Jump to content


Photo

The Great White Throne Judgement


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 January 2010 - 07:44 PM

I also took New Testament Greek 30 years ago...I read from the Nestle-Aland...as best I can.
I have all of the references that you mentioned, although I would never use the KJV, it is a corrupted text.
I have seen both sides of the argument....'Hell' is not there.
Punishment, yes...Destruction, yes...Annihilation, yes...but eternal, fiery Hell...no.

View Post

The fact of the matter is; it doesn’t matter if you studied New Testament Greek 30 years ago or three days ago, the plain rendering (or translation) and context is “Hell”. And, the translation makes no a wit of difference if you don’t solely rely on a singular translation.

I personally prefer several translations, but a direct translation (i.e. interlinear) along with a good concordance and/or Bible dictionary exposes your mistranslation as well.

So your statement:

You do understand the the word 'Hell' never appears in scripture?

View Post

is wholly incorrect and untrue.

#22 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 11 January 2010 - 07:57 PM

The fact of the matter is; it doesn’t matter if you studied New Testament Greek 30 years ago or three days ago, the plain rendering (or translation) and context is “Hell”.  And, the translation makes no a wit of difference if you don’t solely rely on a singular translation.

I personally prefer several translations, but a direct translation (i.e. interlinear) along with a good concordance and/or Bible dictionary exposes your mistranslation as well.

So your statement: is wholly incorrect and untrue.

View Post


Ron,

Please show the Greek or Hebrew, where the word 'Hell' is directly translated from.

Peace

#23 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 January 2010 - 12:33 AM

Ron,

Please show the Greek or Hebrew, where the word 'Hell' is directly translated from.

Peace

View Post


The very reason you do not adhere to the KJV is because it shows punishment for sin. Regardless of what we believe, everyone wants their sin. It's human nature. But condenming a traslation just because it has hell in it, only shows the whole problem is hell. Not the KJV.

The word HELL was used for the Hebrew word SHEOL and the Greek words HADES, GEENNA and TARTAROO in the KJV. The Hebrew word SHEOL was translated as the Greek word HADES by Luke in the book of Acts. The Hebrew word SHEOL was translated as the Greek word HADES by the Septuagint translators. The Greek word GEENNA was used to describe a physical place by the Septuagint translators. In verse 1Co 15:22 the word GRAVE was used for the Greek word HADES in the KJV.

#24 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 12 January 2010 - 04:45 AM

The very reason you do not adhere to the KJV is because it shows punishment for sin. Regardless of what we believe, everyone wants their sin. It's human nature. But condenming a traslation just because it has hell in it, only shows the whole problem is hell. Not the KJV.

The word HELL was used for the Hebrew word SHEOL and the Greek words HADES, GEENNA and TARTAROO in the KJV. The Hebrew word SHEOL was translated as the Greek word HADES by Luke in the book of Acts. The Hebrew word SHEOL was translated as the Greek word HADES by the Septuagint translators. The Greek word GEENNA was used to describe a physical place by the Septuagint translators. In verse 1Co 15:22 the word GRAVE was used for the Greek word HADES in the KJV.

View Post


Ike,

Thanks for your reply.

What you find, is that these words seem to be interchangeable between grave, a place of all the dead and 'Hell', at the whim of the translator.

If Sheol is hell, then the righteous men of God in the OT apparently went there.

It is merely the place of the dead, the hidden, the grave.

Peace

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 January 2010 - 05:34 AM

Ron,

Please show the Greek or Hebrew, where the word 'Hell' is directly translated from.

Peace

View Post


Just to get this straight, are you denying that the words Sheol, Gehenna, Hades and Tarturus can be translated "Hell"? Because, if you are sincere in you claim to have studied Greek, you need to reconcile your omission of portions of the definitions with reality. And not only that, but you need to (as well) totally throw context out the window if you’re going to make the claims you are making, and the denials you’re attempting.


"Word Up"

#26 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 12 January 2010 - 05:45 PM

Just to get this straight, are you denying that the words Sheol, Gehenna, Hades and Tarturus can be translated "Hell"? Because, if you are sincere in you claim to have studied Greek, you need to reconcile your omission of portions of the definitions with reality. And not only that, but you need to (as well) totally throw context out the window if you’re going to make the claims you are making, and the denials you’re attempting.
"Word Up"

View Post


When you include the modern conception of these words, you may find 'Hell'...just like you may find that 'g*y' doesn't just stand for happy and carefree, like it used to.

