The Impassable Great Gulf in Hell: No legs to walk with

[robert derrick]

I've already informed you that meanings of words change over time, and we must accept what Jesus' words in Luke 16b meant at the time He spoke them, not impose an ancient meaning some devil worshiping pagan assigned centuries earlier. That's what Strong does, as well as Vine, Thayer, Weymouth, Jamieson Fawcett Brown, Henry, Clarke, etc.

Gay used to mean "happy" - do you go around preaching the love of Jesus made you gay? Why not? ;)

If I were preaching doctrine of Christ, I would say gay clothing is fine, so long as it's not used as a symbol of privilege and respect of persons.

The problem you have, is that you don't read Scripture for the true doctrine of Christ, but only use it to fit your own mind on things.

All Scripture is spiritual and doctrinal in nature. Scripture uses words of men, but not necessarily according to men's meanings: rather God uses men's known words doctrinally, to reveal His true spiritual and eternal things.

In the doctrine of Christ and His apostles, hades is only used theologically for the place of souls in the heart of the earth.

Mnemos is the only word they use to speak of dead bodies in graves and tombs.

This is the last time I will instruct you on something so plain and simple, since it is the 2nd times.

If you were reading any other book, you would just say you don't agree with the author, that is teaching there is a hades called hell in center of the earth, where departed souls go to, while leaving their dead bodies in an earthy grave.

 

[robert derrick]

So, do you agree that Paradise is up, not down?

Was one earth, then down in the earth, now up in heavenly places.

But what do you care? You don't believe it was ever down, and you don't believe in eating any of it now, while it is up.

All these things are just 'doctrinal' issues to you. All that really matters to you, is what you want to believe for yourself.

This is why I was ending our argument before, and next time, when you've run dry of anything new, I'll not return to it with you.

 

[robert derrick]

SO what greek scholar do you suggest we sit under .
The adventist one
or prosperity gospel one
or the JW one
or Catholic one
or emergent one
or liberal one
or nar one
Or maybe the OSAS greek scholar .
FOLKS take note . THEY ALL CLAIM TO KNOW GREEK and yet they all SAY THE GREEK MEANS what they SAY IT MEANS
and their greek seems to contradict one another as well .
OOPS .
NOPE . OPEN that lovely KJV bible and just learn for yourselves . AND PS if you dont know some of the older
english , I GOT TWO OLD DICTIONARIES and will be more than happy to show you what a word means . FLEE THESE SO CALLLED
scholars . THEY KNOW NOTHING but how to decieve

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

Since plenty of corrupt theologians corrupt Scripture, to teach their own false doctrine, then why can't plenty of corrupt scholars corrupt languages, to be corrupt theologians?

It's a common tactic. And here we see someone basing their teaching almost entirely on such scholarship. Even to the point, where he demands Christians put down their own Bibles, until they have sat at the classroom feet of man's Scholarship, in order to learn what is not written plainly in their own language.

And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

It's all knowledge pride, with desire to teach one's own theology.

If ancient language scholarship were really needed to understand the first principles of Christ, then everyone would be dependent solely upon the teachings of other men to be saved and justified by Christ. And when they did learn such things, it would only be as taught by those teachers.

Nimrod of Babel was the first to do so with his demand for one voice of dcotrine according to one language and scholarship. The Jews did so in the time of Jesus with the Talmud. And Catholic Christendom did so with Latin. They even referred to the 'unlearned' believers as the laity, which was from the degrading word for the common people, that were beneath the citizenry.

I learned long ago the temptation of scholarly pride, when it comes to Scripture. The mighty God has His Scriptures written plainly in any language of man on earth, so that any child can read His gospel in their own language and understand the truth of Jesus Christ for themselves.

No original language is necessary to know the doctrine of Christ, and more often then not, it is used to corrupt what is so plainly written, that even a child can understand it.

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.

And many of the scholarly wise of this world despise the plain word of God, because it's too simple. Scholars usually tend to make things more complex, and begin writing only to earth other in their professorial speech, than to teach what is simply true, that any child could understand.

