Blotted out of The Book Of Life?

[Taken]

I actually would say that what you are saying is wrong,

Disagree, speaking as a Converted person.

or maybe half true.

Depends on where one is standing.

Still in sin, unconverted?
....the man only has logic and reasoning to depend on.
Converted, He dwelling in the person?
....the man now has Pure TRUTH, and no need to logically conclude "between this and that".

God wants us to use Our Logic and reason.

Logic comes from the Carnal MIND.
Remember the Carnal MIND is against God.
God want you to depend on your Carnal Mind, after His Truth is Indwelling?
Disagree.

You are putting forward the debate of FAITH VS REASON.

If that were True, I would have been the one to say that was my intent and doing. I didn't.

But really you NEED both. If you only have faith and no reasoning, that's unbiblical. I'll show you:
'Consider (think over) what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things.' 2 Timothy 2:7
He asks them who are Reading his letter to think over what he says. What do we use to think? Our brain. You have to make it reason in Our minds. But the other crucial point you are talking about is the faith part: "And may the LORD give you understanding in all Things." You also need the Lord to make you understand it. You cannot understand it only by Logic and reason you also the to ask Him to help you understand it. It is the same the other way round. You cannot understand it only by faith, you need to think about it in Your own mind, and ask God to help you to get it by His revelation and His understanding. So really we need the Balance between the two Things we are talking about. There is a Balance here, not one or the other.
You cannot read the Word of God, for example as Paul Writes in his second letter to Timothy only by trying to understand it With Your mind. You can understand bits, but you NEED God to reveal it to you, unless you wil never understand it truly. You van neither just leave it to faith and His understanding. Because then you will not read the Word, you will just leave it to His revelation. You need BOTH to understand His Word. And therefore it is not wrong to use Logic or reason, but of course we also need an understanding from the Lord also, a revelation.

You have laid out an argument with YOUR WORDS, saying Reason VS Faith, then you argue against that.

Why tell me? I never presented such a debated.

You introduced "Understanding".
I have spoken at length on "Understanding".

Men can and do ... reason and weigh options and logically conclude From the options how they individually decide with their MIND what is their truth.

God has offered us His TRUTH. It is not an "option" and "weighing" maybe this is truth and that is not.
The mans Option is to simply Trust to believe ALL He says is Truth....or Not.

A converted man, ACCEPTS ALL He says as TRUTH...There is no weighing, logically concluding .... this is True and that is Not.

And Absolutely men CAN use their MIND to guess, pick what makes sense to their MIND.

And Absolutely Converted men HAVE A Direct 24-7 advantage of being able to ASK the Lord Himself What is the Understanding of His OWN Word.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Enoch111]

I didn't make this up, biblical theologians did. I do believe they know more than we do.

Many Christians put theologians and scholars on pedestals and that's what gets them into trouble. But the sad fact is that theologians have often done more harm than good with their ideas. Take Calvinism as an example. It is a total distortion of Gospel truth, yet hundreds of thousands of Christians believe it, and you could not get them to give it up no matter what you said, or which Scripture you quoted. Calvin trumps the Bible every time.

 

[Phoneman777]

As I said, your example is flawed as you ignore the spirit of man.

Your "spirit of man" point has nothing to do with what is the Body, the Breath of Life, and the Soul, and the Biblically defined relationship between the three, which we seem to agree on below.

God created the body out of dust. God breathed into that body His breath of life. The combination of the body and God's breath of life produced the soul. But the body is not the soul. And the breath of life is not the soul. The combination of body and God's breath are the soul.

I absolutely agree to the fullest with that statement, because its exactly what Genesis 2:7 teaches.

But the three ingredients remain distinct to God though they combine in one person.

There are no "three ingredients". There are "two ingredients" (I say "components") - the Body and the Breath/Spirit, and the Soul is the resulting "whole" of the union of the two components and exists only as a consequence of this union of the two components.

That there is body, soul, and spirit, I have showed you but you wish to deny.

I'll give you a bazillion dollars if you can point to where I denied that.

If (Heb. 4:12) proves your position, why didn't you show how?

