dead in Christ are raised and the living changed with them, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory†(Isa. 25:8).
Many scholars believe this verse may well be a taunt song which believers sing as they rise to meet the Lord in the air. It is as if they mock Death because for them it has lost its sting. They also mock Hades because for them it has lost the battle to keep them as its own. Death holds no terror for them because they know their sins have been forgiven and they stand before God in all the acceptability of His beloved Son. This makes perfect sense to me.
Death would have no sting for anyone if it were not for sin. It is the consciousness of sins unconfessed and unforgiven that makes men afraid to die. If we know our sins are forgiven, we can face death with confidence. If, on the other hand, sin is on the conscience, death is terribleâ€â€the beginning of eternal punishment.
The strength of sin is the law, that is, the law condemns the sinner. It pronounces the doom of all who have failed to obey God’s holy precepts. It has been well said that if there were no sin, there would be no death. And if there were no law, there would be no condemnation.



Guibox wrote:
and finally...
6) That immortality has been brought to life and death has been abolished by the Savior Jesus Christ and not before that (2 Timothy 1:10)

The same gospel that was designed in eternity was revealed in time. It was revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ. During the days of His flesh, He publicly proclaimed the good news of salvation. He taught men that He must die, be buried, and rise from the dead in order that God might righteously save ungodly sinners.
He abolished death. But how can this be, when we know that death is still very common in the world? The thought is that He annulled death, or put it out of commission. Before Christ’s resurrection, death ruled as a cruel tyrant over men. It was a dreaded foe. The fear of death held men in bondage. But the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is a pledge that all who trust in Him will rise from the dead to die no more. It is in this sense that He has annulled death. He has robbed it of its sting. Death is now the messenger of God which brings the soul of the believer to heaven. It is our servant rather than our master.
Not only has the Lord Jesus annulled death, He has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. In the OT period, most men had a very vague and misty idea of life after death. They spoke of departed loved ones as in Sheol, which simply means the invisible state of departed spirits. Although they had a heavenly hope set before them, yet for the most part they did not understand it clearly.
Since the coming of Christ, we have much greater light on this subject. For instance, we know that when a believer dies, his spirit departs to be with Christ, which is far better. He is absent from the body and at home with the Lord. He enters into eternal life in all its fullness.
Christ has not only brought life to light, but also immortality. Immortality refers to the resurrection of the body. When we read in 1 Corinthians 15:53 that “this corruptible must put on incorruption,†we know that even though the body is placed in the grave and returns to dust, yet at the coming of Christ that same body will be raised from the grave and fashioned into a body of glory, similar to that of the Lord Jesus Himself. The OT saints did not have this knowledge. It was brought to us through the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
If my answeres all sound similar its because you asked similar questions going by your anointed concordance what ever it is u use, since my Strongs and Vines are no good.




Guibox Wrote:
Add to that where does it say that Lazarus was brought back from heaven when Jesusu resurrected him? Where is his story? Where is the evidence of his 'immortal' experience? Why did Jesus turn him from immortal back into mortal with absolutely no scriptural evidence of an explanation of this occurring?

Hey. You can ask Jesus this when your on the great white thrown judgment seat.

Guibox wrote:
Why with such clear teachings and language of the Hebrew and Greek to support these ideas do you base your entire theology around a parable, of whose contents cannot be supported by scripture anywhere else, that isn't even intended to teach about the afterlife?
when are you going to start believing the Bible instead of Greek, orthodox traditions furthered and fed by the Catholic church?

First of all the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. I am not a catholic, and if you believed the Bible, you would see that there is no such doctrine of annihilation taught any ware in scripture and that you need to be born again to understand them.
 
First of all, jg, thank you for a well thought out response. I wish you folks had done this more from the beginning.

jgredline said:
The New Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words: tartaro<breve>o¯ ????????
5020. ???????? tartaro<breve>o¯, tar-tar-o<breve>´-o; from ???????? Tartaro<breve>s, (the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment: cast down to hell... the name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds; it answers to Gehenna of the Jews. 2 to thrust down to Tartarus, to hold captive in Tartarus.

What I see when I see Strongs is a person putting his own commentary in according to his beliefs. NOWHERE in the scriptures can you get 'to incarcerate in eternal torment' out of 'Tartaroo'.