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

 

[robert derrick]

The great gulf may not be in hell when you consider the pertinent locations of it and it's counterpart. Hell assumed to be within the earth, but paradise, which is also the 3rd Heaven, is in a heavenly location. So, the great gulf may be between mid earth to some heavenly realm transitioning space.

That could be true now, so that the gulf is greater than ever.

Both the tormented and Abraham's bosom were in hell, speaking with each other.

After preaching to them all in hell, Jesus lead the blessed captivity captive to heaven, so that every soul departing this earth are now in His presence, while the wicked wake up in hell.

 

[amigo de christo]

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

Since plenty of corrupt theologians corrupt Scripture, to teach their own false doctrine, then why can't plenty of corrupt scholars corrupt languages, to be corrupt theologians?

It's a common tactic. And here we see someone basing their teaching almost entirely on such scholarship. Even to the point, where he demands Christians put down their own Bibles, until they have sat at the classroom feet of man's Scholarship, in order to learn what is not written plainly in their own language.

And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

It's all knowledge pride, with desire to teach one's own theology.

If ancient language scholarship were really needed to understand the first principles of Christ, then everyone would be dependent solely upon the teachings of other men to be saved and justified by Christ. And when they did learn such things, it would only be as taught by those teachers.

Nimrod of Babel was the first to do so with his demand for one voice of dcotrine according to one language and scholarship. The Jews did so in the time of Jesus with the Talmud. And Catholic Christendom did so with Latin. They even referred to the 'unlearned' believers as the laity, which was from the degrading word for the common people, that were beneath the citizenry.

I learned long ago the temptation of scholarly pride, when it comes to Scripture. The mighty God has His Scriptures written plainly in any language of man on earth, so that any child can read His gospel in their own language and understand the truth of Jesus Christ for themselves.

No original language is necessary to know the doctrine of Christ, and more often then not, it is used to corrupt what is so plainly written, that even a child can understand it.

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.

And many of the scholarly wise of this world despise the plain word of God, because it's too simple. Scholars usually tend to make things more complex, and begin writing only to earth other in their professorial speech, than to teach what is simply true, that any child could understand.

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Its a way to also maintain control .
And if ya notice their so called greek and hebrew and whatever scholars seem to always use
their breakdown of the langauge to drive home their own POINTS . I see them do this all the time .
And their greek contradicts one anothers greek . YET it seems to justify their own agenda and belief .
THIS is nothing more than a lie to get folks to sit under them and feel as though they just cant
understand the bible WITHOUT them . AND BOY do they love to twist things and say , HEY ya dont understand the GREEK
meaning or root of the word . I heed them not and my advice is let no man do so either . We can read that KJV bible
just fine without them .

 

[Phoneman777]

I am speaking in terms of the more modern scholars not the true scholars .

Yep, these modern "scholars" hate the KJV and the Textus Receptus, as well. They refer to the corrupt Codex "Sinaiticus" and "Aleph" and others as "the better manuscripts" simply because they're older, as if "older" is equal to "better".

 

[Phoneman777]

Both the tormented and Abraham's bosom were in hell, speaking with each other.

"The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into SILENCE" says Solomon.

Why do you insist on contradicting Scripture with such foolishness as "in hell, speaking with each other" when Solomon, David, and everyone else clearly say the dead know nothing, say nothing, feel nothing, plan nothing, praise nothing, see nothing, accomplish nothing, etc???

After preaching to them all in hell, Jesus lead the blessed captivity captive to heaven, so that every soul departing this earth are now in His presence, while the wicked wake up in hell.

Jesus didn't preach to ANYBODY in hellfire. The spirit of Jesus preached to the Antediluvians before the Flood, according to the context of the verses to which you derive your nonsense.

 

[Phoneman777]

If I were preaching doctrine of Christ, I would say gay clothing is fine, so long as it's not used as a symbol of privilege and respect of persons.

The problem you have, is that you don't read Scripture for the true doctrine of Christ, but only use it to fit your own mind on things.

All Scripture is spiritual and doctrinal in nature. Scripture uses words of men, but not necessarily according to men's meanings: rather God uses men's known words doctrinally, to reveal His true spiritual and eternal things.