Hebrews 4:12 is a wonderful example of a Hebrew Chiasm where the "Soul" is whole from which one of its components - the Spirit - can be divided, just as the "Joints" is the whole from which the component - "marrow-containing bone"- can be divided. Proof that the "Soul" and the "Spirit" are two diff things, which Biblical distinction Christians today seem to have no desire to make, and leave themselves vulnerable to false ideas.

To claim you know more about the correct punishment of the wicked than God does, is making yourself holier than God.

I don't appreciate your continuous accusation of "claiming to know more than God" especially when I said previously that I do not. Please stop doing so.

And God is clear that it is an eternal punishment.

Yes, the punishment is eternal - in its result, not its process. What's the punishment of the wicked? Death, which is the cessation of life, not a continuation of it.

See also, (Rev. 14:10-11) "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God...and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image...."

You need to do a study on the word "forever" - "aionios". Greek and Hebrew authorities admit that "Olan" and "Aionios" sometimes means "eternal" and other times means "all the days of life", with the former usually referring to the things pertaining to God and the latter to things pertaining to men. There are several verses in Scripture where "forever" is used in connection with events that have already ended. Therefore, the true meaning of "forever" in Revelation 14:10-11 relies on a proper understanding of other verses which deal with death/eternal reward that are free from such ambiguity.

The rich man and Lazarus in (Luke 16:19-31) is not a parable. Jesus Christ is telling a true story that only He could know. If you think you can pick it apart, go ahead.

The reason why you Eternal Torment people insist that the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable is that you know that you cannot substantiate a doctrine - namely "Eternal Torment" - on an uninterpreted parable. A literal story requires no interpretation to make sense, but parables, which often utilize things that cannot and do not happen in real experience, of necessity must be interpreted to make sense and/or agree with other truths of Scripture, which left uninterpreted would cause contradictions. The reasons for why this is a parable are:

1) it is found in the midst of several parables contained in Luke 15, 16, and the beginning of 17, yet we are to believe that God would abruptly shift from all those parabolic stories to a "literal account of the deaths of two men" and then back to parables? God is not the author of confusion.

2) it begins just like other parables in Luke 14, 15, and 16: "There was a certain man..." The use of the proper name "Lazarus" is claimed to be "evidence" that this is a literal passage for "no other parables contain a proper name" - a correlation that is supported by nothing but popular consensus and zero Biblical support. A far more plausible explanation for the use of "Lazarus" is found in the last words of Abraham in this parable: "If they will not believe Moses and the prophets, they will not believe though one rise from the dead". When a literal man named "Lazarus" was raised from the dead, did they believe what Moses and the prophets said Who Jesus was - the Messiah? No, they refused to believe, though one rose from the dead, and went away to "take counsel how they might destroy Him".

3) it contains elements that even a blind man can see are symbolic in need of interpretation:
Abraham's bosom - why so much debate over the interpretation of this if the passage is literal?

• Is Abraham's literal bosom large enough to receive and retain all the righteous who've ever died? How big can it be?
• If these are what is often referred to as the "disembodied souls" of two literal men that have died, then why do they have body parts - eyes, tongues, and fingers? Since the Bible teaches that the dead do not receive bodies until the resurrection, how can it be that these two men have bodies when no resurrection has taken place, as evidenced by the "five brothers" who are yet able to heed a given warning? If the story is literal, Jesus spoke contrary to Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, but if it is a parable, well, no problem.
• it is not logical to conclude that a man entirely engulfed in flames could carry on a thoughtful conversation with anyone
• or think to benefit from a single drop of water on his tongue (attention is drawn to his tongue for a very important reason)

4) when Jesus said, "And in hell...", He did not use the "fiery, burning, blazing" hell of "Gehenna"; He used the "empty, silent, blackness" of "Hades" to describe the Rich Man's place of torment, which means the source of the Rich Man's torment was NOT flame, which source becomes extremely evident when this parable is properly interpreted.