Tartaroo is not related to Hades or Gehenna in any way! The Bible makes it plain that Satan and his minions will be thrown into gehenna at the end of time. Nowhere in Revealtion does it say that 'and Tartaroo gave up the demons that are in it' like it says for Hades and the dead.

If the Bible writers wanted to associate it with it, they would have used those words. Obviously Satan and his demons are on this earth and not burning right now, nor buried in the netherworld. Satan is 'romaing the earth like a lion, seeking whom he may devour'. Where he is 'transforming himself as an angel of light' "The thief cometh but to steal, kill and destroy'. Pretty hard to do when you are chained to the netherworld.


jgredline said:
The soul will continue for all eternity. As has been proven to you and others many times with the scriptures.

And this you have not proven. You have ASSUMED and inserted that assumption into scripture. As a matter of fact, most of your response to my thread again shows that Christ gave immortality here, not that man was created with it inherently.

You merely proved my point.


jgredline said:
Guibox wrote:
Instead (and I would like you to comment on these please) the Bible says:
1)That immortality is only an attribute of God (1 Timothy 1:16)

I am not sure you understand it but here is what this passage means.
This explains why Paul obtained mercy. It was so that he might be an exhibit of the longsuffering of Jesus Christ. Just as he had been the chief of sinners, so now he would be the chief display of the untiring grace of the Lord. He would be “Exhibit A,†a living example, of divine love rising above the most active hostility, of divine longsuffering exhausting the most varied and persistent antagonism.
Paul’s case would be a pattern. In the printing trade, pattern means a first proof. It signifies a specimen or a sample. Paul’s conversion would be a pattern of what God would do with the nation of Israel when the Deliverer comes out of Zion (Rom. 11:26).
In a more general sense the verse means that none need despair, no matter how wicked they might be. They can console themselves that since the Lord has already saved the chief of sinners, they too can find grace and mercy by coming to Him as penitents. By believing on Him, they too can find everlasting life. To those who reject him, everlasting torment in the lake of fire.

No idea what you posted here has anything to do with the comment in Timothy.



jgredline said:
Guibox Wrote:
2) That immortality is something we seek, not something we have (Romans 2:7)


The fact that he seeks for glory, honor, and immortality shows that he has already been born again. The whole tenor of his life shows that he has been converted.

You cannot seek for something that you already have even before you were converted. Either you receive when you come to Christ as the free gift it is, or you don't and you perish.


jgredline said:
God will award eternal life to all who manifest this evidence of a conversion experience. Eternal life is spoken of in several ways in the NT. It is a present possession which we receive the moment we are converted (John 5:24). It is a future possession which will be ours when we receive our glorified bodies (here and in Rom. 6:22). Although it is a gift received by faith, it is sometimes associated with rewards for a life of faithfulness (Mark 10:30). All believers will have eternal life, but some will have a greater capacity for enjoying it than others.

Why do believers have eternal life? Because it was GRANTED to them. It is not something they had before they knew Christ. BTW, you cannot have eternal life now and then later. When Jesus said 'He who believes in me shall never die' he reiterated that with WHEN this 'life occurs', as did Paul:

'He who believes in me shall never die, and I shall raise him up at the last day - John 6:40'

"As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits, afterward, they that are Christ's at His coming - 1 Corinthians 15:23

jgredline said:
It means more than endless existence; it is a quality of life, the more abundant life which the Savior promised in John 10:10. It is the very life of Christ Himself (Col. 1:27). For those who are not Born again will receive eternal life in the lake of Fire with Satan and his demons.

This is a false assumption. Quality and quantity are not exclusive in the Bible, nor are they applied different ways. 'Life' and 'death' are two different things and contrasted continually. ONLY life is 'everlasting' and 'eternal'. Death is none of those things whether it be 'everlasting misery' or 'everlasting happiness'. If 'life' meant 'happiness and quality' it would not be contrasted with such a final term as 'thanatos' - death. It would be contrasted with something equivalent in more miserable terms.

jgredline said:
Had not David also predicted the exaltation of the Messiah? He was not speaking of himself in Psalm 110:1. Instead he was quoting Jehovah as saying to the Messiah, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.†(Note carefully that verses 33–35 predict a waiting time between the glorification of Christ and His return to punish His enemies and set up His kingdom.)