Sheol, Hades, Gehenna were not terms for the modern day concept of 'Hell' in the first century.

The closest term that comes to a concept of 'Hell' is 'Tarturus' from the book of Jude, and there it means 'dungeon'.

Gehenna was a garbage dump.

Peace

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 January 2010 - 04:03 PM

When you include the modern conception of these words, you may find 'Hell'...just like you may find that 'g*y' doesn't just stand for happy and carefree, like it used to.

View Post


I see you’re still having a problem understanding the historical “conception” of Hell (i.e. Jesus’ “conception” of Hell). Which of course, isn’t all that different from the literal “conception” of hell (unless you have a liberal bent, and don’t like Jesus’ “conception” of Hell. I’ll tell you what, I’ll post Jesus’ “conception” of Hell:

“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: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 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: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.” Mk 9:43-50 (King James1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version)

Now, it seems Jesus had a pretty good “conception” of Hell, and He gave you a good contextual fill as well.




Sheol, Hades, Gehenna were not terms for the modern day concept of 'Hell' in the first century.

View Post


Actually, they were. The problem is, you liberal bent just don’t like the implications:

γέεννα
geenna
gheh'-en-nah
Of Hebrew origin (valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell.


ᾅδης
hadēs
hah'-dace
properly unseen, that is, “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.


ταρταρόω
tartaroō
tar-tar-o'-o
(the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment: - cast down to hell.




“Word” Up

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 January 2010 - 02:18 AM

Ike,

Thanks for your reply.

What you find, is that these words seem to be interchangeable between grave, a place of all the dead and 'Hell', at the whim of the translator.

If Sheol is hell, then the righteous men of God in the OT apparently went there.

It is merely the place of the dead, the hidden, the grave.

Peace

View Post


You have what's called the first death (flesh), and second death (soul).

rev 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

As stated in Revelation 20:14 (listed above). Hell and the lake of fire are two seperate places. Why? Eternal damnation cannot exist if everyone is pulled out of it for judgement. So hell is a temperary place people wait until the Great White Throne Judgment. Once judgment is done. Then they are thrown into the eternal damnation (Lake of Fire), along with the temperary damnation (hell). After that there is no recorded record of anyone being let out for anything.

#29 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 21 January 2010 - 12:32 AM

I see you’re still having a problem understanding the historical “conception” of Hell (i.e. Jesus’ “conception” of Hell). Which of course, isn’t all that different from the literal “conception” of hell (unless you have a liberal bent, and don’t like Jesus’ “conception” of Hell. I’ll tell you what, I’ll post Jesus’ “conception” of Hell:

“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: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 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: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.” Mk 9:43-50 (King James1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version)

Now, it seems Jesus had a pretty good “conception” of Hell, and He gave you a good contextual fill as well.
Actually, they were. The problem is, you liberal bent just don’t like the implications:

γέεννα
geenna
gheh'-en-nah
Of Hebrew origin (valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell.
ᾅδης
hadēs
hah'-dace
properly unseen, that is, “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.
ταρταρόω
tartaroō
tar-tar-o'-o
(the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment: - cast down to hell.
“Word” Up

View Post


Ron,

I see that you spent some time putting together the information about the different greek and hebrew words....and it is appreciated.

Regarding Hades and Sheol meaning 'hell', I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

If you would, research the differences in the concept of the afterlife between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. You will find that the Pharisees adopted a Zoroastrian view of heaven and hell from the Persians. The Sadducees represented the traditional OT view of sheol as the common grave for all. It was the Pharisees who became the dominant rabbinical influence after the Roman occupation.

Remember that when Jesus was speaking in your scripture reference, he was using a proper name for a physical place. Subsitute the 'Valley of Hinnom' for everywhere you see the word 'hell' in the referenced scripture.

The garbage dump in the Valley of Hinnom, where there is always a fire and the worms never die.

The Valley of Hinnom represents permanent destruction, not eternal torture. Even the remotest idea that a Jewish person might die and be disposed of in the garbage dump of Hinnom, was a shameful and insulting concept.

By the way, I mistakenly said in my prior post that the word Tarturus was used in Jude...in fact, it was used only once in 2 Peter.

Peace

#30 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 21 January 2010 - 06:34 PM

Hades is just another word for Hell. The fact is that Hell exists in the Old and New Testament. It's easily translated as such, and it does mean what it says.