5) that there is not one place in all of Scripture where we find the dead righteous are able to communicate with the dead wicked. As for "Saul and Samuel", that was not "Samuel" - it was a "familiar spirit" - a demon impersonating a dead person which did not come down from heaven, but came up from the other place. How do we know? "The dead know not anything", yet "Samuel" knew things. The dead "return no more to his house", yet "Samuel" indeed returned when summoned. "Their (emotions) are perished", yet "Samuel" was irritated. "Their memory is forgotten", but "Samuel" remembered that the kingdom would be given to David.

6)In Matthew 13:34, the writer says that, "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them", which he then says was a fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy of Psalms 78 in which the Lord Himself declares that He would call together His people and speak to them in parables. It is more than reasonable to expect that the highly symbolic passage of the Rich Man and Lazarus was just one of the many parables that He Himself declared He would speak when He would come to live among us.

 

[Phoneman777]

Everlasting salvation means the believer is experiencing salvation forever.

Wrong, the result of salvation from destruction in the Lake of Fire is experienced for all eternity, which is life eternal. Salvation is eternal in its result, not its process.

Everlasting destruction or judgement means the wicked is experiencing the destruction or judgement forever.

Notwithstanding how asinine that sounds - that God will continue destroying something for all eternity, but will not quite get the destruction accomplished? - "everlasting destruction" and "eternal judgment" are both eternal in their result, not their process, unless you truly think God will be trying to destroy something but never quite get it done while sitting at His heavenly courtroom bench slamming His gavel while repeating, "Order in the court, order in the court, order in the court".

(Is. 33:14) says the the believer who dwells with everlasting burnings. It doesn't say that nothing but ashes are left of the wicked.

No, but Malachi makes that abundantly clear that nothing but ashes remain. The phrase "leave them neither root nor branch" is a proverbial expression among the Hebrews for "complete and total destruction", and leaves no room for your idea of some part of the wicked that remains behind to be eternally tormented.

The fact is, 'though they had not been' speaks to the nation of Edom being removed from the earth as though they had not been. It doesn't speak to the annihilation of the spirit and soul of man.

It most certainly does apply to the final destruction of the wicked for exactly the reasons I gave earlier, which you have not denied here because you know you cannot deny them.

(Ez. 28:18-19) declares that satan will no more on the earth be a terror to the nations or people. It doesn't say anything about his eternal punishment.

Why do you "eternal torment" people see with such tunnel vision? It plainly says Satan is going to be "devoured" by fire and be brought "to ashes" and those watching will be filled with terror at the sight of it because of how unbelievably horrific his destruction will be, and then finally it concludes by saying "never shalt thou be aka exist anymore". His existence will come to an end, along with his punishment.

See again (Rev. 14:10-11) to see the eternality of the place and torment prepared for the devil and his angels

Regarding "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever", if you get out your 8th grade English textbook and review, you'll see that the subject of this sentence is "smoke", not "of their torment" - "of their torment" is a prepositional phrase that can safely removed when attempting to identify parts of speech in this sentence for purposes of clairity. "Forever" is a description of the rising smoke, which refers to the distance of its rise, not the duration of the tormented ones causing it, like what is seen in areas of Texas where one oil well after the next has above it rising smoke that seems to go up forever and ever. Since we know smoke can rise higher and higher for miles and miles into the sky after the fire which produced it has long gone out, this verse is by no means the "irrefutable, undeniable, proof of eternal torment". Even if we allow "forever" to apply to the duration of their torment, we still must remember that "forever" ("aionios") can mean "undefined, but not endless" and almost exclusively is the correct interpretation of the word when it applies to man.

 

[GodsGrace]

Many Christians put theologians and scholars on pedestals and that's what gets them into trouble. But the sad fact is that theologians have often done more harm than good with their ideas. Take Calvinism as an example. It is a total distortion of Gospel truth, yet hundreds of thousands of Christians believe it, and you could not get them to give it up no matter what you said, or which Scripture you quoted. Calvin trumps the Bible every time.

Agreed.
I've had to use them. If you do any study of theology at all (I'm not saying I know it all) you must use theologians who have studied scripture and the bible in general to arrive at what we know today. I've taught some things to kids, so I've learned a lot. And, mostly, I've learned how little I know.