The simple reason why Paul pointed out that David was speaking not of himself but of Christ is because of the exact reasons opposite of those applying to Christ! David 'has not ascended to the heavens' (like Christ), David's 'soul' or 'life' was not ransomed from the grave (like Christ's). David and his grave and his life are still on this earth (unlike Christ's)

jgredline said:
A person must receive what Christ has done for him before God will give him eternal life. Therefore, the words are added, “that whoever believes in Him should not perish.†There is no need for anyone to perish...A way has been provided by which all might be saved, but a person must acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior. When he does this, he has eternal life as a present possession.



Good point. One must 'accept' Christ to get eternal life. Those who don't do NOT get it. Simple.

jgredline said:
I should also note that the word Parish here in the Greek is a A primary particle of qualified negation, meaning that it will go on for ever and ever through all eternity. Greek is a A primary particle of qualified negation, meaning that it will go on for ever and ever through all eternity. So if one is not Born from above, he will forever and ever be in the lake of fire and not perish.

This is a false rendering of 'appolumi'. It doesn't mean 'to go on and on'. Even if it were as ambiguous as some say, we have ample enough evidence ELSEWHERE in the Bible to clarify what it is supposed to mean. We have 'destroy', 'destruction' and 'death'. The Bible does not say 'eternal perishing' or 'eternal punishing' or 'eternal torment' in contrast to 'everlasting life' or 'eternal life'. It uses terms of finality and opposition.

jgredline said:
So if one is not Born from above, he will forever and ever be in the lake of fire and not perish.

Make up your mind when interpreting John 3:16. Either they 'perish' or they don't. Really jg, you are confusing yourself by trying to make 'black' mean 'white' when interpreting the clear language of destruction.

jgredline said:
We shall not all sleep, that is, not all believers will experience death. Some will be alive when the Lord returns. But whether we have died or are still alive, we shall all be changed. The truth of resurrection itself is not a mystery, since it appears in the OT, but the fact that not all will die and also the change of living saints at the Lord’s
The change will take place instantly, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. The last trumpet here does not mean the end of the world, or even the last trumpet mentioned in Revelation. Rather, it refers to the trumpet of God which will sound when Christ comes into the air for His saints (1 Thess. 4:16)....When the dead in Christ are raised and the living changed with them, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory†(Isa. 25:8).

Yes, and all of 1 Corinthians 15 makes it plain that death is ONLY swallowed up in victory and immortality is given to man at the resurreciton and not at death. If my soul survived death then I truly have immortality and death is conquered.

'The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death'

If my soul went to heaven at death it would be the FIRST enemy destroyed, would it not?

jgredline said:
He abolished death. But how can this be, when we know that death is still very common in the world? The thought is that He annulled death, or put it out of commission.

According to the immortality of the soul, he didn't. According to you if my soul is inherently immortal then death is NOT abolished by Christ it is abolished at my creation for I will never die. You are confusing what 'death' is by ignoring the clear, literal and final usage of the term when applying to eternity.

jgredline said:
Before Christ’s resurrection, death ruled as a cruel tyrant over men. It was a dreaded foe. The fear of death held men in bondage. But the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is a pledge that all who trust in Him will rise from the dead to die no more. It is in this sense that He has annulled death. He has robbed it of its sting. Death is now the messenger of God which brings the soul of the believer to heaven. It is our servant rather than our master.

Hogwash. Death is not a friend and it is never portrayed as one. Death is an 'enemy' and this enemy must be destroyed, and will be the last enemy to be destroyed. This occurs at the resurrection for this is what the resurreciton of Christ was about. It was resurrecting over the power of death of which we will play a part.
Death to be a 'friendly face' is Greek philosophy to the core. The Bible portrays death as the enemy of which resurrection robs it of its power: not immortality of the soul.

jgredline said:
Not only has the Lord Jesus annulled death, He has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

No he has BROUGHT it to mortal man, period.

jgredline said:
In the OT period, most men had a very vague and misty idea of life after death. They spoke of departed loved ones as in Sheol, which simply means the invisible state of departed spirits. Although they had a heavenly hope set before them, yet for the most part they did not understand it clearly.

And this is because they viewed man as a wholistic being that needed to be resurrected (Daniel 12:2; Job 10:10-14). This view did not change in the NT but is reiterated over and over and over again (John 5:28,29; 1 Corinthians 15).