In the doctrine of Christ and His apostles, hades is only used theologically for the place of souls in the heart of the earth.

Mnemos is the only word they use to speak of dead bodies in graves and tombs.

This is the last time I will instruct you on something so plain and simple, since it is the 2nd times.

If you were reading any other book, you would just say you don't agree with the author, that is teaching there is a hades called hell in center of the earth, where departed souls go to, while leaving their dead bodies in an earthy grave.

You know full well why you don't go around saying "Jesus made me gay".

WORD MEANINGS CHANGE OVER TIME, AND IS WHY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO CORRECTLY UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF A WORD UNLESS WE FACTOR IN THE TIME IN HISTORY OF ITS USAGE.

 

[Phoneman777]

Was one earth, then down in the earth, now up in heavenly places.

The Tree of Life is in Paradise, which means if Paradise was down in "hell" with the Rich Man and Abraham and Lazarus, why didn't they simply eat of the Tree of Life and come back to life?

See? I can punch holes in your stupendously asinine doctrine all day long, my friend. Ever heard of Oocam's Razor?

Paradise was, is, and always will be up.

 

[Phoneman777]

Was one earth, then down in the earth,

The reason you Paradise was at the center of the Earth when Jesus died is because you don't understand Jesus' words on the Cross in Luke 23:43 KJV....and it's not your fault you don't understand, because the translators inserted an uninspired "comma" where it should not be.

Placing the comma before "today" ("I say unto you, today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise") causes total confusion - but after 1,000 years of Papal corruption and teachings about the supposed "immortal soul of man", it's no wonder why they did it.

It actually is, "I say unto today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise" which allows for the perfectly harmonious rendering of the verse as a future promise, "I say unto you today while I hang here looking like no Savior at all, you will be with Me in Paradise".

Now, since you think you know so much about Greek, you should know that the Greek word "today" ("semeron") modifies the verb that follows it only about 50 times, but modifies the verb that precedes it 170 times, so the majority use of the word "today" has the comma - if one chooses to place one - AFTER THE WORD TODAY.

There are other reasons to suggest Jesus did not go to Paradise on Friday, so please stop appealing to Luke 23:43 KJV as the final "evidence" for consciousness in death because, like Matthew 7:21-23 KJV, it is only SUPPOSED by the Immortal Soul crowd to be such, but can be shown to be nothing of the kind.

 

[robert derrick]

And if ya notice their so called greek and hebrew and whatever scholars seem to always use
their breakdown of the langauge to drive home their own POINTS .

I learned for myself, that if you have to go elsewhere than the Bible, to prove your point, then your point is just your own interpretation for your own ideas.

This especially includes original language manipulation. They will nose dive into the Greek, swim around in it for a while, and then pop back up with something completely different, than what is plainly said in our own language.

This also includes manuscript scholarship, so that whole verses can be changed or wiped out altogether.

Once God has led someone to translate the Bible in their own language, then guess what: Neither the old manuscripts nor it's language are needed anymore.

I don't have to care anymore about the Textus Receptus than I do about the Texas Rexus, in order to learn, know, believe, and do the word of God for salvation and justification by Jesus Christ

 

[robert derrick]

"The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into SILENCE" says Solomon.

Why do you insist on contradicting Scripture with such foolishness as "in hell, speaking with each other" when Solomon, David, and everyone else clearly say the dead know nothing, say nothing, feel nothing, plan nothing, praise nothing, see nothing, accomplish nothing, etc???

Jesus didn't preach to ANYBODY in hellfire. The spirit of Jesus preached to the Antediluvians before the Flood, according to the context of the verses to which you derive your nonsense.

Already responded to these. If you want to go back and show how the responses are not valid, then I'll be glad to read why.

You know full well why you don't go around saying "Jesus made me gay".

WORD MEANINGS CHANGE OVER TIME, AND IS WHY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO CORRECTLY UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF A WORD UNLESS WE FACTOR IN THE TIME IN HISTORY OF ITS USAGE.

Already responded to these. If you want to go back and show how the responses are not valid, then I'll be glad to read why.