Couldn't agree with you more about Calvin. In fact, I'd say those that are of that theology trust in HIM more than the bible. The idea is to check everything against the bible in a plain and simple manner following the rules of exegesis. As the Bareans did in Acts 17:11.

I left the CC because I couldn't do the above, although, I must say, many of their teachings are right on and very deep in theology and I'm sorry some of their doctrine is extra-biblical and depends on other documents, which they call Tradition. Everyone should read the first paragraphs and pages of the CCC. It's really a beautiful documentation of man's relationship to God. And thus I love both the catholic church and the protestant church -- I find we each have our problems. I believe you and I don't agree about eternal security, but there are some verses that make this seem so; there's nothing in the bible to support Calvin's ideas. It's a mystery to me how anyone could be of that theology.

 

[quietthinker]

Whether we agree or disagree is a side issue. What matters is that the connection with God is right. You can be certain that working it out with fear and trembling is not overstated neither is the need for self honesty.
Deception would not be deception if it was obvious yet chances are that even this statement will go through to the keeper.

 

[GodsGrace]

Whether we agree or disagree is a side issue. What matters is that the connection with is God right. You can be certain that working it out with fear and trembling is not overstated neither is the need for self honesty.
Deception would not be deception if it was obvious yet chances are that even this statement will go through to the keeper.

What is self-honesty and how does one know they have it??
We all think we're honest with ourselves, don't we?

 

[quietthinker]

What is self-honesty and how does one know they have it??
We all think we're honest with ourselves, don't we?

A person who is courageously self aware knows if they are self honest. If on the other hand denial is the MO, anything can be and will be twisted and justified.

 

[GodsGrace]

A person who is courageously self aware knows if they are self honest. If on the other hand denial is the MO, anything can be and will be twisted and justified.

I do see a lot of twisting of scripture. But, of course, this is because I believe I've learned from those that are correct in their theology!

Those that disagree with me feel exactly the same way.

But, yes, I do feel the NT is taken much too lightly these days. I wonder if this is what you're speaking about. The warnings are taken to mean chastisements, as if Jesus came to chastise us instead of teaching us how to save our soul/spririt and get to heaven. (and eventually our body).

The word "works" scares many and it causes me to be called a legalist...which I'm not.

Paul said to work out our salvation with fear and trembling....correct.
He NEVER said to "just believe" as many state. And when the word BELIEVE is used, we should pay heed to what it meant in those days and in the greek language that was used.

 

[quietthinker]

I do see a lot of twisting of scripture. But, of course, this is because I believe I've learned from those that are correct in their theology!

Those that disagree with me feel exactly the same way.

But, yes, I do feel the NT is taken much too lightly these days. I wonder if this is what you're speaking about. The warnings are taken to mean chastisements, as if Jesus came to chastise us instead of teaching us how to save our soul/spririt and get to heaven. (and eventually our body).

The word "works" scares many and it causes me to be called a legalist...which I'm not.

Paul said to work out our salvation with fear and trembling....correct.
He NEVER said to "just believe" as many state. And when the word BELIEVE is used, we should pay heed to what it meant in those days and in the greek language that was used.

As an example, When a person requires scripture as evidence of a certain point or issue and scripture is given in its context, if it is then disregarded as if it were never forthcoming, you can be certain that lack of self honesty is in the drivers seat.

 

[Stranger]

