Questions about Hell

[Webers_Home]

.
As far as I'm concerned; Jonah's testimony settles the question of whether people continue to exist after their demise.

†. Jon 2:1-2 . .Then Jonah prayed to Yhvh his God from the fish's belly. And he said: I cried out to Yhvh because of my affliction, and He answered me. Out of the belly of sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.

Two prayers are mentioned in that passage: one prayed from the belly of sheol, and one prayed from the belly of the fish.

According to Jonah, the belly of sheol is subterranean.

†. Jon 2:6a . . I went down to the moorings of the mountains; the earth with its bars closed behind me forever.

The moorings of the mountains aren't located in the belly of a fish; rather: they're located in the earth's tectonic plates.

Note : Jonah's body was in danger of decomposition.

†. Jon 2:6b . . But you brought my life up from corruption.

God also brought up the Lord from corruption. In other words: Jonah underwent a resurrection.

†. Ps 16:10 . . For you will not leave my soul in sheol, nor allow your holy one to see decay.

†. Acts 2:31 . . David seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ: that his soul was not left in hades, neither his flesh did see corruption.

I have one other point. Mtt 12:40 says the Lord was three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Is that true? Answer: Well; if we're talking about the Lord's body, then the answer is No because it wasn't even in the earth's soil let alone the earth's heart— it was lain in a rock-hewn tomb on the surface of the earth. However, the Lord's soul wasn't in the tomb: no, according to Ps 16:10 and Acts 2:31 the Lord's soul was in sheol; viz: down at the moorings of the mountains.

Cliff
/

 

[JJsaint]

.
As far as I'm concerned; Jonah's testimony settles the question of whether people continue to exist after their demise.

†. Jon 2:1-2 . .Then Jonah prayed to Yhvh his God from the fish's belly. And he said: I cried out to Yhvh because of my affliction, and He answered me. Out of the belly of sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.

Two prayers are mentioned in that passage: one prayed from the belly of sheol, and one prayed from the belly of the fish.

According to Jonah, the belly of sheol is subterranean.

†. Jon 2:6a . . I went down to the moorings of the mountains; the earth with its bars closed behind me forever.

The moorings of the mountains aren't located in the belly of a fish; rather: they're located in the earth's tectonic plates.

Note : Jonah's body was in danger of decomposition.

†. Jon 2:6b . . But you brought my life up from corruption.

God also brought up the Lord from corruption. In other words: Jonah underwent a resurrection.

†. Ps 16:10 . . For you will not leave my soul in sheol, nor allow your holy one to see decay.

†. Acts 2:31 . . David seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ: that his soul was not left in hades, neither his flesh did see corruption.

I have one other point. Mtt 12:40 says the Lord was three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Is that true? Answer: Well; if we're talking about the Lord's body, then the answer is No because it wasn't even in the earth's soil let alone the earth's heart— it was lain in a rock-hewn tomb on the surface of the earth. However, the Lord's soul wasn't in the tomb: no, according to Ps 16:10 and Acts 2:31 the Lord's soul was in sheol; viz: down at the moorings of the mountains.

Cliff
/

Jonah didn't die.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Jonah didn't die.

Was the Lord dead? Answer: Yes. Then so was Jonah; because as Jonah was, so Jesus would be.

†. Mtt 12:40 . . As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

BTW: If you take your time, and scrutinize the grammar and syntax of Jon 2:2-9 with care; you'll readily detect the mention of yet a third prayer— the one Jonah prayed just before he died. In point of fact, the language of that section strongly suggests that Jonah was already dead prior to his body's interment in the beast's tummy; just as the Lord was already dead prior to his body's interment in the rock-hewn tomb.

Jonah really blindsides the anti-afterlife crowd. They never think to look there for evidence of conscious human existence in the netherworld.

Cliff
/

 

[JJsaint]

.
Was the Lord dead? Answer: Yes. Then so was Jonah; because as Jonah was, so Jesus would be.

†. Mtt 12:40 . . As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

BTW: If you take your time, and scrutinize the grammar and syntax of Jon 2:2-9 with care; you'll readily detect the mention of yet a third prayer— the one Jonah prayed just before he died. In point of fact, the language of that section strongly suggests that Jonah was already dead prior to his body's interment in the beast's tummy; just as the Lord was already dead prior to his body's interment in the rock-hewn tomb.

