Search results

Notice the passage cited said nothing about "torment" for the Righteous, for the flames of God's indwelling presence is the heat/warmth of Love, a blazing fire of righteous and holy life.

Yes, the 'departing' is into the 'lake of fire' that consumes them unto ashes. They do not simply 'leave' God and go dwell somewhere forever in torment. The passage connects right back to Matthew 25, which we have already shown that "everlasting punishment" is not "torment", but "death"...

That verse is about the Righteous, not the wicked, as it is asking who then can dwell with God, the everlasting burning, the all consuming fire, not the wicked for they are stubble, devoured and burnt up unto nothing, ashes, but the righteous are indwelt by God as at the burning bush Isa 33:10...

Ok, perhaps the outward actions are simply being misjudged, is what I hear being said, ok then what about the long history and continual example?

I recall that Lucifer also had such beauteous 'robes': Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of...

Even using your Jesuit definition, for Romans 6:23 says no such thing: Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. , but again, even using your definition, God is life, and apart from Him there is no life (period); it is...

So, according to your present belief, if we think this through, teaches that all of the wicked [sinners and sin] who have ever existed, including satan himself, will have eternal existence [being sustained by God, by continuous miracle] 'Outside the gates of the New Jerusalem.....'. I assume you...

Moreso, where are the wicked "cast"? The "Lake of Fire", and where is it? How long shall it exist, into the New Heavens and New Earth? Will it always remain outside New Jerusalem? Please read these texts together, what do you see [ignore for a moment the chapter division]? Revelation 20:14...

I understand what Revelation 20:10 means in context, scripturally, for it refers to the length or period of torment for the devil, not his ending. The devil shall suffer (moment to moment), without reprieve until he is ashes. Heaven is eternal, no doubt, for God Himself is Eternal Life, and...

What is the purpose of sacred history, sacred chronology, and even the prophecy thereof? 2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 2Pe 1:20...

Ezekiel 13:22, says: Eze 13:22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: Yet, those who teach what scripture teaches, in regards the...

This just in.

I had similar thought, in regards what Roman Catholicism has on teachings and practices about 'evil spirits', 'possession' and 'exorcism'; all of which are erroneous (that is not to say that 'evil spirits', 'possession' and 'casting out' are erroneous), but speaking of what Roman Catholicism...

Yeah, I find it is explained quite neatly here: Hide & Seek (Investigative Judgment Throughout Scripture In Type) (Powerpoint) This was already posted in this section, and would like it discussed there, if any differ: Y do U believe what U believe, and do U have good reasons 4 those...

While it is true that in certain 'modern versions' the phrase "her firstborn" is omitted, this argument of Mary having more children is really a Baptist argument, and is not supported by scripture, neither the SoP/ToJ. For instance: The Spirit of Prophecy, picking up on what the Bible declares...

While it is true that in certain 'modern versions' the phrase "her firstborn" is omitted, this argument of Mary having more children is really a Baptist argument, and is not supported by scripture, neither the SoP/ToJ. For instance: Questions we can then ask of the Scripture, are: [A] Who...

While it is true that in certain 'modern versions' the phrase "her firstborn" is omitted, this argument of Mary having more children is really a Baptist argument, and is not supported by scripture, neither the SoP/ToJ. For instance: We can know that Jesus was the ‘firstborn’ of Mary, as per...

Ok, if no, how about this?

Has anyone considered this palagi's presentation? Would like the feedback, fa'afetai lava.

Is there anything I did not address in your concern by scripture study? If so, please point to it, that that concern may also be addressed in detail. Your reasoning is faulty. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I (we), acknowledge the very real and finality of hell and lake of fire, and the torment...