Your "spirit of man" point has nothing to do with what is the Body, the Breath of Life, and the Soul, and the Biblically defined relationship between the three, which we seem to agree on below.
I absolutely agree to the fullest with that statement, because its exactly what Genesis 2:7 teaches.
There are no "three ingredients". There are "two ingredients" (I say "components") - the Body and the Breath/Spirit, and the Soul is the resulting "whole" of the union of the two components and exists only as a consequence of this union of the two components.
I'll give you a bazillion dollars if you can point to where I denied that.
Hebrews 4:12 is a wonderful example of a Hebrew Chiasm where the "Soul" is whole from which one of its components - the Spirit - can be divided, just as the "Joints" is the whole from which the component - "marrow-containing bone"- can be divided. Proof that the "Soul" and the "Spirit" are two diff things, which Biblical distinction Christians today seem to have no desire to make, and leave themselves vulnerable to false ideas.
I don't appreciate your continuous accusation of "claiming to know more than God" especially when I said previously that I do not. Please stop doing so.
Yes, the punishment is eternal - in its result, not its process. What's the punishment of the wicked? Death, which is the cessation of life, not a continuation of it.
You need to do a study on the word "forever" - "aionios". Greek and Hebrew authorities admit that "Olan" and "Aionios" sometimes means "eternal" and other times means "all the days of life", with the former usually referring to the things pertaining to God and the latter to things pertaining to men. There are several verses in Scripture where "forever" is used in connection with events that have already ended. Therefore, the true meaning of "forever" in Revelation 14:10-11 relies on a proper understanding of other verses which deal with death/eternal reward that are free from such ambiguity.
The reason why you Eternal Torment people insist that the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable is that you know that you cannot substantiate a doctrine - namely "Eternal Torment" - on an uninterpreted parable. A literal story requires no interpretation to make sense, but parables, which often utilize things that cannot and do not happen in real experience, of necessity must be interpreted to make sense and/or agree with other truths of Scripture, which left uninterpreted would cause contradictions. The reasons for why this is a parable are:

1) it is found in the midst of several parables contained in Luke 15, 16, and the beginning of 17, yet we are to believe that God would abruptly shift from all those parabolic stories to a "literal account of the deaths of two men" and then back to parables? God is not the author of confusion.

2) it begins just like other parables in Luke 14, 15, and 16: "There was a certain man..." The use of the proper name "Lazarus" is claimed to be "evidence" that this is a literal passage for "no other parables contain a proper name" - a correlation that is supported by nothing but popular consensus and zero Biblical support. A far more plausible explanation for the use of "Lazarus" is found in the last words of Abraham in this parable: "If they will not believe Moses and the prophets, they will not believe though one rise from the dead". When a literal man named "Lazarus" was raised from the dead, did they believe what Moses and the prophets said Who Jesus was - the Messiah? No, they refused to believe, though one rose from the dead, and went away to "take counsel how they might destroy Him".

3) it contains elements that even a blind man can see are symbolic in need of interpretation:
Abraham's bosom - why so much debate over the interpretation of this if the passage is literal?

• Is Abraham's literal bosom large enough to receive and retain all the righteous who've ever died? How big can it be?
• If these are what is often referred to as the "disembodied souls" of two literal men that have died, then why do they have body parts - eyes, tongues, and fingers? Since the Bible teaches that the dead do not receive bodies until the resurrection, how can it be that these two men have bodies when no resurrection has taken place, as evidenced by the "five brothers" who are yet able to heed a given warning? If the story is literal, Jesus spoke contrary to Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, but if it is a parable, well, no problem.
• it is not logical to conclude that a man entirely engulfed in flames could carry on a thoughtful conversation with anyone
• or think to benefit from a single drop of water on his tongue (attention is drawn to his tongue for a very important reason)

4) when Jesus said, "And in hell...", He did not use the "fiery, burning, blazing" hell of "Gehenna"; He used the "empty, silent, blackness" of "Hades" to describe the Rich Man's place of torment, which means the source of the Rich Man's torment was NOT flame, which source becomes extremely evident when this parable is properly interpreted.

5) that there is not one place in all of Scripture where we find the dead righteous are able to communicate with the dead wicked. As for "Saul and Samuel", that was not "Samuel" - it was a "familiar spirit" - a demon impersonating a dead person which did not come down from heaven, but came up from the other place. How do we know? "The dead know not anything", yet "Samuel" knew things. The dead "return no more to his house", yet "Samuel" indeed returned when summoned. "Their (emotions) are perished", yet "Samuel" was irritated. "Their memory is forgotten", but "Samuel" remembered that the kingdom would be given to David.

Concerning your post #343

The 'spirit of man' has everything to do with the body, soul, and breath of God. As I showed. No, we do not agree at all. Just because you select a couple of sentences from a paragraph I wrote does not mean we agree. And that which you left out shows why. You are turning to deception in picking here and there what you want to make it appear what I say. When that is not what I am saying at all. Once one must start doing that, he should question his position.