Only by resurrection is death conquered and immortality given. The whole of the Bible supports it. There is no dichotomy between the OT and the NT in this matter.

jgredline said:
Since the coming of Christ, we have much greater light on this subject. For instance, we know that when a believer dies, his spirit departs to be with Christ, which is far better. He is absent from the body and at home with the Lord. He enters into eternal life in all its fullness.

Incorrect. Solomon himself started the comment about the 'spirit going back to God who gave it'. You not only misunderstand what this 'spirit' is, but also that it is the spirit of ALL men and not merely Christian that goes with it. I have fully and exegetically interpreted 2 Corinthians 5:8 and it supports the resurrection body. Quit taking it out of context to support erroneous views on the immortality of the soul.

This is rather lengthy so I will cut it short.
 
Guiltybox
After reading JG's post and your responses, it looks to me like you are in over your head. I spent some time looking at the scriptures u posted and it is very obviuos that you plucked single verses out of context and j gave you the answers to your questions in complete context.

For you to say that the strongs concordance is wrong goes to show how truly dumb you are. It is amazing to me and I am sure to most of the people that read your post, that you are an expert at making excuses. What sect are you from? Are you a JW, Mormon or 7th day adventist?

To ,look at the stuff you and your friends come up with is amazing. Trully demonic.

Really you need the Holy Spirit.
You need to be born again.
 
oscar3 said:
Guiltybox
After reading JG's post and your responses, it looks to me like you are in over your head. I spent some time looking at the scriptures u posted and it is very obviuos that you plucked single verses out of context and j gave you the answers to your questions in complete context.

For you to say that the strongs concordance is wrong goes to show how truly dumb you are. It is amazing to me and I am sure to most of the people that read your post, that you are an expert at making excuses. What sect are you from? Are you a JW, Mormon or 7th day adventist?

To ,look at the stuff you and your friends come up with is amazing. Trully demonic.

Really you need the Holy Spirit.

You need to be born again.

How are things at the carnival, Oscar ...still wearing the red nose and funny outfit and making the kids laugh?

I rest quite comfortably in the belief, Oscar, that your posts only qualify for the 'ignore button' or for those of the same ilk as yourself ...hopefully no one else here. If your comments are representative of someone who is born again and Spirit-filled then I, for one, don't want it.

Have a nice day.
:smt031
 
SputnikBoy said:
How are things at the carnival, Oscar ...still wearing the red nose and funny outfit and making the kids laugh?

I rest quite comfortably in the belief, Oscar, that your posts only qualify for the 'ignore button' or for those of the same ilk as yourself ...hopefully no one else here. If your comments are representative of someone who is born again and Spirit-filled then I, for one, don't want it.

Have a nice day.
:smt031

Good grief. Oscar's at it again. As one who is born again (and spirit filled - but I don't differentiate between the two) Oscar's comments here are not representative of my beliefs.
 
mutzrein said:
Good grief. Oscar's at it again. As one who is born again (and spirit filled - but I don't differentiate between the two) Oscar's comments here are not representative of my beliefs.

tHIS is because as one who does not believe that Jesus is God, you can't be born again. So no, you are not born again. So yes the truth hurts sometimes. :o
 
SputnikBoy said:
How are things at the carnival, Oscar ...still wearing the red nose and funny outfit and making the kids laugh? :-D :-D :-D :-D

I rest quite comfortably in the belief, Oscar, that your posts only qualify for the 'ignore button' or for those of the same ilk as yourself ...hopefully no one else here. If your comments are representative of someone who is born again and Spirit-filled then I, for one, don't want it.

Have a nice day.
:smt031

Spasnick
No you are not born again as you keep proving with your less than dumb comments..
 
oscar3 said:
tHIS is because as one who does not believe that Jesus is God, you can't be born again. So no, you are not born again. So yes the truth hurts sometimes. :o

It doesn't hurt me at all Oscar. I have been reviled in many more ways than being told I am not born again.

The truth is, I am born of the spirit of God. Of that, I have no doubt. But if you want to think that you are made righteous because you adhere to a certain doctrine, go right ahead. My righteousness is not so founded. It is founded on the righteousness of Christ my Lord who has redeemed me and set me free from the power of sin and death.

And my desire is only to abide in the vine, which is Christ. This same Jesus said of those who abide in the vine, "by their fruit you shall know them." Now I can't boast of righteous deeds or being right before God when others are not. I can only boast in Christ the risen Lord.