The Tree of Life is in Paradise, which means if Paradise was down in "hell" with the Rich Man and Abraham and Lazarus, why didn't they simply eat of the Tree of Life and come back to life?

Those in Abraham's bosom were eating of it.

Those not in Paradise at the time, were tormented in the flames.

Unless you address my responses properly and fairly, or have something new, then this debate is coming to an end.

 

[amigo de christo]

I learned for myself, that if you have to go elsewhere than the Bible, to prove your point, then your point is just your own interpretation for your own ideas.

This especially includes original language manipulation. They will nose dive into the Greek, swim around in it for a while, and then pop back up with something completely different, than what is plainly said in our own language.

This also includes manuscript scholarship, so that whole verses can be changed or wiped out altogether.

Once God has led someone to translate the Bible in their own language, then guess what: Neither the old manuscripts nor it's language are needed anymore.

I don't have to care anymore about the Textus Receptus than I do about the Texas Rexus, in order to learn, know, believe, and do the word of God for salvation and justification by Jesus Christ

Take note also of the scholars . Folks like wycliff , tyndale and others
were willing to give their own lives in order to get the bible to folks to read in the common tongue
most later scholars did so to suit an agenda . FACT . THE KJV is enough for me .
Unlike most folks i actually did big research . About our own langauge as well .
The KJV is good . dont let folks lie to ya . AND while its true some of the tongue is written
in a bit older langague . ALL one has to do is pick up an old dictionary . SIMPLY TRUST IN GOD
For the most part i could understand a word even if i did not understand it by the simplicty of how it was written .
And for the most part when i looked up a word i had already understood it correctly .
The exceptions being when they made a long list of words at once like pual did . Some of those i had to look
up due to they were not used in any context of what was written , rather they were listed .
Dont let these folks fool ya into thinking we have to sit under them and their new age hort scholars . Cause
hort and wescott were FALSE MEN with agendas . NO better were they and this so called all of a sudden new text
that was discovered . I dont believe them at all . AND as you said earlier , EVEN if the text was older . They had
false beliefs trying to creep into the early church . SO just cause some writing was found early dont make it true .
STICK to the KJV . I did real research about our own langauge and the scrips . THE KJV is accurate . CANT say the same
for these newer versions . NOT at all .

 

[Phoneman777]

Already responded to these. If you want to go back and show how the responses are not valid, then I'll be glad to read why.

When the Bible plainly says the dead don't praise the Lord because they've gone down into silence and you claim the dead not only praise the Lord but can do all sorts of other things, you haven't "explained" anything, just denied truth.

Already responded to these. If you want to go back and show how the responses are not valid, then I'll be glad to read why.

When you've been shown that you can't impose the meaning of a word that is an ancient meaning to the current meaning at the time Jesus used it -- and you insist on imposing it anyway, you haven't "explained" anything - you've violated the principles of hermeneutics. Strong, Vine, Weymouth, Thayer, etc., have remained true to it.

Those in Abraham's bosom were eating of it.

Wrong!

According to your doctrine, Jesus died and went to Paradise to "preach to the spirits in prison" - therefore, since Abraham's bosom is where the saints - not spirits in prison - go when they die, that means Paradise could only have been where Rich Man and the rest of the prisoners were - in the flames!

Those not in Paradise at the time, were tormented in the flames.

Impossible because (according to your doctrine) at that time, Paradise was a place of tormenting flames because Jesus went to Paradise to preach to the "spirits in prison" while the freedom loving saints like Lazarus were not imprisoned, but comforted in Abraham's massive miles wide bosom.

Unless you address my responses properly and fairly, or have something new, then this debate is coming to an end.

Bro, I'm having too much fun launching cannonballs of truth and blowing massively wide holes in your ship of doctrinal fools ;)

 

[robert derrick]

you claim the dead not only praise the Lord but can do all sorts of other things, you haven't "explained" anything, just denied truth.

Twisting the words of others doesn't keep the debate going.

Quote me saying the dead praise the Lord.