There are three ingredients that make up a person. Body, soul, and spirit. You deny the spirit. But (Pro. 20:27) is clear. If the body doesn't cease to exist, why do you say the breath of God ceases to exist as part of man.

That's a lot of money. Well, do you believe man has a spirit. Do you believe man is made up of body, soul, and spirit?

Concerning (Heb. 4:12) you are being misleading. It doesn't say the dividing of soul and spirit 'like' the dividing of joints and marrow. It says the dividing of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow. In other words soul, spirit, and body. All three are present which the word only can divide.

Well, I know you don't know more than God. But when you say you know better of the wicked's judgement than God does, then that is what you are saying. And I never said that eternal judgement is a process. That is your term. I simply said it is eternal. And the wicked experience it eternally. As (Rev. 14:10-11) states. That they had no rest day or night speaks to experience. Not annihilation. Doing gymnastics with the Greek doesn't change it.

Concerning the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus and your claim that it is in the midst of parables in (Luke 14, 15, 16), I say this. The parable in (Luke 14:15-24) is so called a parable in (Matt. 22:1-14). The parable in (Luke 15:3-32) is so called a parable. The parable in (Luke 16:1-16) is called a parable. The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not so named a parable. (Luke 16:19-31) And a proper name is used, 'Lazarus' which indicates it is a real story and not a parable. And your explanation as to why it is not evidence seems empty. The fact that it is a proper name used is Biblical support.

The story of Lazarus is not the only basis for understanding eternal judgement and torment from God upon the wicked.

The place of Abraham's bosom was big enough to contain all the righteous that had died prior to the Cross and Resurrection.
Those in Hades, both in Abraham's bosom and the torment section had spiritual bodies. And they saw, felt, tasted, and hurt.
Sorry about your logic.
Again, sorry about your logic.

The torment section of Hades is not the lake of fire. It is however a place of torment. (Luke 16:23)

You are reading in Scripture where the righteous in Hades did speak to the wicked in torment in (Luke 16:19-31). That doesn't occur anymore as the righteous are no longer there. As for Samuel being raised to speak to Saul, yes it was Samuel. Were Moses and Elijah just familiar spirits with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration?

You quote again without the address. "The dead know nothing", "return no more to his house", "their emotions are perished", and, "their memory is forgotten". Where does it say that, or don't you want anyone to know?

Concerning (Matt. 13:34) the parables Jesus spoke of were parables concerning the mystery form of the kingdom of heaven. (13:11) "...Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." Jesus spoke many things without a parable. But concerning the kingdom, which had been rejected He would not speak anymore save through parable.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Wrong, the result of salvation from destruction in the Lake of Fire is experienced for all eternity, which is life eternal. Salvation is eternal in its result, not its process.
Notwithstanding how asinine that sounds - that God will continue destroying something for all eternity, but will not quite get the destruction accomplished? - "everlasting destruction" and "eternal judgment" are both eternal in their result, not their process, unless you truly think God will be trying to destroy something but never quite get it done while sitting at His heavenly courtroom bench slamming His gavel while repeating, "Order in the court, order in the court, order in the court".
No, but Malachi makes that abundantly clear that nothing but ashes remain. The phrase "leave them neither root nor branch" is a proverbial expression among the Hebrews for "complete and total destruction", and leaves no room for your idea of some part of the wicked that remains behind to be eternally tormented.
It most certainly does apply to the final destruction of the wicked for exactly the reasons I gave earlier, which you have not denied here because you know you cannot deny them.
Why do you "eternal torment" people see with such tunnel vision? It plainly says Satan is going to be "devoured" by fire and be brought "to ashes" and those watching will be filled with terror at the sight of it because of how unbelievably horrific his destruction will be, and then finally it concludes by saying "never shalt thou be aka exist anymore". His existence will come to an end, along with his punishment.
Regarding "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever", if you get out your 8th grade English textbook and review, you'll see that the subject of this sentence is "smoke", not "of their torment" - "of their torment" is a prepositional phrase that can safely removed when attempting to identify parts of speech in this sentence for purposes of clairity. "Forever" is a description of the rising smoke, which refers to the distance of its rise, not the duration of the tormented ones causing it, like what is seen in areas of Texas where one oil well after the next has above it rising smoke that seems to go up forever and ever. Since we know smoke can rise higher and higher for miles and miles into the sky after the fire which produced it has long gone out, this verse is by no means the "irrefutable, undeniable, proof of eternal torment". Even if we allow "forever" to apply to the duration of their torment, we still must remember that "forever" can mean either "undefined, but not endless" and almost exclusively is the correct interpretation of the word when it applies to man.