So if you wish to dispute whether or not I know God or am known of God it would be better that you do not judge that which you don't understand. And I would also say don't call 'unclean' that which God has 'cleansed'.
 
oscar3 said:
tHIS is because as one who does not believe that Jesus is God, you can't be born again. So no, you are not born again. So yes the truth hurts sometimes. :o

Oscar,
Could you please post something relevant to the thread like posting arguments like JG does? Honestly, I have seen better reponses from 4 year old kids..
 
oscar3 said:
Guiltybox
After reading JG's post and your responses, it looks to me like you are in over your head. I spent some time looking at the scriptures u posted and it is very obviuos that you plucked single verses out of context and j gave you the answers to your questions in complete context.

For you to say that the strongs concordance is wrong goes to show how truly dumb you are. It is amazing to me and I am sure to most of the people that read your post, that you are an expert at making excuses. What sect are you from? Are you a JW, Mormon or 7th day adventist?

To ,look at the stuff you and your friends come up with is amazing. Trully demonic.

Really you need the Holy Spirit.
You need to be born again.

What I need is to stop wasting my time talking to you and answering your posts. oscar, you are far in over your head because you cannot dispute or even seemingly understand what I or anybody else is posting. Your immature responses and name calling are proof of that.

Instead of trying to prove my take on 1 Corinthians 15 and offer your own solution, you resort to slander.

This has gone on long enough. Atonement said you had one more strike. I am going to see if he will do good on his offer...You have just been reported, and you will keep being reported until Atonement or another mod sends you packing.

We tried to warn you enough times...Goodbye my friend.
 
Guibox

While you may disagree with Oscars methods, he said allot of truth.

I proved you wrong with your interpretation of

The New Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words: tartarŏō ταρταρόω
5020. ταρταρόω tartarŏō, tar-tar-ŏ´-o; from Τάρταρος Tartarŏs, (the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment: cast down to hell.
Enhanced Strong's Lexicon: 5020 ταρταρόω
5020 ταρταρόω [tartaroo /tar•tar•o•o/] v. From Tartaros (the deepest abyss of Hades); GK 5434; AV translates as “cast down to hell†once. 1 the name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds; it answers to Gehenna of the Jews. 2 to thrust down to Tartarus, to hold captive in Tartarus.

You tell me that the Strongs Concordance I use is wrong and so 90% of Christiandom is wrong for using Strongs Concordance and dictionary..
OK, This is your opinion and is only your opinion so it holds no value.
Keep in mind also that it was you who brought up this word.

As far as the scriptures you asked questions on, you used the tactic that many of the cults use. You ask questions based on single verses to try and make fit your theology.

What I did is what any good bible student especially one versed in heurmenutics would do. Take the whole thought of the writer as to what he is saying. e.g. Who, what, where, how, why, when. etc.
This is exactly what I did. I commentated on the verses you asked questions about and I answered them in context.

Now of course I would expect you to say that I am wrong, because that would mean for you to throw away your theology, which you have allot of time invested in. No matter, if you will investigate the very scriptures you asked about and study them in context you will see that indeed I am right and you are wrong.. If I wrong and have taught falsely, I will repent of it and admit my mistake publically. I have no problem with that as I have done that in the past. Prove me wrong. I would also ask you to pray before studing those verses and ask the Holy Spirit to give you gustudding.

Thats it for now.
 
Oscar
A warning has been given to you unfortunately for violating the Terms of Service. The Terms of Service (TOS) was setup to help maintain a clean and focused forum for all to debate on. The staff must enforce the TOS with each of it's members. Furthermore it must be noted, that three warnings could ban you from this site. Though the staff will handle this as a case by case with our members per the discretion of the Admins.

Here is a link to our Terms of Service (TOS) http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=9219
Please take a moment and review them.

You have violated # 5 and 6 of the TOS

Guiltybox
For you to say that the strongs concordance is wrong goes to show how truly dumb you are

Spasnick
No you are not born again as you keep proving with your less than dumb comments..

Just abide by the very simple rules we have and respect this is as a Christian forum and there should be no further problems. Just consider this recent warning as a friendly one. All I ask is that you remember where you are when posting here.

Atonement
-moderator-



I shared it here in the forum, because I have received three PM's about your post Oscar, I ask that you show more respect to other members, and please not allow your personal feelings to get in the way..
 
jgredline said:
Guibox

While you may disagree with Oscars methods, he said allot of truth.