Jonah really blindsides the anti-afterlife crowd. They never think to look there for evidence of conscious human existence in the netherworld.

Cliff
/

No one stays awake after death.

Read Job 3.

The grave is a place of rest.

Ecclesiastes 9:5: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.

No one is resurrected until the actual resurrection.

If Jonah was dead and resurrected then that goes against Scripture as only Jesus was resurrected.

Jonah did not die.

Jonah 2:1:Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,
Jonah 2:10:And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

Jonah was in the fish - not dead in the afterlife,totally alive.

Matthew 12:40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

If you are going to make connections about Jonah been dead because Jesus was dead when crucified, with Matthew 12 then make this connection - Did Jesus go in the Whale's belly???
It states it clearly ''the whale's belly''...'''the heart of the earth''

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Afterlife opponents often quote the book of Ecclesiastes; which is a fatal error because Ecclesiastes isn't a book of doctrine, but rather, a book of philosophy; and though a holy man wrote Ecclesiastes; he didn't record his observations from the perspective of an enlightened man who's privy to knowledge beyond the scope of empirical evidence; but rather, he recorded his observations from the perspective of a man under the sun; viz: the perspective of a worldly man rather than a spiritual man: and that's why Bible students find so much material in Ecclesiastes contrary to the doctrines of traditional Christianity.

†. 1Cor 2:14-15 . .The natural man cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are absurd to him; nor can he plumb them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural man, a.k.a. the man under the sun, typically relates very well to the book of Ecclesiastes because it so often agrees with his own views. Take my son for example. When he began reading the Bible for himself some years ago, he commented that Ecclesiastes was the first book he encountered that made sense. Well of course Ecclesiastes makes sense. Solomon's philosophy of life is spot on.

Another thing to keep in mind when studying Ecclesiastes is that just because people's statements are recorded in a sacred text does not make their statements eo ipso true; for example Eve’s response to the Serpent.

†. Gen 3:1-3 . . And he said to the woman: Indeed, has God said you shall not eat from any tree of the garden? And the woman said to the serpent: From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said you shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.

Was Eve telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Answer: No. God forbad them to eat the fruit, yes, but He didn’t forbid them to touch it. (cf. Gen 2:16-17)

The Serpent’s response was untrue too.

†. Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You shall not surely die.

Did Eve die? Yes.

The conversation between Eve and the Serpent was no doubt recorded by inspiration; but there are untruths in their statements. Solomon's worldly philosophy of life is a lot like that; in other words: Ecclesiastes isn't necessarily totally wrong just because it's a humanistic point of view, nor is it necessarily totally correct just because it contains a kernel of truth. No, the danger is that Solomon's worldly philosophy of life often contains just enough truth to make it misleading.

This same problem exists in the book of Job; which, for the most part, is a very lengthy bull session with some know-it-alls who often haven't a clue what they're talking about. When reading books like Ecclesiastes and Job; all I can say is: Caveat Lector.

Cliff
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Hell by Judas Goat

.
Judas goats are trained for use in slaughterhouses and herd control. In stockyards, they lead sheep to slaughter; and are also used to lead other animals to specific pens and on to trucks. The term is a reference to the biblical traitor Judas Iscariot.

The phrase has also been used to describe goats utilized to find feral goats targeted for eradication. They're usually outfitted with a transmitter, painted in red and then released. The goats then locate the remaining herds of feral goats, allowing hunters with tracking devices to exterminate them.

In some versions of the Bible, publishers insert a topic heading at Luke 16:19-31 saying it's a parable. But there are no comments nor remarks in the inspired text itself to indicate the passage is a symbolic narrative any more than Jesus' conflict with the Pharisees and his comments on divorce that precede it. And even if it were a parable, the story would still have to be true because no less than three real-life people are named in the drama; the homeless bum Lazurus, the patriarch Abraham, and the law-giver Moses. The name of the rich man isn't given. He's now a forgotten soul who no longer has any significance.

Anti-hell people are insistent that the drama portrayed in this passage is not a true-life story. But I just don't think Luke would make all this up; especially using the names of real-life people. Do you really think he would use the names of real people in a fable or in hyperbole? Wouldn't that create a false impression about them? If Abraham and Lazurus weren't actually in the netherworld at the time of the story, why would Luke say that they were? Wouldn't that be tantamount to falsifying inspiration?