It doesn't matter to me how asinine it sounds to you. It is what the Bible teaches. (Rev. 14:11) "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:..."

If Malachi makes it abundantly clear, you should have given the address then and you should give the address now.

No, it simply speaks to Edom being no more a nation on the earth. That the individual Edomites will be judged, of course. But their eternal judgement is not what is addressed here.

(Ez. 28:19) speaks to satan no longer being a terror any more. It is not sayng satan will not exist any more. No annihilation.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. Where there is smoke there is something burning. When there is just a fire, there is no smoke. In other words, there is something eternally burning creating the smoke.

Stranger

 

[Nancy]

Can you please translate. I don't know what you're saying in this post.



No, the Rev 12:1-5 sign is in reference to corporate entities and has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.

Israel - The woman
The body of Christ - The child
Antichrist system - The dragon (Rev 12-17)

This sign came to pass on 9/23/17. Dcopy, Jesus was already born. The birth in Rev 12:1-5 is the birth of the church through first resurrection and rapture. You need to go back and study the three stages of the body of Christ in post 338.

1. Corporate conception of the church - Acts 2:1-4/Matt 1:20 (Example of Holy Spirit conception)
2. Individual conception in the believer - John 3:16, Rom 10:9, Eph 1:13-14 (Seed Gal 3:19, Gal 3:29, 1Pe 1:23, 1Jo 3:9)
3. Corporate birth of the church - 1 Cor 15:50-54, 1 Thess 4:13-18, Rev 12:5



And unfortunately I'm preaching a message that has been lost throughout history, that the church was conceived at Pentecost 2000 years ago, not birthed. How do I deal with 2000 years of conditioning and brainwashing without placing everyone in a padded room?

 

[bbyrd009]

true, but believers do works not to save themselves but out of thankfulness for the cross.

ok great; i'm not sure where you get enough confidence in believers to be making such definitive statements myself, satan is a believer too, and imo most developed world "believers" are so tragically codependent now that they can't really get "thankful" anyway, but surely that is true for some, yes.

Imo the most important point might be to realize that whether one deems themselves lost or saved, or whether one "believes in" works or not, or even whether one ever lifts a finger or not, even a quadriplegic, we are all doing "works" from the moment we wake up--i guess sleeping might even be work in a sense--and it is those that will be judged.

There is no judgement for beliefs, that i can find anyway.

 

[bbyrd009]

believers do works not to save themselves but out of thankfulness for the cross.

i mean let's be honest, prolly millions of believers doing works tryna save themselves, i dunno about you but i still find myself asking myself if i am doing something for a pat on the back or what and the answer is yes, and i do it anyway. That might make no sense to you, dunno, but my fam is deeply Codependent

 

[bbyrd009]

How do I deal with 2000 years of conditioning and brainwashing without placing everyone in a padded room?

ha srsly Heb? "i am the Chosen One?"
ok

 

[bbyrd009]

Disagree, speaking as a Converted person.

Uncle Ben, is that you?

 

[GodsGrace]

Concerning your post #343

The 'spirit of man' has everything to do with the body, soul, and breath of God. As I showed. No, we do not agree at all. Just because you select a couple of sentences from a paragraph I wrote does not mean we agree. And that which you left out shows why. You are turning to deception in picking here and there what you want to make it appear what I say. When that is not what I am saying at all. Once one must start doing that, he should question his position.

There are three ingredients that make up a person. Body, soul, and spirit. You deny the spirit. But (Pro. 20:27) is clear. If the body doesn't cease to exist, why do you say the breath of God ceases to exist as part of man.

