11 Sep 14
Originally posted by sonshipfor the thousandth time, you don't prove the negative.
For those who fail to blame Jesus Christ for the New Testament's depiction of God's wrath upon the unreconciled, here is your own thread to prove He never taught about eternal punishement.
Please go light on links and Youtubes and go heavier on your research.
Quotations of other Bible scholars' views is ok with me.
it is for you to prove he did.
all he said was "you only get saved through me". that could mean "you only get the heaven VIP membership through me, but nice muslims and atheists also get into heaven". it could mean "you only get saved if you adhere to the jesus philosophy" which basically says "don't be a dick".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Sep 14
7 edits
Originally posted by divegeester
Thanks, and yes the false doctrine of eternal torment and suffering is revolting isn't it.
That eloquent assertion of yours is not proving "Jesus Never Taught of Eternal Punishment".
Even putting aside proving conclusively, your bare preferential assertion doesn't even much evidence, that certain words were not spoken by Christ.
I don't see the relevance of the rest of your post to this debate. Did you read the article in the link posted by checkbaiter? There is a lot more that just "argument by revulsion" in there for you to consider.
No. I did not read the article. I asked that we go light on links to articles and YouTubes in the OP.
You have repeatedly voiced your disgust about Revelaton 14:9-11.
The passage disturbs probably most of us.
The point is that if we are Christians we are in the process of being fully conformed to Christ. If you have not realized that, then you fail to get the point.
Each regenerated person, born of God with Christ's indwelling life is destined to become like Christ. You should have tasted by now SOME amount of conformity to the mind, will and emotion of your Lord.
If you are truly His you have a destination to become like Him.
1,) Either the New Testament contains a false prediction -
"And another angel ... saying in a loud voice, If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the fury of God, which is mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath and he shall be tormented in fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb. And the smoke of their tormenting goes up forever and ever ... etc. etc. and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image and whoever receives the mark of his name." (See Rev. 14:9-11)
2.) Or you protest that you do not want to be conformed to the image of this Person.
It is to this One, said to be observing with His holy angels the "undiluted" wrath of God upon these irreconcilable companions of Antichrist, that we are being conformed.
If there is a distance between His feeling about this and your feeling about this, it only proves that you have some distance of transformation yet to go. Your feeling, if not today, will one day be His feeling about this eternal punishment of those enemies.
He doesn't change. - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes, even forever." (Hebrews 13:7)
If we are those regenerated of God, indwelt with the Spirit of Christ, we HAVE to be changed to become "conformed" to Him.
"Because , those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Romans 8:29)
I am asking you which is your position ? Is Revelation 14:9-11 subject to being extricated from the New Testament cannon ?
Or are you going to protest that you refuse to be conformed eventually to the image of the Son of God ? That is refuse because the prospect of having the same feeling as the Lamb has there observing divine vengeance on the worshipers of the Antichrist, you refuse to become like ?
Do you still not understand the question ?
Please do not dodge the question behind a pretense of not understanding it.
11 Sep 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf you can't prove your negative, then you should not make your negative statement.
for the thousandth time, you don't prove the negative.
it is for you to prove he did.
all he said was "you only get saved through me". that could mean "you only get the heaven VIP membership through me, but nice muslims and atheists also get into heaven". it could mean "you only get saved if you adhere to the jesus philosophy" which basically says "don't be a dick".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
for the thousandth time, you don't prove the negative.
it is for you to prove he did.
Why cannot one prove a negative ?
I'd be glad to see evidence that some New Testament textural criticism can demonstrate that words such as those in Matthew 25:41-46 were not in the original Greek texts.
As Christians our constitution is the canon of the New Testament.
What can we do if the words are there in the New Testament ?
1.) We can prove or demonstrate the words should not be there based on sound textural analysis.
2.) We can admit the words are there but embark on interpreting away the meaning to mean something more to our acceptance.
3.) We can be followers of Jesus but REFUSE or at least PROTEST to God about some aspects of His nature and the nature of Christ the Son of God.
I may be horrified at something the Son of God said. But I will not always be horrified if I am His child. My destination is to be conformed to the image of God's Son.