No, I disagree with oscar period. He has contributed NOTHING to the discussions and what bit of reasonable dialogue he has put forth has been skewed with nonsense ramblings and insults.

jgredline said:
As far as the scriptures you asked questions on, you used the tactic that many of the cults use. You ask questions based on single verses to try and make fit your theology.

:-? Is that so?

I have provided HUNDREDS of texts all saying the same thing, all using the same terminology, all explaining the other. I have shown the Bible's CLEAR teaching on the uses of 'destroy' destruction' 'perish' and 'death'.

How in the world can you accuse me of using a 'few' texts?

Instead, you have based your entire theology on two verses in Revelation 14, 20 and Luke 16! Then you have taken your 'conclusions' to ignore or reinterpret the scriptures that blatantly contradict it with no decent explanation!

It is I using 'cultic' tactics?

Good grief....as the French say: 'J'abandonne!'
 
The argument has been made that the fact that names are used in the Luke 16 indicates that this text is a literal account. I find this argument to be rather dubious. In the account of the Good Samaritan, specific place names are used - the victim is travelling between Jerusalem and Jericho. Is the use of specific place names really evidence that this is a true account?
 
Drew said:
The argument has been made that the fact that names are used in the Luke 16 indicates that this text is a literal account. I find this argument to be rather dubious. In the account of the Good Samaritan, specific place names are used - the victim is travelling between Jerusalem and Jericho. Is the use of specific place names really evidence that this is a true account?
Could very well be, and if it is not, it is not a false picture of happenings as some suggest concerning Luke 16.
 
Solo said:
Could very well be, and if it is not, it is not a false picture of happenings as some suggest concerning Luke 16.
You are incorrectly characterizing the views of those who do not share your view re Luke 16. It would, of course, serve your position well to show that your opponents are effectively saying that Jesus is "misleading" us in Luke 16. Of course, this is not what we are saying.

The problem with this whole line of thinking is that it simply ignores the nature of the literary device of "allegory".

The book "Animal Farm" is (if what they told me in high school is correct) an allegory about Soviet-style communism. The intent of the allegory is to make statements about this system of government, not to make statements about how farm animals interact.

So the author of "Animal Farm" is no more "painting a false picture" by using the literary device of talking animals than those who suggest that the intended teaching of Luke 16 has nothing to do with the eternality of hell.
 
Hi Drew and everyone else.


Drew wrote
The problem with this whole line of thinking is that it simply ignores the nature of the literary device of "allegory".


I don't want to steal the wind out of solo's sails (Solo, please forgive me if you think so) since you were addressing him, but this came up in the similar apologetics thread as well, and I do not think that those who have an eternal torment view are ignoring the nature of allegory at all. It's really the other way around.

First of all, the Bible is unique. It is not fantasy, or a book about talking animals, or fictional Giants and beanstalks. There is no comparison to the living Word of God, and any other book. Even if we were interpreting other such books, if something was portrayed as never dying...we could interpret it as a never-ending "something". If there is a golden goose that represents eternal life, the story should not cause her to die. In this case, we would not see the golden goose as a picture of anything eternal. So, if Christ depicts the Rich man in eternal torment, we can not interpret this as death, and in ceasing to exist, and have it make sense.

The parable itself, even if it were not true in a historical sense, is true in the picture it depicts, because Christ was doing the talking. God was doing the talking. Hebrews 1:2 tells us that He was sent as our full revelation from God. Jesus would NOT characterize something as an eternal torment situation, when it is really annihilation.

The allegorical interpretation in that parable is blatantly clear concerning what happens to those who are God's enemies. They are tormented in Hell along with their master, and they know that God is God as well. Why would Christ portray it in such a way, if it simply meant that the Rich man was to be destroyed, and cease to exist? This would be misleading, and cause us to expect a more exaggerated consequence.

Nor, can we just ignore the symbol completely, as was also suggested in the other thread by some. To discount that this depiction of the Rich man being in torment, because some feel it is not the point of the point parable, or as a part of the story that just signifies nothing, is off by those rules of allegory...especially as we apply them to the parables of Christ. It's really like saying that Christ exaggerated a little to make it more interesting, but it has no point at all. We do not find that to be consistent in His character, nor with any of His other parables. And, we have other Scripture, other than this parable, that point to Hell in an eternal sense.