#31 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 22 January 2010 - 08:23 AM

Gentlemen,

I hope I can add a few comments that will help this discussion. From what I can see, most of you are right on some things, and I think most are wrong on some things. IMHO. So without discussing doctrine, i would like to clear up a few things on the words used and translated that may help us all.

The word in the OT for hell is Sheol as you have discussed. The direct equivalent in the NT is hades. Both words refer to the physical grave/tomb/place of death or the place of the person's spirit. Context determines the meaning. Therefore, we can show the translation relationship of :

Hell=Sheol=Hades This is a direct correlation

Now in the NT there is another concept introduced. It is Gehenna. As scanman is correct Gehenna is a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. The garbage was burned. The word is used metaphorically in regards to final judgement as a place where the human garbage will be thrown out and burned/destroyed.

So we have the translation of:

Hell=gehenna

However, we now have the conflict of :

Gehenna does not equal Hades or Sheol

So this affects doctrinal teaching. The verses using Hades or Sheol refer to one thing and the verses using Gehenna are referring to another.

Roman Catholicism confused these terms during the dark ages as a means of controlling people. During the protestant reformation we corrected some things and brought some things with us. The word "hell" is an engilsh word that was used to combine the two different concepts of sheol/hades and gehenna and this is the case in the KJV.

To properly understand the scriptural doctrines regarding "hell", one needs to understand the two distinct concepts of word usage. In other words, "hell" has two totally different meanings. One needs to decipher which one is correct or we are guilty of equivocation.

#32 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:09 AM

Gentlemen,

I hope I can add a few comments that will help this discussion.  From what I can see, most of you are right on some things, and I think most are wrong on some things.  IMHO.  So without discussing doctrine, i would like to clear up a few things on the words used and translated that may help us all.

The word in the OT for hell is Sheol as you have discussed.  The direct equivalent in the NT is hades.  Both words refer to the physical grave/tomb/place of death or the place of the person's spirit.  Context determines the meaning. Therefore, we can show the translation relationship of :

Hell=Sheol=Hades  This is a direct correlation

Now in the NT there is another concept introduced.  It is Gehenna.  As scanman is correct Gehenna is a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.  The garbage was burned.  The word is used metaphorically in regards to final judgement as a place where the human garbage will be thrown out and burned/destroyed.

So we have the translation of:

Hell=gehenna

However, we now have the conflict of :

Gehenna does not equal Hades or Sheol  

So this affects doctrinal teaching.  The verses using Hades or Sheol refer to one thing and the verses using Gehenna are referring to another.

Roman Catholicism confused these terms during the dark ages as a means of controlling people.  During the protestant reformation we corrected some things and brought some things with us.  The word "hell" is an engilsh word that was used to combine the two different concepts of sheol/hades and gehenna and this is the case in the KJV.

To properly understand the scriptural doctrines regarding "hell", one needs to understand the two distinct concepts of word usage.  In other words, "hell" has two totally different meanings.  One needs to decipher which one is correct or we are guilty of equivocation.

View Post


Performedge,

Your reply was well thought out.

I would also recommend that those are interested, investigate the conflict between the Pharisees and the Sadducees regarding the afterlife. This will add much perspective to what the first century jewish believers would have thought regarding this subject.
Remember that there was a significant Persian (Zoroastrian) influence on Jewish thinking in this matter, during the exile to Babylon and afterward.

Another thing to consider is the difference between 'eternal' torture and 'permanent' destruction.

When something is completely destroyed, it is destroyed 'forever'.

I believe that there is a confusion between the concept of 'permanence' and that of 'continuance'.

Also, which punishment better fits the character of God?
Destruction?... or eternal torture?

Peace



Peace

#33 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 24 January 2010 - 07:05 AM

B) Good [sunny Sunday] afternoon EF folks
*
You've developed me topic a little but I have been following the debate with interest.
What account will you take of Lazarus and Dives?

Even though it is a parable it must be taken as containing the literal truth, I want to talk again about federal headship [I am by no mean wholly converant with the doctrine] but Scanny [canny Scanny] touches upon the possibility of destruction as opposed to eternal punishment [I refuse to acknowledge it as torture]

The goats were cast into eternal fire, "they shall go away into eternal punishment" I can't feel these words can be set aside.

The purpose of my OP was to show forth a wider mercy than is commonly believed in evangelicalism, by showing that the saints can in no wise figure at this judgement, therefore the judgement remains as to whether those being judged were judged as to "the works they had done and whether their names wer written in the book of life" Rev.20

In the case of L & D also we see perhaps something different, for we see Lazarus die, there is every reason to suppose that this poor man was not saved in the way we understand salvation as christians. David speaking scripture said "I have never seen the righteous man forsaken or his seed begging for bread" yet this man WAS forsaken and begging for bread.