His feeling will be in me.
His attitude will be in me.
His viewpoint is destined to be mine.
If I do not feel as He does today I will feel as He does tomorrow or the next day or the next year or the next age.
Eventually I will be conformed to His image. The distance between my feeling about Jesus and the will of His Father can only shrink until I am transformed in mind to Him.
"And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect." (Romans 12:2)
My destiny, and divigester's destiny if he is a born again Christian, is to be renewed in the mind to think as Jesus thinks.
Every saved person will have a rendezvous with the attitudes, tastes, opinions of the Son of God -
"Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29)
If Christ will be satisfied to gaze upon the eternal torment of the followers of Antichrist, if not today, someday I also will share His opinion about this undiluted punishment of the followers of Antichrist. The same goes for divigester.
If Jesus Christ deems it "the will of God" there concerning their eternal torment, is "good and well pleasing and perfect" some day divigester will be transformed in mind, conformed in soul to have the same viewpoint.
It is OK to go to God with your controversies and confess that you do not want to be like Jesus Christ. He can deal with your reluctance of you come to Him for help.
It appears instead of doing this divigester is aiming his reluctance to share Christ's viewpoint by launching scathing criticisms of fellow Christians. It is not our fault what the New Testament predicts Jesus will observe -
"He also shall drink of the wine of the fury of God, which is mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath; and he shall be tormented in fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb.
And the smoke of their tormenting goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:910-11)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Sep 14
1 edit
all he said was "you only get saved through me". that could mean "you only get the heaven VIP membership through me,
The passage you allude to in John 14:65 says nothing about going to heaven. It does speak about the house of God being prepared for us. The "place" to which no one can come except through Jesus is a Person as a place.
It is to come into the Father and the Father to come into us for the building of the corporate house of God. No ones comes to the Father except through the Son of God Jesus, the "Me" there.
By the way the, the WAY we come to this living place of the living God as a "place" is by conformation and transformation. So we are becoming the place to which we are going. We become the Father's house as the enlargement of Christ.
but nice muslims and atheists also get into heaven". it could mean "you only get saved if you adhere to the jesus philosophy" which basically ..."
At the moment my exhange with divi has NOT about who, how many, what statistics of saved verses unsaved are there. That is not my line of questioning at the moment.
Right now I have taken the very passage he repeatedly points to as being the most offensive, Revelation 14:9-11. I have pointed out that the attitude of Jesus Christ there will eventually be his own after we have been conformed to the image of the Son of God.
From inside "the Father's house" he can only share the Son's attitude, taste, opinion, and same desire for the Divine Will to be carried out.
Read my keyboard. Better yet read the New Testament.
"We shall be LIKE HIM ..." (1 John 3:2)
Through transformation, conformation, sanctification we Christians will be LIKE HIM. If we recoil now and admit "We are not like Him, at least as He is in Revelation 14:9-11" we SHALL not be unlike Him forever.
" Beloved, now are will children of God, and it has not yet been manifested what we will be. But we know that if He is manifested, we will be like Him because we will see Him even as He is." (1 John 3:2)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Sep 14
2 edits
Divigeester, I look forward to your reply about being conformed to the image of Christ.
We Christians are exhorted to love what Jesus loves and hate what Jesus hates. To the church in Ephesus Jesus says also -
"But this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." (Rev. 2:6)
Now I can understand that as a Christian is on the ROAD of transformation he admits " In this matter I realize I still do not see it the way Jesus sees it."
But you have to realize that you will love what He loves and you eventually will hate what He hates. And if He so hates the followers of Antichrist that He stands there with His holy angels to observe their torment which is to be forever, you and I will one day agree with His hatred of the followers of Antichrist.
Do you agree or do you not agree?
Or do you claim Revelation 14 is not an authentic portion of our New Testament document ?
Now perhaps you will retort that that passage only refers to the followers of Antichrist as to such details. Perhaps. However, the PLACE in which they are assigned seems to be the PLACE where each one whose name is for ANY reason NOT recorded in the book of life, also go.
You cannot deny that though each case's details are elaborated upon, at least the overall impression is that the PLACE of eternal fire, the lake of fire, is to be avoided.