When you've been shown that you can't impose the meaning of a word that is an ancient meaning to the current meaning at the time Jesus used it -- and you insist on imposing it anyway, you haven't "explained" anything - you've violated the principles of hermeneutics. Strong, Vine, Weymouth, Thayer, etc., have remained true to it.

Talking in circles doesn't help either. Quote my responses, and then address them accurately. I'll be glad to see it.

According to your doctrine, Jesus died and went to Paradise to "preach to the spirits in prison" - therefore, since Abraham's bosom is where the saints - not spirits in prison - go when they die, that means Paradise could only have been where Rich Man and the rest of the prisoners were - in the flames!

Idon't think it's possible for you to quote someone accurately, since you don't do so with Scripture.
1. Jesus went to hell, to preach to the spirits in prison. He didn't just go to the paradise of Abraham's bosom.

2. Jesus says Abraham's bosom was in hell, where there was water to drink. Those tormented in flames were in hell apart from His bosom.

You might try reading Scripture word for word, without inserting your own imagination into it, so you at least get the facts straight. It's why Jesus says we must always come to Him and His word as little children, not yet blinded by our own ideas about the things of God.

Impossible because (according to your doctrine) at that time, Paradise was a place of tormenting flames because Jesus went to Paradise to preach to the "spirits in prison" while the freedom loving saints like Lazarus were not imprisoned, but comforted in Abraham's massive miles wide bosom.

If you are going to address my teaching, then quote it. You have never gotten it as written. But, as I've said before, it's not surprising since you do the same with Jesus' teaching in Scriptures.

1. Paradise was in hell, not the place of tormenting flames, that were also in hell.

2. All the spirits in prison of hell, including the righteous held temporarily captive in Abraham's bosom, were preached to by Jesus. And then only the righteous captivity were led away to heaven:

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?)

And so, those with faithful Abraham were captive in hell, and led captive to heaven.

Captivity can mean in unwilling bondage and being safely preserved, and so Paul refers to himself as a prisoner of Jesus Christ.

Oh yes, this Scripture also proves Jesus Himself go into the lowest parts of the earth to preach to them, which confirms going to the heart of the earth.

No a 7' grave, that would be lower than 6'.

 

[amigo de christo]

Take note also of the scholars . Folks like wycliff , tyndale and others
were willing to give their own lives in order to get the bible to folks to read in the common tongue
most later scholars did so to suit an agenda . FACT . THE KJV is enough for me .
Unlike most folks i actually did big research . About our own langauge as well .
The KJV is good . dont let folks lie to ya . AND while its true some of the tongue is written
in a bit older langague . ALL one has to do is pick up an old dictionary . SIMPLY TRUST IN GOD
For the most part i could understand a word even if i did not understand it by the simplicty of how it was written .
And for the most part when i looked up a word i had already understood it correctly .
The exceptions being when they made a long list of words at once like pual did . Some of those i had to look
up due to they were not used in any context of what was written , rather they were listed .
Dont let these folks fool ya into thinking we have to sit under them and their new age hort scholars . Cause
hort and wescott were FALSE MEN with agendas . NO better were they and this so called all of a sudden new text
that was discovered . I dont believe them at all . AND as you said earlier , EVEN if the text was older . They had
false beliefs trying to creep into the early church . SO just cause some writing was found early dont make it true .
STICK to the KJV . I did real research about our own langauge and the scrips . THE KJV is accurate . CANT say the same
for these newer versions . NOT at all .

 

[Phoneman777]

Twisting the words of others doesn't keep the debate going. Quote me saying the dead praise the Lord.

You claim dead Abraham literally said "Lazarus is comforted" - that is a direct praise of "the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost" who has come to give us everlasting comfort. Now, to prove that you're not simply resorting to extreme pettiness, here's your opportunity to agree with me and the Psalmist that "the dead praise not the Lord".

Talking in circles doesn't help either. Quote my responses, and then address them accurately. I'll be glad to see it.

You said it's inconsequential how Greek authorities like Strong and Vine and Weymouth and others think Greek words ought to be defined because they must be defined by the ancients like Homer.

I demonstrated the idiocy of that logic by asking you why you don't go around telling everyone "Jesus made me gay!!!" -- because meanings of words change over time.