I know christians put themselves in all kinds of fixes [ahem, dun that, bin there] and I know through persecution they can be reduced but by and large, all things being equal, I believe this scripture holds up. Yet we see that when he died he was carried up to Abes bosom.

That speaks absolute volumes to me about third world nations and the luxurious west.

The rich man when he died being in torment, his torment did not change his wickedness, he said "send Lazarus..." still just as arrogant towards Lazarus as ever when on earth and he was dressed in purple and Lazarus lay at his door dying in disease and hunger.

Federal headship means that God holds people who are in positions of power and wealth the more responsible and truly they are inexcusable, they HAVE no excuse.

I am an avid reader of history, English history, it's awful stuff, the Tudors etc, you read and you begin to wonder just what kind of monsters they were.

More recently in history is Hitler and Stalin, they [and those who came along on their coat-tails] HAVE no excuse, they were unbelievably wicked and evil. Right down to today.

Kings, dictators, politicians.....by policy they have kept India and Africa poor and starving, that's what keeps the butter on OUR tables and coffee in our cupboards....Federal headship....how God will apportion blame.

But a point is here, like the man who gave a cup of water to the prophet because he was a prophet there seems to be some other arrangement shown than the strict black/white, christian/non-christian saved/lost doctrines we cherish so much if indeed the poor man represented in the parable was unsaved [in the way we usually mean unsaved]

And yet I do not feel I can embrace either universalism or annihilism.

Just some extra thoughts.

#34 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 24 January 2010 - 08:54 AM

What account will you take of Lazarus and Dives?


The following quote was taken from a very good commentary on the parable of Lazarus:

Lazarus commentary link

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man, long used by mainstream ministers to teach the reality of "hell," really has nothing to say about punishment or reward in the afterlife. Christ used this story, which fit the common misconception about life after death in his day, to show the fate that awaited the Jewish nation because of the unbelief and faithlessness which led them to reject him as the Messiah. They still suffer from that fate to this very day. Yet the time is soon coming when God will pour on the Jews the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Christ whom they pierced, and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn (Zec. 12:10).


I also found this fact concerning the five brothers interesting:

The fact that the rich man has five brothers is a vital clue to his true symbolic identity. Judah, the progenitor of the Jews, was the son of Jacob through Leah (Gen. 29:35). He had five full-blooded brothers: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun (Gen. 35:23).


The goats were cast into eternal fire, "they shall go away into eternal punishment" I can't feel these words can be set aside.


The word 'punishment' which is translated from the Greek word 'kolasin', actually comes from the root 'kolazo' which means to 'prune', to 'cut off'.

Fire (pur) is symbolic of purification and destruction. What is not wanted (dross/chaff), is destroyed, what remains is pure.

In the parable of the vine and the branches, the vine that does not produce fruit is 'cut off' and burned/destroyed.

The idea of eternal destruction does not make sense. If it takes an eternity, then nothing is being destroyed.

Another way to see this, is that the 'destruction' is 'complete', never to come back again for all eternity.

And yet I do not feel I can embrace either universalism or annihilism.


At heart, I am a universalist.

In this reply, I was defending annihilism.

The character of God as our Father does not align with that of an eternal punisher.

If we as earthly fathers, would not subject our own children to this type of judgement, how less likely would God?

Peace

#35 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 24 January 2010 - 10:23 AM

The following quote was taken from a very good commentary on the parable of Lazarus:

Lazarus commentary link
I also found this fact concerning the five brothers interesting:
The word 'punishment' which is translated from the Greek word 'kolasin', actually comes from the root 'kolazo' which means to 'prune', to 'cut off'.

Fire (pur) is symbolic of purification and destruction. What is not wanted (dross/chaff), is destroyed, what remains is pure.

In the parable of the vine and the branches, the vine that does not produce fruit is 'cut off' and burned/destroyed.

The idea of eternal destruction does not make sense. If it takes an eternity, then nothing is being destroyed.

Another way to see this, is that the 'destruction' is 'complete', never to come back again for all eternity.
At heart, I am a universalist.

In this reply, I was defending annihilism.

The character of God as our Father does not align with that of an eternal punisher.

If we as earthly fathers, would not subject our own children to this type of judgement, how less likely would God?