At the time of the narrative, inmates in the fiery portion of the netherworld could look across an impassable barrier and observe life over in the comfort zone. Both sides were actually within speaking distance of one another. This scene is a peek into the ancient Greeks' concept of Hades— a netherworld warehouse containing both the wicked and the righteous. Hades appears eleven times in the New Testament, and should always be taken to indicate the netherworld rather than Hell unless the syntax clearly indicates otherwise; including Mtt 16:18 where Jesus said the gates of Hades will not prevail against his church— "gates" indicate that the netherworld is a slammer where people are securely incarcerated till further notice.

In this account, the rich man and Lazurus and Abraham, are all conscious, and all have vision, speech, thoughts, and feelings. The exact nature of the human structure with which Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man are equipped in the netherworld isn't stated; but it has to be something that's sentient because the rich man has eyesight, he has a tongue, he's thirsty, he's feeling pain and distress; and he was experiencing anxiety. (I put the rich man's concerns about his relatives in the past tense because they've since joined him by now.)

The man in flames was enduring physical suffering and he called across requesting his ancestor dispatch Lazurus over with a wet fingertip to cool his tongue because he was in torments. But Abraham rebuffed him and told him that no one is permitted to cross back and forth.

All these things are real; the man's tongue, the flames, the netherworld, Lazurus, Abraham, Moses, and the suffering of the ex rich man; who now, by the way, is a homeless bum himself. And the words they all spoke were real words, otherwise Luke would be found a false witness.

The really sad part of that story is the anxiety the condemned man felt for his relatives that they were all coming down there too and he was totally helpless to do even one single thing to prevent it. He couldn't even let them know where he was with a telegram, an email, or a text message or a twitter; or even so much as a post card.

You know what can be even worse than going to Hell? Your own children following you there. Here's a cute story I heard once. I don't know if it's true but I guess it could be.

An alcoholic farmer went out to his barn in the dead of night after a snowfall to sneak a pull from his liquor bottle. Just as he got to the barn door he heard something behind him. Turning, the farmer recognized his little boy coming towards him. In amazement he asked the little guy how he ever managed to find his way out to the barn in the dark. His son replied; It was easy; I walked in your footsteps.

For some families, the only thing they have to look forward to in the afterlife is a sad reunion in fire and agony; and some will suffer even more in the knowledge that trusting kin followed them down there. For those families, it would have been better if the parents had been neutered rather than perpetuate generations for the furnaces. I sometimes wonder if death camp parents didn't suffer something akin to those kinds of feelings while watching smoke furl from the chimneys at Auschwitz and Dachau. I can't help think it would have been better for them had they remained celibate than produce flesh for the Nazis.

Cliff
/

 

[JJsaint]

.
Afterlife opponents often quote the book of Ecclesiastes; which is a fatal error because Ecclesiastes isn't a book of doctrine, but rather, a book of philosophy; and though a holy man wrote Ecclesiastes; he didn't record his observations from the perspective of an enlightened man who's privy to knowledge beyond the scope of empirical evidence; but rather, he recorded his observations from the perspective of a man under the sun; viz: the perspective of a worldly man rather than a spiritual man: and that's why Bible students find so much material in Ecclesiastes contrary to the doctrines of traditional Christianity.

†. 1Cor 2:14-15 . .The natural man cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are absurd to him; nor can he plumb them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural man, a.k.a. the man under the sun, typically relates very well to the book of Ecclesiastes because it so often agrees with his own views. Take my son for example. When he began reading the Bible for himself some years ago, he commented that Ecclesiastes was the first book he encountered that made sense. Well of course Ecclesiastes makes sense. Solomon's philosophy of life is spot on.

Another thing to keep in mind when studying Ecclesiastes is that just because people's statements are recorded in a sacred text does not make their statements eo ipso true; for example Eve’s response to the Serpent.

†. Gen 3:1-3 . . And he said to the woman: Indeed, has God said you shall not eat from any tree of the garden? And the woman said to the serpent: From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said you shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.

Was Eve telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Answer: No. God forbad them to eat the fruit, yes, but He didn’t forbid them to touch it. (cf. Gen 2:16-17)

The Serpent’s response was untrue too.

†. Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You shall not surely die.

Did Eve die? Yes.

The conversation between Eve and the Serpent was no doubt recorded by inspiration; but there are untruths in their statements. Solomon's worldly philosophy of life is a lot like that; in other words: Ecclesiastes isn't necessarily totally wrong just because it's a humanistic point of view, nor is it necessarily totally correct just because it contains a kernel of truth. No, the danger is that Solomon's worldly philosophy of life often contains just enough truth to make it misleading.

This same problem exists in the book of Job; which, for the most part, is a very lengthy bull session with some know-it-alls who often haven't a clue what they're talking about. When reading books like Ecclesiastes and Job; all I can say is: Caveat Lector.

Cliff
/

Are you saying we shouldn't read certain books of the Bible if they contradict passages that you post?

 

[thethinkingrebel]

I still have to get my head around this.



Either burning hell as a place of eternal torment and torture for gods creation not in Christ

Or plain old death in the ground without eternal life with Christ as option 2 it is confusing which the OT means.

Hell is real, as in Gehenna is real.

I would point out that the real questions are..when do we go to Gehenna? For how long do we go to Gehenna? And what is its end result?

I posit:

1. We go to Gehenna after the second resurrection, not when we die. We are judged unrighteous and are cast into the lake of fire; this is Gehenna.

2. The use of the word eternal, means "age-abiding" or "age-enduring". Basically, for the length of an age, period of time. There is nothing in the Greek to suggest that anybody burns into the next age..or when there is a new heaven and earth. The lake of fire is here on the earth..if there is a new earth then there would be no lake of fire.

3. There are many places which talk of the wicked being destroyed or perishing. This is the end...we die, this is the second death! Not the second dying!


People seem to think that Hell (torment), is the only suitable end for the wicked. That eternal life must have a suitable contrast. Well that contrast is eternal..death! Life vs death..that age old tale. Why would God contrast eternal life..with eternal torment?

Look at John 3:16: he says that those who believe in him should not PERISH, but have eternal LIFE. Would it not say; should not face torment, but have eternal life?

Death is death. Paul says that the wicked are vessels of (God's) wrath, who are headed for destruction. Seems plain and simple to me.

*[[Rom 9:22-23]] HNV* What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

*[[Joh 3:16]] HNV* For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

*[[Isa 66:24]] HNV* "They shall go forth, and look on the dead bodies of the men who have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

 

[JJsaint]

Re: Hell by Judas Goat

.
Judas goats are trained for use in slaughterhouses and herd control. In stockyards, they lead sheep to slaughter; and are also used to lead other animals to specific pens and on to trucks. The term is a reference to the biblical traitor Judas Iscariot.

The phrase has also been used to describe goats utilized to find feral goats targeted for eradication. They're usually outfitted with a transmitter, painted in red and then released. The goats then locate the remaining herds of feral goats, allowing hunters with tracking devices to exterminate them.

In some versions of the Bible, publishers insert a topic heading at Luke 16:19-31 saying it's a parable. But there are no comments nor remarks in the inspired text itself to indicate the passage is a symbolic narrative any more than Jesus' conflict with the Pharisees and his comments on divorce that precede it. And even if it were a parable, the story would still have to be true because no less than three real-life people are named in the drama; the homeless bum Lazurus, the patriarch Abraham, and the law-giver Moses. The name of the rich man isn't given. He's now a forgotten soul who no longer has any significance.

Anti-hell people are insistent that the drama portrayed in this passage is not a true-life story. But I just don't think Luke would make all this up; especially using the names of real-life people. Do you really think he would use the names of real people in a fable or in hyperbole? Wouldn't that create a false impression about them? If Abraham and Lazurus weren't actually in the netherworld at the time of the story, why would Luke say that they were? Wouldn't that be tantamount to falsifying inspiration?

At the time of the narrative, inmates in the fiery portion of the netherworld could look across an impassable barrier and observe life over in the comfort zone. Both sides were actually within speaking distance of one another. This scene is a peek into the ancient Greeks' concept of Hades— a netherworld warehouse containing both the wicked and the righteous. Hades appears eleven times in the New Testament, and should always be taken to indicate the netherworld rather than Hell unless the syntax clearly indicates otherwise; including Mtt 16:18 where Jesus said the gates of Hades will not prevail against his church— "gates" indicate that the netherworld is a slammer where people are securely incarcerated till further notice.