If it weren't for the Scriptures that speak to eternal torment, we would not be having this discussion...at least I wouldn't. I can see all the Scripture presented with the words death, destruction, etc. And, if the eternal torment Scriptures did not exist, I would believe annihilation as well. However, they are in the word in a legitimate sense, and should not be ignored. We must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not interpret it with a study of Greek, Hebrew, or cultural tradition, or in a way that is not consistent with the context of all WHOLE revelation of God. These methods do not usurp the authority of the Word, and the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

I think the Animal Farm is about Soviet-style communism. I think the Rich man and Lazarus are about us as we relate to God. If Lazarus dies and has eternal salvation, and the Rich man dies and has eternal damnation, then the same can be applied to believers, and God's enemies. And, if you were even going to attempt to make a comparison, then you would have to compare the animals with the men...the components of the Farm being the Soviet type government, and the components of the after life being a picture of Heaven and Hell. The talking animals don't compare to the Rich man's circumstance at all. One is an element that depicts something, and the other is what is being depicted. Christ would not depict something falsely, and that is what one must say to establish that eternal damnation is not being depicted in that parable.

And as an end not here, at least for me, Christ's redemption was to save us...what do you think we are being saved from?

The Lord bless all of you.

P.S. Javier, I hope all went well with the delivery. :biggrin
 
Drew
Lets pretend for just a minute that LUKE 16 is a fable as you put it.
It still does not change the fact that the Picture that Jesus is showing is very real.. So fable or no fable it does not matter. The question one needs to ask himself, is what side of the gulf will you be on? :o
 
Lovely
I am now a proud Grampa. My first. Adam Joshua was 7.5lbs and 20'' long
Praise God all is well.

I also just finished reading your post and I suspect we posted at the same time and whats even more facinating is that we basically said the same thing :)
 
lovely said:
If there is a golden goose that represents eternal life, the story should not cause her to die. In this case, we would not see the golden goose as a picture of anything eternal. So, if Christ depicts the Rich man in eternal torment, we can not interpret this as death, and in ceasing to exist, and have it make sense...Jesus would NOT characterize something as an eternal torment situation, when it is really annihilation... Why would Christ portray it in such a way, if it simply meant that the Rich man was to be destroyed, and cease to exist?

Forgive me Drew if I am misunderstanding your view...

I don't believe that Drew ever said that Luke 16 was supposed to support annihilation. Were Jesus trying to portray the afterlife, you might have a point. However, the purpose of the parable was not to portray the afterlife at all but to portray the Jewish and Gentile nations through the personified 'dead' people of the rich man and Lazarus.

5 brothers
purple and fine linen
Abraham

Did you know Judah had 5 brothers? All of this signifies the Jewish nation and that their lneage from Abraham didn't mean anything when they were neglecting to bring the message to the Gentiles. It is not an expose on the afterlife.

lovely said:
It's really like saying that Christ exaggerated a little to make it more interesting, but it has no point at all. We do not find that to be consistent in His character, nor with any of His other parables.

First of all, explain how you can have a conversation between two dead people when they are dead...pretty boring story. Jesus made it plain that they were dead (vs 31-33). The Bible makes a clear distinction between 'dead' and 'alive'. If the 'souls' of both of them were alive, they would not be classified as 'dead'. Again, allegory, symbolism and personfication as well as the false beleifs of the Pharisees (who this story was for) used against them!

Why?

Stewardship! Not the afterlife.

Second, are you saying it is logical for someone to get thrown out on their butt where they will 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' simply because they didn't wear a specific coat to a banquet? Is it logical for someone to take away all power and responsibility simply because he saved some money as in the parable of the talents?

Sounds like exagerration to prove a point: not going to a banquet but accepting Jesus sacrifice. Not saving your money but doing something with the talents that God gave you. And in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus.. not the afterlife but stewardship toward the Gentiles and not taking such comfort in your lineage of privilege.

lovely said:
And, we have other Scripture, other than this parable, that point to Hell in an eternal sense.

Ah, but there IS no 'pointing' in the scriptures. There is NO other support for 'Hades' as is used this way. You mock the Greek and Hebrew and cultural context but if you followed it, you wouldn't have this confusion. Hades and Gehenna are two different things. All the other instances of Hades in the NT supports the OT idea of Sheol whihc is the grave where all are awaiting resurrection and not some conscious punishment as is portrayed in Luke 16
 
Back
Top