Peace

View Post

*
Oh Scanny I am so-o vain, I always scan a thing before getting into reading it, that comes from being an office Judy, if you read everything intently that lands on yer desk you would never get around to doing anything, so when I scan[man]ned your reply, I saw "very good commentary" and was quite chuffed~but you were not talking about me. :( <_<

There are other reasons why scan[mann]ing is good because you can quickly sus the grist of what is being stated, now I will appear narrow minded, and indeed I AM so, I will not invite just anybody into my home to lecture me on their beliefs [unless I am able to engage them] I do not sit and listen to TV or VID productions, if they are teaching for e.g. a doctrine of devils, then you are sat listening to a devil, or reading his book. Maybe they are just teaching erroneous doctrine [mind of man stuff] unless I have a chance to answer and witness, I will not sit and be harrangued.

I scanned the man link you gave, and saw that the author did not believe that literal truth was being presented in the parable~I reject that

So that is where I stand [I can do no other, forgive my humour, I need deliverance :) ]

I could see you was in the universalist/annihilism camp, I feel a great unease in my spirit about those doctrines but am encouraged if they preach the cross and forgiveness there as the way of salvation.

In introducing Federal headship into the debate I was seeking to show that the scripture does inded seem to preach more than what on the surface looks like believe or be damned. I DO see in some parables what looks like annihilism taught [the talents] what is outer darkness?

Neither have I ever believed that the devil is going to have a massive crowd and God just a few shrivelled souls when all is said and done.I believe for the many.

But in federal headship God is going to hold some more accountable than others, in my understanding of scriptures.

God dealt severely with Pharoah, but the Egyptians held Moses and Aaron in high esteem.

#36 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 24 January 2010 - 10:45 AM

*
Oh Scanny I am so-o vain, I always scan a thing before getting into reading it, that comes from being an office Judy, if you read everything intently that lands on yer desk you would never get around to doing anything, so when I scan[man]ned your reply, I saw "very good commentary" and was quite chuffed~but you were not talking about me.   :(  <_<

There are other reasons why scan[mann]ing is good because you can quickly sus the grist of what is being stated, now I will appear narrow minded, and indeed I AM so, I will not invite just anybody into my home to lecture me on their beliefs [unless I am able to engage them] I do not sit and listen to TV or VID productions, if they are teaching for e.g. a doctrine of devils, then you are sat listening to a devil, or reading his book. Maybe they are just teaching erroneous doctrine [mind of man stuff] unless I have a chance to answer and witness, I will not sit and be harrangued.

I scanned the man link you gave, and saw that the author did not believe that literal truth was being presented in the parable~I reject that

So that is where I stand [I can do no other, forgive my humour, I need deliverance  :) ]

I could see you was in the universalist/annihilism camp, I feel a great unease in my spirit about those doctrines but am encouraged if they preach the cross and forgiveness there as the way of salvation.

In introducing Federal headship into the debate I was seeking to show that the scripture does inded seem to preach more than what on the surface looks like believe or be damned. I DO see in some parables what looks like annihilism taught [the talents] what is outer darkness?

Neither have I ever believed that the devil is going to have a massive crowd and God just a few shrivelled souls when all is said and done.I believe for the many.

But in federal headship God is going to hold some more accountable than others, in my understanding of scriptures.

God dealt severely with Pharoah, but the Egyptians held Moses and Aaron in high esteem.

View Post

That is fine.

Although I would really recommend the Lazarus commentary...it is a good scholarly work.

You have a beautiful Sunday...it is rainy here.

Peace

#37 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 January 2010 - 10:54 AM

Hello Scanman and Susanne,

This thread has taken a turn in the direction that I have some interest in.

I'm on my way to church, so I only have a few minutes, but I'd like to propose something for y'all to think about.

Those two passages that are mentioned here -- the rich man and Lazarus, and the sheep and goats -- I'd like to challenge you to try thinking about them in terms that they are not parables. I think it might help in our understanding of what is being said there.

In the rich man/beggar passage (Luke 16), Christ is very explicit about what is happening. He uses real names of real people in real places to illustrate a point. There is no room for misinterpretation here. That kind of detail is not normally given in parables.

Similarly, the sheep and goats passage in Matthew 25 answers a specific question from Christ's disciples about what will be in the latter days. The sheep and goats analogy is a specific answer to their question about real people doing real things in a real place at a specific time. I've expounded at length about this before, so I won't repeat myself, but just think of the possibility that this passage isn't a parable.

With that in mind, does it shed some light on the controversy?