In this account, the rich man and Lazurus and Abraham, are all conscious, and all have vision, speech, thoughts, and feelings. The exact nature of the human structure with which Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man are equipped in the netherworld isn't stated; but it has to be something that's sentient because the rich man has eyesight, he has a tongue, he's thirsty, he's feeling pain and distress; and he was experiencing anxiety. (I put the rich man's concerns about his relatives in the past tense because they've since joined him by now.)

The man in flames was enduring physical suffering and he called across requesting his ancestor dispatch Lazurus over with a wet fingertip to cool his tongue because he was in torments. But Abraham rebuffed him and told him that no one is permitted to cross back and forth.

All these things are real; the man's tongue, the flames, the netherworld, Lazurus, Abraham, Moses, and the suffering of the ex rich man; who now, by the way, is a homeless bum himself. And the words they all spoke were real words, otherwise Luke would be found a false witness.

The really sad part of that story is the anxiety the condemned man felt for his relatives that they were all coming down there too and he was totally helpless to do even one single thing to prevent it. He couldn't even let them know where he was with a telegram, an email, or a text message or a twitter; or even so much as a post card.

You know what can be even worse than going to Hell? Your own children following you there. Here's a cute story I heard once. I don't know if it's true but I guess it could be.

An alcoholic farmer went out to his barn in the dead of night after a snowfall to sneak a pull from his liquor bottle. Just as he got to the barn door he heard something behind him. Turning, the farmer recognized his little boy coming towards him. In amazement he asked the little guy how he ever managed to find his way out to the barn in the dark. His son replied; It was easy; I walked in your footsteps.

For some families, the only thing they have to look forward to in the afterlife is a sad reunion in fire and agony; and some will suffer even more in the knowledge that trusting kin followed them down there. For those families, it would have been better if the parents had been neutered rather than perpetuate generations for the furnaces. I sometimes wonder if death camp parents didn't suffer something akin to those kinds of feelings while watching smoke furl from the chimneys at Auschwitz and Dachau. I can't help think it would have been better for them had they remained celibate than produce flesh for the Nazis.

Cliff
/

In this account, the rich man and Lazurus and Abraham, are all conscious, and all have vision, speech, thoughts, and feelings. The exact nature of the human structure with which Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man are equipped in the netherworld isn't stated; but it has to be something that's sentient because the rich man has eyesight, he has a tongue, he's thirsty, he's feeling pain and distress; and he was experiencing anxiety. (I put the rich man's concerns about his relatives in the past tense because they've since joined him by now.)

The man in flames was enduring physical suffering and he called across requesting his ancestor dispatch Lazurus over with a wet fingertip to cool his tongue because he was in torments. But Abraham rebuffed him and told him that no one is permitted to cross back and forth.

All these things are real; the man's tongue, the flames, the netherworld, Lazurus, Abraham, Moses, and the suffering of the ex rich man; who now, by the way, is a homeless bum himself. And the words they all spoke were real words, otherwise Luke would be found a false witness. The really sad part of that story is the anxiety the condemned man felt for his relatives that they were all coming down there too and he was totally helpless to do even one single thing to prevent it. He couldn't even let them know where he was with a telegram, an email, or a text message or a twitter; or even so much as a post card.


The Rich man and Lazarus is a parable

Luke 16:24:And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

He only asked for Lazarus to ''dip the tip of his finger in water'' - Not a bucket full of water.
If he was in torment why not ask for a bucket of water?

Also it only says ''flame'' - not hell fire or burning hell.

In Strong's Exhausitve Concordance,Greek - Flame is...
5395. phlox flox from a primary phlego (to "flash" or "flame"); a blaze:--flame(-ing).

Luke 16:26:And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

If there is a great gulf fixed - How could Abraham be having a conversation with the man if it is not symbolic?

Luke 16:28:For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

The man represents Esau/Edom - who has five sons or five brothers.

Genesis 36:11:And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz.

Lazarus represents Israel.(dispersed)

Luke 16:20-21:20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.


The dogs represents the non Israel nations.