Idon't think it's possible for you to quote someone accurately, since you don't do so with Scripture.
1. Jesus went to hell, to preach to the spirits in prison. He didn't just go to the paradise of Abraham's bosom.

And you've demonstrated how impossible it is to keep doctrinal errors in line with other doctrinal errors.

"Verily, I say unto you today thou shalt be with Me in paradise".

Of course, we who are not seduced by your false ideas know that Jesus and the thief didn't go anywhere on Friday - the verse is a future promise that He and the thief would meet again at the end of time in the Resurrection of the Just.

1. Paradise was in hell, not the place of tormenting flames, that were also in hell.

What is most encouraging to me is that no thinking person will ever be seduced by such doctrinal madness. Therefore, moving forward, I hope the Holy Spirit speaks to through something I've written that will convince you to climb down from your Carousel of Compounded Doctrinal Delusion, my friend.

2. All the spirits in prison of hell, including the righteous held temporarily captive in Abraham's bosom, were preached to by Jesus. And then only the righteous captivity were led away to heaven:

Look, if Luke 16 is a literal story, then "Abraham's bosom" means Abraham's literal bosom - the same bosom that embraced Sarai, that held Isaac close before he laid down on the altar. You can't claim a passage is literal then proceed to assign symbolic interpretations to it.

Abraham's bosom, therefore, must be several miles wide to accommodate all the dead saints since Adam and Eve...I doubt anything held such a big boy "captive" LOL

 

[robert derrick]

You claim dead Abraham literally said "Lazarus is comforted" - that is a direct praise of "the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost" who has come to give us everlasting comfort.

You're almost childishly cute in your inability to understand what real debate it. I'll try again: Quote what I say, and then show how it is wrong with better reasoning. Don't insert your doctrine into what I say, and then respond to it, as though I said it.

You say, 'dead Abraham' said, because of your mortal soul theology, so that dead body means dead soul.

Abraham's living soul in Paradise said Lazarus was comforted, which is what the Lord gives account of.

Now, that Abraham's soul was not dead with his body in the grave:

Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection;

And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

God is not the God of dead mortal bodies, but of living souls. And the dead bodies will be resurrected with immortality for the living souls of the saints, that are now in the presence of the Lord in heaven.

As I said before, you are simply a modern type of Sadducee, who thinks God is the God of dead bodies and souls in a grave.

Now, to prove that you're not simply resorting to extreme pettiness, here's your opportunity to agree with me and the Psalmist that "the dead praise not the Lord".

Once again, your entrenched blindness to anything other than what you already think, inserts itself into what others say, including Scripture.

Show where I said the dead do praise the Lord?

You said it's inconsequential how Greek authorities like Strong and Vine and Weymouth and others think Greek words ought to be defined because they must be defined by the ancients like Homer.

I demonstrated the idiocy of that logic by asking you why you don't go around telling everyone "Jesus made me gay!!!" -- because meanings of words change over time.

And you've demonstrated how impossible it is to keep doctrinal errors in line with other doctrinal errors.

I've already responded to this twice. Go back, find it, quote it, then address what I said. Not what you insert into it, to make it say what you want.

"Verily, I say unto you today thou shalt be with Me in paradise".

Of course, we who are not seduced by your false ideas know that Jesus and the thief didn't go anywhere on Friday - the verse is a future promise that He and the thief would meet again at the end of time in the Resurrection of the Just.

It's peculiar, when the natural theologian refuses to accept plain words in their natural meaning, if they don't like them. And so they all of sudden get all spiritual about how 'this day' does not really mean today, but is some this day in the future.

This Scripture also shows that Jesus when to hell, and then also went into Paradise of Abraham's bosom to fellowship with them for however long, before rising again and leading their captivity captive with Him to heaven.

What is most encouraging to me is that no thinking person will ever be seduced by such doctrinal madness. Therefore, moving forward, I hope the Holy Spirit speaks to through something I've written that will convince you to climb down from your Carousel of Compounded Doctrinal Delusion, my friend.

He has. I am seeing firsthand how common intelligence can be done away with, in order to believe one's own imagination.