Dave

#38 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 24 January 2010 - 02:56 PM

Hello Scanman and Susanne,

This thread has taken a turn in the direction that I have some interest in.

I'm on my way to church, so I only have a few minutes, but I'd like to propose something for y'all to think about.

Those two passages that are mentioned here -- the rich man and Lazarus, and the sheep and goats -- I'd like to challenge you to try thinking about them in terms that they are not parables. I think it might help in our understanding of what is being said there.

In the rich man/beggar passage (Luke 16), Christ is very explicit about what is happening. He uses real names of real people in real places to illustrate a point. There is no room for misinterpretation here. That kind of detail is not normally given in parables.

Similarly, the sheep and goats passage in Matthew 25 answers a specific question from Christ's disciples about what will be in the latter days. The sheep and goats analogy is a specific answer to their question about real people doing real things in a real place at a specific time. I've expounded at length about this before, so I won't repeat myself, but just think of the possibility that this passage isn't a parable.

With that in mind, does it shed some light on the controversy?

Dave

View Post

*
I think I have an inkling of what you intend Dave, have you got a link to your previous article, the fact the parable of Lazaruz was known as Lazarus and Dives [Dives means anyman] to the earliest translators might militate against that view and that the King will set the nations before Him and separate them as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
However I do believe literal truth is here.

#39 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 24 January 2010 - 03:12 PM

That is fine.

Although I would really recommend the Lazarus commentary...it is a good scholarly work.

You have a beautiful Sunday...it is rainy here.

Peace

View Post

*
The thing I worry about Scan is the develop of doctrine, once you move away from a literal translation [with all the intricate problems that poses] I mean for e.g. wots 'er name whinfield? Ofrah, I have never cared to actually read what she is putting out but fom what others say it looks ghastly.

Catholicism itself did not spring from no-where but is a gradual development over many centuries, moving further and further away from the bible although they can say with truth that what they believe is BASED on the bible, what does that mean?

So although I recognise the problems of treating the bible as literal [not that I see a bible truth I disagree with] I plump for orthodoxy and safety. I am no "hard nosed" fundy but I would rather be in their boat than in a leaky old liberal vessel.

I do not feel you are a liberal. THIS, THIS is what I see, people see the WAY hell is preach and it makes them sick to the stomache-it does me- so they want to get as far away from it as they possibly can, they don't want to be labelled with it.

It is exactly the same with predestination and Calvin, the last thing they want is to be thought Calvin so they chuck out predestination, I can't DO that.

#40 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 24 January 2010 - 03:57 PM

*
The thing I worry about Scan is the develop of doctrine, once you move away from a literal translation [with all the intricate problems that poses] I mean for e.g. wots 'er name whinfield? Ofrah, I have never cared to actually read what she is putting out but fom what others say it looks ghastly.

Catholicism itself did not spring from no-where but is a gradual development over many centuries, moving further and further away from the bible although they can say with truth that what they believe is BASED on the bible, what does that mean?

So although I recognise the problems of treating the bible as literal [not that I see a bible truth I disagree with] I plump for orthodoxy and safety. I am no "hard nosed" fundy but I would rather be in their boat than in a leaky old liberal vessel.

I do not feel you are a liberal. THIS, THIS is what I see, people see the WAY hell is preach and it makes them sick to the stomache-it does me- so they want to get as far away from it as they possibly can, they don't want to be labelled with it.

It is exactly the same with predestination and Calvin, the last thing they want is to be thought Calvin so they chuck out predestination, I can't DO that.

View Post


Tot,

Who is greater? Adam or Christ?

Who is more powerful?

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." Rom 5:12-19

If Adam brought the penalty to all men by his one action...then Jesus has cancelled the penalty for all men by his one action.

The world is a man in an unlocked prison with a blindfold on.

The debt has been paid.

The good news (gospel) is that we are free and that the kingdom of God is within us.

If someone paid off the mortgage loan on your home, and you were not aware of it...are you still in debt?

The problem, is that because you do not know, you live as if you are under the burden of the debt.

Jesus taught us that God is our Father and that our neighbors are our brothers.

Love God
Love your neighbor as yourself.

How much doctrine is needed for that?

It is all so very simple.

Where is it said that death is the demarcation for decision making?

" ...For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God." Rom 14:10,11

"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father." Phil 2:10.11

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Rom 10:9

The Pharisees and Sadducees felt orthodox and safe...the 'doctrine' of Jesus was not very comfortable.

It always feels comfortable to fit in with the majority.

Peace




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users