Arguing about how terrible the punishing everlasting fire is does not effect that Jesus spoke of it. And if not today, someday, we will fully love what Jesus loves and hate what Jesus hates.
Are you going to resist God transforming you to hate what Jesus hates ?
13 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI think I've answered them but perhaps we are talking about different things and I'd hate you to think that I was in any way scared of you questions.
You side stepped the questions by not giving a direct answer, but instead give a definition that you claim answers the questions.
Please ask you questions again and I will be happy to address them directly.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
13 Sep 14
Divegeester, I would not be suprised that God will keep the lost occupied with their suffering in order to restrict them from carrying on further crimes.
Otherwise, this place where God has given to all those who want nothing to do with God, would be a place of the endless fermentation of crimes against one another.
Satan will be there lying and trying to convince all the ones with him that he STILL has a scheme to get out and overthrow God. Demons, fallen angels, and sinners will ever be prone to commit sins against each other.
Perhaps God's way to restrict them is to keep them all too occupied with their own suffering.
Originally posted by sonshipNo, there is at least one other option open to Christians. And that is to use our God-given brain.
As Christians our constitution is the canon of the New Testament.
What can we do if the words are there in the New Testament ?
1.) We can prove or demonstrate the words should not be there based on sound textural analysis.
2.) We can admit the words are there but embark on interpreting away the meaning to mean something more to our acceptance. least PROTEST to God about some aspects of His nature and the nature of Christ the Son of God.
The three options you list apply to Fundamentalists who assert that every single word in the Bible is actively and purposefully inspired by God Himself. If that were so, you would be correct - but also in deep trouble.
Jesus Himself said that the Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life", meaning that in EVERY context, it is far more important to get the GENERAL PRINCIPLE, rather than a specific literal meaning.
There are many, many examples of clear discrepancies and contradictions in the literal words, that this should be obvious, but clearly is not.
Just some examples - do you really believe that God "repented that he made man" in Gen. 6, almost like: Oops, I'm sorry, I made a mistake! And then in several occasions where (in giving instructions to people to kill entire nations that did horrible things) that "it did not enter into my mind" that they would do this?
I would suggest that in dealing with difficult scriptures, there is an Option 4 for Christians: Realise that everything was written by people just like you and me (as Peter points out) and that WE DO MAKE MISTAKES! Sometimes we do not hear right!
This is where you will obviously say, NO, there were no mistakes. But neither one of us can prove it. I am just arguing from the practical point of view that where there ARE clear discrepancies, it CANNOT point to a literal inspiration.
Any single verse, whether on hellfire or whatever, MUST be taken in consideration with the ENTIRE message of the Bible.
For example, to come back to my original problems about clear violations of God's character, I can and do ascribe it to the writer, who allowed his personal inclination to sway his judgement and write down not what was TRUE, but what he THOUGHT to be true.
Finally, Jesus throughout his ministry fought against a literal interpretation of Scripture. (It has been said to them of old.......but I say unto you...)
His worst antagonists where always the literalists!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJust
No, there is at least one other option open to Christians. And that is to use our God-given brain.
The three options you list apply to Fundamentalists who assert that every single word in the Bible is actively and purposefully inspired by God Himself. If that were so, you would be correct - but also in deep trouble.
Jesus Himself said that [b]the Lette ...[text shortened]... of old.......but I say unto you...)[/i]
His worst antagonists where always the literalists!
No, there is at least one other option open to Christians. And that is to use our God-given brain.
That's just sarcasm Caljust.
What's your other option. I'm listening.
The three options you list apply to Fundamentalists who assert that every single word in the Bible is actively and purposefully inspired by God Himself. If that were so, you would be correct - but also in deep trouble.
This sounds like the Thomas Jefferson approach which I think I alluded to.
He pulled out what he didn't think Jesus did or said and made for himself a custom Bible.
I can decide Jesus DID speak of forgiveness, pardon, reconciliation to God and DID NOT mention anything about anything about unpleasant matters. But the result will be very arbitrary.