I am also seeing how hard it is to lead such people to normal rules of honest debate, without them inserting their own imagination into what others say, and then acting like they said.

It's the same thing done with God's words in Scripture.

Look, if Luke 16 is a literal story, then "Abraham's bosom" means Abraham's literal bosom - the same bosom that embraced Sarai, that held Isaac close before he laid down on the altar. You can't claim a passage is literal then proceed to assign symbolic interpretations to it.

You see therefore, how you refuse to read any Scripture, without your own doctrine of mortal souls applied to it by you?

I don't even think you can understand that simple fact. You are so completely solidified into what you want to think about the nature of the soul, that you don't even know how to acknowledge someone else teaches differently, which includes Scripture.

The soul of Abraham was literally being rested in by Lazarus, when the rich man spoke in the flames of hell. Lazarus was too busy resting in Abraham's bosom, to bother with responding for himself.

Abraham's bosom, therefore, must be several miles wide to accommodate all the dead saints since Adam and Eve...I doubt anything held such a big boy "captive" LOL

The mind of the natural theologian loves to apply natural thinking to spiritual things, so as to then conclude how ridiculous it is to do so.

It doesn't occur to you, that you make Scripture and other peoples' words sound ridiculous, only because you are applying your imagination to it: it's not scripture and teaching of Scripture that is ridiculous, but your imagination inserted into it.

Scripture only says that Lazarus was at that time in Abraham's bosom.

As I suggested before: read the words actually written, without inserting yourself into them, so you can at least get the facts straight, before trying to make a joke out of them.

That applies to Scripture first, and then to anyone's teaching of Scripture.

 

[Phoneman777]

You're almost childishly cute in your inability to understand what real debate it. I'll try again: Quote what I say, and then show how it is wrong with better reasoning. Don't insert your doctrine into what I say, and then respond to it, as though I said it.

I've been trying but you keep calling "black" as "white".

You say, 'dead Abraham' said, because of your mortal soul theology, so that dead body means dead soul.

Because the Bible says souls die - why can't you understand that "death" means exactly what it is: "the cessation of life"?

Abraham's living soul in Paradise said Lazarus was comforted, which is what the Lord gives account of.

Now, that Abraham's soul was not dead with his body in the grave:

A "living soul" is comprised of a body and the breath of life. When Abraham died, the Spirit returned to God, his body returned to the Earth, and "in that very day his thoughts perish" says the Psalmist.

You keep arguing the opposite is true: that Abraham continues to live and thoughts continue to swirl around in his head. I'll keep pointing people to the truth as long as you keep posting errors, friend.

God is not the God of dead mortal bodies, but of living souls. And the dead bodies will be resurrected with immortality for the living souls of the saints, that are now in the presence of the Lord in heaven.Is I said before, you are simply a modern type of Sadducee, who thinks God is the God of dead bodies and souls in a grave.

William Tyndale rightly accused Catholic Sir Thomas Moore of "stealing away Christ's argument wherewith He proveth the resurrection" by attributing Christ's words about "God of the living" to the false, pagan idea that dead people go immediately to heaven or hell at death.

"Will a man rob God? Yet, you have robbed Me."

Show where I said the dead do praise the Lord?

You said it implicitly - because you claim dead Abraham literally said, "Lazarus is comforted", a praiseworthy statement showing God fulfills His promises.

I've already responded to this twice. Go back, find it, quote it, then address what I said. Not what you insert into it, to make it say what you want.

You said, "I don't care what Strong says..." I showed you why you should care.

It's peculiar, when the natural theologian refuses to accept plain words in their natural meaning, if they don't like them. And so they all of sudden get all spiritual about how 'this day' does not really mean today, but is some this day in the future.

Of course it means "a day in the future" because the thief on the Cross would "sleep the sleep of death" and not wake "until Thy wrath be past" in the Resurrection of the Just AT THE END OF TIME.

This Scripture also shows that Jesus when to hell, and then also went into Paradise of Abraham's bosom to fellowship with them for however long, before rising again and leading their captivity captive with Him to heaven.Ar

"Paradise of Abraham's bosom"?