Matthew 7:6 ''Give not that which is holy unto the dogs''
Matthew 15:26:But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.






Revelations 18:12:The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
Revelations 18:16:And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!


The man also represents Mystery Babylon.


Hell in Luke 16:23 is defined in Strong's as...


86. haides hah'-dace from 1 (as negative particle) and 1492; properly, unseen, i.e. "Hades" or the place (state) of departed souls:--grave, hell.



Read post 2


Luke 16:22:And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;


No one goes to Heaven when they die.


John 3:13:And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Acts 2:29:Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Acts 2:34:For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,




This is about separation from God - not burning hell.

 

[Ace1234]

I was brought up in a very fundie church and was surprised in bible college to learn that these many words on hell actually meant something different and that a hell of torture was hardly a concept until 400AD.

I think we must differ between hell, which is the grave and the process of the lake of fire. Some see the LOF as a torturous hell, some see God as a consuming fire that refines and changes, some see it as annihilation, depending on how you study or choose to believe the bible can support all 3.

I myself am a universalist, it was the only doctrine that biblically made sense tying together the many themes in the bible, course it took years of study to get there.

 

[Webers_Home]

*****************

*********************

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Are you saying we shouldn't read certain books of the Bible if they contradict passages that you post?

The Bible can a bit confusing at times for some students because it not only contains doctrine but it also contains bull. The trick is in sorting out what's what. Fortunately the Lord's family isn't left to it's own capabilities to do it but each is equipped with a special anointing to assist them in sorting things out and making everything click.

†. 1Cor 2:11-15 . .Who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are absurd to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are supernaturally discerned.

†. 1John 2:26-27 . .These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

The anointing of 1Cor 2:11-15 and 1John 2:26-27 isn't so people of faith can get by without Bible teachers. No. not when competent instruction is the Lord's gift to his church to bring its individuals up to speed as per Eph 4:11-16. The purpose of the anointing is so that the Lord's people can recognize the truth when they see it, and understand when they hear it. Without that anointing, people of faith would be left to their own natural-born IQ and vulnerable to a variety of clever expositors who are very skilled at making erroneous interpretations sound like the real McCoy; hence the warning: Caveat Lector.

Cliff
/

 

[JJsaint]

I was brought up in a very fundie church and was surprised in bible college to learn that these many words on hell actually meant something different and that a hell of torture was hardly a concept until 400AD.

I think we must differ between hell, which is the grave and the process of the lake of fire. Some see the LOF as a torturous hell, some see God as a consuming fire that refines and changes, some see it as annihilation, depending on how you study or choose to believe the bible can support all 3.

I myself am a universalist, it was the only doctrine that biblically made sense tying together the many themes in the bible, course it took years of study to get there.

Lake of fire represents God's law

Deuteronomy 33:2:And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

Jeremiah 23:29:Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

 

[JJsaint]

.
The Bible can a bit confusing at times for some students because it not only contains doctrine but it also contains bull. The trick is in sorting out what's what. Fortunately the Lord's family isn't left to it's own capabilities to do it but each is equipped with a special anointing to assist them in sorting things out and making everything click.

/

....is that what you really think of Scripture?

2 Timothy 3:16:All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Matthew 4:4:[/FONT]But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Deuteronomy 3:And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Hebrews 4:12:For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psalm 119:160:Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

The Rich man and Lazarus is a parable

I do not consent to the theory that Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. Three real-life people are named in the narrative. I just don't think that a man who labels himself "the truth" would lie about real-life people.

From whence did the Lord get his information about the netherworld? Answer: from his commander-in-chief.

†. John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words

†. John 7:16 . . My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.

†. John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, gave me a mandate, what I should say, and what I should speak.

†. John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Is the Father a liar? Answer: NO. His son clearly testified at John 8:26 that God is true rather than dishonest. What you are insinuating is that the Bible's God is a person of questionable integrity who cannot be trusted to tell the truth about people.

Cliff
/

 

[Chris]

Actually you guys I think maybe the bible writers had no parallel words to describe a 21st century male enduring a suburban shopping mall when describing the pain and suffereing. SheolMart might be more appropriate description of hell.


If a few guys thought hell was a shopping mall churches would be full of guys.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

The Rich man and Lazarus is a parable

Stop and think about the Lord's parables for just a moment. Can you think of even one of them that couldn't possibly be an event taken from real life? No; they all, every one of them are 100% realistic; plus they all share one very, very common denominator: none of them reveal names.