Jesus Himself said that the Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life",
That was Jesus speaking as the Holy Spirit through the inspired letter of Second Corinthians -
"Who has also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, ministers not of the letter but of the Spirit, for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor. 3:6)
I agree that Christ is speaking through the Apostle Paul.
meaning that in EVERY context, it is far more important to get the GENERAL PRINCIPLE, rather than a specific literal meaning.
I believe in the inspiration of Scripture. And I believe there are different kinds of utterances including symbolic, parabolic, analogy, straight teaching, history, even quoting of Pagan poets and refering to mythology.
The problem is that even given all these, open eyed intelligent rejection of the Son of God seems to still have the most negative results.
Appealing to symbolism doesn't really reduce my sense of alarm, all things considered.
Now I will have to continue latter.
I do want to see the rest of your thoughts.
15 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustI think you'll find sonship doesn't make "mistakes".
I would suggest that in dealing with difficult scriptures, there is an Option 4 for Christians: Realise that everything was written by people just like you and me (as Peter points out) and that WE DO MAKE MISTAKES!
Finally, Jesus throughout his ministry fought against a literal interpretation of Scripture. (It has been said to them of old.......but I say unto you...)
His worst antagonists where always the literalists!
Good post by the way.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJust
There are many, many examples of clear discrepancies and contradictions in the literal words, that this should be obvious, but clearly is not.
If you think you can show a contradictio0n or discrepancy which reduces the sense of alarm at the seriousness of opened eyed and intelligent rejection of the Son of God, what is it ?
I notice some paradoxes in the Bible and some things difficult to reconcile. These do not reduce the general sense of the awful consequences of refusing the Son of God with open eyes and deliberateness.
Just some examples - do you really believe that God "repented that he made man" in Gen. 6, almost like: Oops, I'm sorry, I made a mistake! And then in several occasions where (in giving instructions to people to kill entire nations that did horrible things) that "it did not enter into my mind" that they would do this?
Two examples are given.
On the first I believe we would not understand Redemption if we did NOT understand that in some sense God "repented" for the mess fallen man had made.
To me the whole plan of redemption is not intelligible if we do not realize in some sense God has to clean up something He is sorry has happened.
In the second instance, I only recall on the top of my head that God used a nation to discipline Israel on an occasion. And then He rebuked them because they went too far. And they did things which were not in His mind to for them to do.
Yes, I believe this.
Remember when David was asked by God to select one of three disciplines as punishment, what did he say? He said in essence "Let me fall into the hands of God because He is merciful. But do not let me fall into the hands of man."
So God's discipline is measured, righteous, appropriate. Man's punishment is often purely self serving and unrighteous.
None of these issues is enough to reduce the overall sense of dread at the thought of open eyed and intelligent rejection of God or the Son of God in all deliberateness.
I would suggest that in dealing with difficult scriptures, there is an Option 4 for Christians: Realise that everything was written by people just like you and me (as Peter points out) and that WE DO MAKE MISTAKES! Sometimes we do not hear right!
If you are attempting to portray my view as "Dictaphone" type of inspiration, I am not the right object of your criticism. I fully acknowledge that the flavor, the style, the personalities and other cultural aspects come through in many books of the Bible.
Still mysteriously, Inspiration, was at work. It need not mean that they had a Dictaphone. There are some "Thus says the Lord" which show inspiration. But there are also passages where Paul says "I give my opinion" which are also under inspiration.
Further more we have a three sides to this triangle of God speaking to man.
We have the inspired word of God.
We have the Holy Spirit to GUIDE us into the truth.
And we have the mature men of God, apostles and prophets, to help us to see what should be emphasized at certain times.
Like in physics - Time, Motion, and Space work together in an inseparable coordination. So with the spiritual truths we have God's Word, and God's living Spirit, and people of God coordinating together.
Sure - Judas went and hanged himself. But automatic imitation of what Judas did JUST because it is in the Bible can be wrong. We need not only the written Scripture but the living Spirit of God which gives life, and the men of God matured and experienced, to help us to detect the truth to live by.
This is where you will obviously say, NO, there were no mistakes. But neither one of us can prove it. I am just arguing from the practical point of view that where there ARE clear discrepancies, it CANNOT point to a literal inspiration.