The "Immortal Soul" crowd claims the Rich Man and Lazarus is a LITERAL PASSAGE...then we point out Abraham's bosom would have to be miles wide to accommodate all the dead saints...and just like that, you guys make "Abraham's bosom" SYMBOLIC, right?

We call that "wanting to have your cake and eat it too".

I am seeing firsthand how common intelligence can be done away with, in order to believe one's own imagination.

You're the one referring to all kinds of things that aren't in the Bible!

I am also seeing how hard it is to lead such people to normal rules of honest debate, without them inserting their own imagination into what others say, and then acting like they said.

One of the primary rules in a Bible debate is "stick to the Bible" and not make up stuff. The idea that "Abraham's bosom" is a place and not a part of his anatomy is so unbelievably foreign to Scripture that any mention of it should be a disqualification.

It's the same thing done with God's words in Scripture. You see therefore, how you refuse to read any Scripture, without your own doctrine of mortal souls applied to it by you?

Because that's the only kind of souls that exist: MORTAL. You and I are to "SEEK FOR GLORY, HONOR, AND IMMORTALITY" which means you and I ain't got it yet and the wicked don't get it at all. They gonna "pass away" and "not be" and be among the former things that are "passed away".

 

[robert derrick]

I've been trying but you keep calling "black" as "white".

You haven't once quoted me and then responded to the words accurately. Even a child wouldn't call that 'trying'.

William Tyndale rightly accused Catholic Sir Thomas Moore of "stealing away Christ's argument wherewith He proveth the resurrection" by attributing Christ's words about "God of the living" to the false, pagan idea that dead people go immediately to heaven or hell at death.

Christ proved the resurrection of the dead, by showing the God of the living was for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were therefore alive, while their bodies were dead.

I suppose I could look up Tyndale trying to preach natural theology of mortal souls, but since you are the one saying so, then you most likely misquote him too. If he did, then he did good work in translating Scripture away from Catholic latinized versions, but also apparently taught some false doctrine.

If you are representing him rightly, which I doubt.

You said it implicitly - because you claim dead Abraham literally said, "Lazarus is comforted", a praiseworthy statement showing God fulfills His promises.

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

There is no 'dead Abraham', other than his dead body waiting to be resurrected from the dead.

You speak as a Sadducee.

This is the second and last correction on this point.

Of course it means "a day in the future" because the thief on the Cross would "sleep the sleep of death" and not wake "until Thy wrath be past" in the Resurrection of the Just AT THE END OF TIME.

Of course, you continue to insert your own doctrine into Scripture, and so change what it plainly says, into something it doesn't mean.

It's more example of you parabolizing the truth into a lie.

You said it implicitly - because you claim dead Abraham literally said, "Lazarus is comforted", a praiseworthy statement showing God fulfills His promises.

Your dead Abraham is not God's living Abraham.

God is the God of the living, not of the dead. That is why He calls Himself the God of saints, while there bodies are in the grave.

This is the last admonition of Scripture I'll offer to you.

The "Immortal Soul" crowd claims the Rich Man and Lazarus is a LITERAL PASSAGE...then we point out Abraham's bosom would have to be miles wide to accommodate all the dead saints...

you point out what any carnal thinker would.

Natural mindedness is the natural man's refusal to accept anything, that is not defined by naturally mortal things on earth.

One of the primary rules in a Bible debate is "stick to the Bible" and not make up stuff.

And not calling parable and symbolic, what is not written as such.

Because that's the only kind of souls that exist: MORTAL. You and I are to "SEEK FOR GLORY, HONOR, AND IMMORTALITY" which means you and I ain't got it yet and the wicked don't get it at all.

We seek immortality of the body, by the resurrection of the dead.

We seek spiritual immortality with honor before God, rather than shame away from God.

We either have that glory and honor to be with Jesus forever now, or we don't:

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.

Where the glory and honor of God for well-doing is, there is also immortality with Him, that will not end in the grave:

Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

And if we depart this life without Jesus dwelling within our souls, then our immortality will be everlasting torment without Him.

Do you have Jesus Christ dwelling within your soul now?