Do you really think that Luke 16:19-31 would be the one and only exception to the rule? No; that would just be too inconsistent. Even if Luke 16:19-31 were a parable, it would seriously break ranks with all the others were it unrealistic; and especially by revealing names: and that is why I am positive it cannot possibly be a parable for if it were, it would leave the reader with a false impression about the real-life people named in it. No, I am confident that if Abraham and Lazarus weren't in the netherworld at the time of the story, then the Lord wouldn't have said they were because he is too honest a man to do otherwise. Have some faith in the Lord that he knows what he's talking about.

Cliff
/

 

[Free]

I was brought up in a very fundie church and was surprised in bible college to learn that these many words on hell actually meant something different and that a hell of torture was hardly a concept until 400AD.

I think we must differ between hell, which is the grave and the process of the lake of fire. Some see the LOF as a torturous hell, some see God as a consuming fire that refines and changes, some see it as annihilation, depending on how you study or choose to believe the bible can support all 3.

I myself am a universalist, it was the only doctrine that biblically made sense tying together the many themes in the bible, course it took years of study to get there.

Univeralism makes the least sense but that is where this conversation will end.

Universalism is not a topic for discussion in these forums.

 

[Stormcrow]

Since when?

Do a word study on satan.

Like the word study on Gentile???

 

[Webers_Home]

.

John 3:13:And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

The grammar and syntax of the Lord's statement indicates that no man had ascended to heaven prior to the time of his statement (cf. Acts 2:4) and therefore doesn't preclude the possibility of people ascending to heaven later on. In point of fact, there's a scene recorded in the book of Revelation where John saw a myriad of human beings gathered round God's throne in heaven.

†. Rev 7:9-10 . . I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.

The author of the letter to Hebrews testified that the Lord's people are associated with not just God, but also an undisclosed number of human spirits.

†. Heb 12:22-23 . . But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect.

The heavenly Jerusalem described in that passage will one day be lowered down to a new planet's surface; but till that day arrives; the city of the living God will remain stationed in heaven providing living spaces for the spirits of righteous men made perfect.

In other words: currently the Lord's people are encamped in two places: one group is camping on earth, and the other group is camping in heaven.

†. Eph 3:14-15 . . For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.

The pronoun "his" in Eph 3:15 refers to Christ Jesus our Lord in Eph 3:11; viz: the Lord has people with him in heaven as well as people down here on earth.

Note: Revelation is a confusing book because it contains both literalism and imagery. That said; I believe there are at least three points about the book of Revelation that should be emphasized whenever a study of it is undertaken.

1• Revelation reveals Jesus Christ; ergo: he will be the grand master of all its terrifying calamities; and the one seated upon the Great White Throne of 20:11-15.

2• Revelation isn't an open letter. It was specifically written to the Lord's servants; not to the general public. So then outsiders messing around in Revelation are tampering with other people's mail.

3• Revelation cannot be properly understood without an ear to hear. In other words: people lacking the anointing spoken of at 1Cor 2:9-16 and 1John 2:26-27 won't get Revelation right no matter how high their natural-born IQ nor how persistent their determination; which is very tragic for Christians like Jehovah's Witnesses because the Watch Tower Society's leadership has managed to convince the rank and file that the anointing is available to only a very limited number of special Witnesses.

The rank and file Jehovah's Witness has been led to believe that the interpretations he's taught in Kingdom Hall classes have been compiled by Spirit-anointed expositors; therefore he himself can get by without it. Does that sound reasonable? No, it doesn't because according to 1Cor 2:14 the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are absurd to him: neither can he comprehend them, because they are supernaturally discerned. Which means that if the Watch Tower's expositors really and truly were Spirit-anointed, then the rank and file would not listen to them. So then, since they are listening, that alone eo ipso proves the WTS's expositors are neither at present, nor have they ever been, Spirit-anointed.

I don't mean to single out the Witnesses; only to point out that if somebody's Bible teacher really did have the anointing of 1Cor 2:9-16 and 1John 2:26-27 while those in the pews don't, then those in the pews who don't would think very little of the credibilty of what the anointed man is teaching.

Cliff
/