One man's "discrepency" often turns out to be a man's immaturity.
When we are talking about an Eternal and All-inclusive Person we are bound to see different sides of that totally rounded personality. That God is love and the God is just are not discrepancies. They are varied aspects of One uncreated and eternal Person.
That God loves to the uttermost the sinner yet hates to the uttermost rebellion and sin, is no discrepancy.
That He came in Christ to die for out salvation yet will not FORCE us to accept it, is no discrepancy.
And that He'd desire that we would pray "Your will be done" is no discrepancy with Him finally saying to the unreconciled follower of Satan - "Okay then. Your will be done."
Appeals to symbolism do not for me REDUCE the sense of dread at remaining unreconciled to God.
And appeals to problematic paradoxes in Scripture do not dull that sense of the awfulness of following the Devil to the end.
And appeals to cultural elements or different authors' style or individualistic flavor do nothing much to soften the sense of dread at rebelling against the Son of God to the end.
What God wants to communicated is done so in many different ways. So if ONE instance is obscure, there is hard to avoid clarity in another passage.
And this would go for the pleasant as well as the unpleasant truths of Scripture.
Any single verse, whether on hellfire or whatever, MUST be taken in consideration with the ENTIRE message of the Bible.
Still, doing so, the thought of open eyed intelligent rejection of God and Christ carry dreadful consequences. How do you know that appealing to ENTIRE Bible rather does not actually heighten the sense of the seriousness of rejection God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself ?
I think running to hide from eternal punishment in "the entire Bible" backfires on the Universalism and Annihilation more often than not.
I heard only one good argument from someone who refered to two passages. One says that God desires all men to be saved and come to the full knowledge of the truth. And the other says that God will fulfill all His desire.
I thought it was a pretty good argument. But the closing scenes we see of eternity with New Jerusalem, the surrounding preserved nations, and the lost in the second death of the lake of fire, make it very hard to think He has not fulfilled all His desire.
He desires ALL men to be saved. And He will fulfill ALL of His desire. I guess the operative word phrase there is "ALL His desire" . That is not just an part, an aspect, but ALL. Apparently that includes that Satan and all unreconciled followers of Satan be punished forever.
What is non-existent cannot be thought to be punished forever.
Only what exists can be viewed as being punished forever.
15 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustMaybe there is yet another possibility. Perhaps God inspired them to write what they heard and believed to be true at the time for several purposes. One purpose might be so we could discuss and argue over the meaning for our instruction and learning. Another so that Jesus would have something to correct or expand on and therefore speak as one having authority over the word and shame the lawyers and religious leaders of the time.
No, there is at least one other option open to Christians. And that is to use our God-given brain.
The three options you list apply to Fundamentalists who assert that every single word in the Bible is actively and purposefully inspired by God Himself. If that were so, you would be correct - but also in deep trouble.
Jesus Himself said that [b]the Lette ...[text shortened]... of old.......but I say unto you...)[/i]
His worst antagonists where always the literalists!
Notice that when Jesus said, "It has been said to them of old.......but I say unto you..." that He made the law more strict concerning the heart of the matter. For example, to lust after another women other than your wife is committing adultry in your heart.
15 Sep 14
Originally posted by sonshipThese are two nonsense sentences. Im sure many, many, many readers here see the foolishness you constantly write but because they have been 'in bed' with you for years they lack the objectivity to correct you.
... What is non-existent cannot be thought to be punished forever.
Only what exists can be viewed as being punished forever.
A country can deport someone for 10 years or for ever, and the difference is obvious.
Death can be also be both temporary or forever. The death of the saints of Christ is referred to as 'asleep in Christ'. There are some who will never awake from that sleep. Theirs is a permanent sleep. There are some who will be resurrected to be punished since their sins were so grevious. Nobody will experience eternal torment except for the three mentioned in Revelation.
You like to equate an eternal fire with eternal torment. Here is Jude on what happened to Sodom and Gomorrha, They all died. They were not tormented forever, yet the fire was referred as eternal.
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
How do you explain that?