That's a lot of money. Well, do you believe man has a spirit. Do you believe man is made up of body, soul, and spirit?

Concerning (Heb. 4:12) you are being misleading. It doesn't say the dividing of soul and spirit 'like' the dividing of joints and marrow. It says the dividing of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow. In other words soul, spirit, and body. All three are present which the word only can divide.

Well, I know you don't know more than God. But when you say you know better of the wicked's judgement than God does, then that is what you are saying. And I never said that eternal judgement is a process. That is your term. I simply said it is eternal. And the wicked experience it eternally. As (Rev. 14:10-11) states. That they had no rest day or night speaks to experience. Not annihilation. Doing gymnastics with the Greek doesn't change it.

Concerning the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus and your claim that it is in the midst of parables in (Luke 14, 15, 16), I say this. The parable in (Luke 14:15-24) is so called a parable in (Matt. 22:1-14). The parable in (Luke 15:3-32) is so called a parable. The parable in (Luke 16:1-16) is called a parable. The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not so named a parable. (Luke 16:19-31) And a proper name is used, 'Lazarus' which indicates it is a real story and not a parable. And your explanation as to why it is not evidence seems empty. The fact that it is a proper name used is Biblical support.

The story of Lazarus is not the only basis for understanding eternal judgement and torment from God upon the wicked.

The place of Abraham's bosom was big enough to contain all the righteous that had died prior to the Cross and Resurrection.
Those in Hades, both in Abraham's bosom and the torment section had spiritual bodies. And they saw, felt, tasted, and hurt.
Sorry about your logic.
Again, sorry about your logic.

The torment section of Hades is not the lake of fire. It is however a place of torment. (Luke 16:23)

You are reading in Scripture where the righteous in Hades did speak to the wicked in torment in (Luke 16:19-31). That doesn't occur anymore as the righteous are no longer there. As for Saul being raised to speak to Saul, yes it was Samuel. Were Moses and Elijah just familiar spirits with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration?

You quote again without the address. "The dead know nothing", "return no more to his house", "their emotions are perished", and, "their memory is forgotten". Where does it say that, or don't you want anyone to know?

Concerning (Matt. 13:34) the parables Jesus spoke of were parables concerning the mystery form of the kingdom of heaven. (13:11) "...Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." Jesus spoke many things without a parable. But concerning the kingdom, which had been rejected He would not speak anymore save through parable.

Stranger

Everything you've said is correct and accepted theology by the mainstream.

I just would like to add that the verses the other posts speaks about regarding the dead knowing nothing; their emotions are perished; etc... go back to the O.T.
Some in the O.T. times did not believe in life after death, for example neither did the Sadducees.

Revelation can be ongoing, as indeed Jesus was the ultimate revelation of God and HE spoke of life after death and what it would be like. This is what we're to go by.
Either Jesus spoke the truth, or He lied.
He said there is a place for those born of God, and a place for the evil.
John 5:28-29
28“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."

And what could be more clear than Mathew 25:46?
46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Jesus said the two verses above. This is all we need to believe; who could know better than Jesus?

 

[bbyrd009]

Either Jesus spoke the truth, or He lied.

or He is not understood

He said there is a place for those born of God, and a place for the evil.

and we just assume that He was referring to an afterlife, all by ourselves, bc that is what we want to hear imo. So then no one hears what they don't want to hear, "No one has ever gone up to heaven except He Who came down from it, the Son of Man." and we make up false doctrines about a place called "hell" that cannot be Quoted from Scripture, to justify our belief that we might go to heaven after we are dead, when Christ was very plain about all that, too; He could have said Tartarus, but He said Gehenna instead.

So logical thinkers are going to be hoist on their own petard when they cannot explain why they did not contemplate their own lack of logic. And i don't mean "when they die" or "tomorrow," i mean right now

 

[LC627]

How do you explains this verse?:

Colossians 1:22-23
22yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

Jesus is the Author and Finisher of my faith. While I believe God keeps us, Believers still have a responsibility to be on guard and aware of the enemy. The Christian life is not all rainbows and butterflies, it is warfare