Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alicia, if you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He is the way, the truth, and the life . . . if you believe that Jesus spoke the truth, then believe what He said concerning the reality of what He called 'the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), and into which unregenerate mankind will be sent (Matthew 25:46). In the Book of Revelation in which John records the revelation given to him by Jesus, the eternal fire is called the lake of fire into which all whose names are not written in the book of life will be sent (Rev. 20:10-15).
There is no purgatory. The lake of fire will be the permanent abode of all who die without having received Christ as Savior.
As for Sheol/Hades, those are the Old and New Testament names for the same place. And it is not simply the grave though in some places Sheol may refer to the grave. But it is clear that Sheol also refers to the place where before the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the departed, both unbelievers and believers went after they died. In Luke 16, Jesus stated that Hades had a section which He called 'Abraham's Bosom' to which the poor man (representing believers) went, and a different section in which the rich man (representing unbelievers) was in torment. Whether this was a parable or not is not the issue. The fact remains that Jesus was relating an after death experience.
Once Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven, all believers who were in Hades were transferred to heaven, and which is now where all believers go when they die. Unbelievers still go to Hades where they await the great white throne judgment (Rev. 20:11-15) and their banishment to the lake of fire forever. The Bible does not go into detail concerning the lake of fire but does indicate that there will be degrees of punishment. Whether the 'fire' refers to literal fire, or simply refers to divine judgment of whatever nature perhaps cannot be known with certainty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Now, Mike, you know that I have taught you over and over again what the Luke 16 Parable is all about, but for some reason you just cannot comprehend it at your level of education...
As for Matthew, did he really say that or were words put into his mouth by a writer?...And besides, Matthew has nothing to do with Salvation, and it seems work-centric...
I recently spoke to a history professor who specializes in Ancient, Medieval, and Church history, as well as Biblical Archaeology and is an ordained pastor. He pointed out that unlike any of Jesus' parables, in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, a name is actually used. Not a single one of Jesus' parables uses a specific name. "Parable" itself means to "throw down beside," and uses the word "like." "Like" is not used when Jesus spoke of Lazarus and the rich man. And to quote a friend of mine, "even if it is metaphorical it's still true."
Thank you, Mike, for your reply - especially for taking it directly from the Bible.
Richard, for your question "did he really say that or were words put into his mouth by a writer?" remember that when the Gospel of Matthew was written most of those who had personally listened to Jesus' teachings were still alive and able to refute anything that might have been falsely written. That was not the case. Why do you think these particular things were put in Jesus' mouth? If these things aren't true, then what can we say is true? We must be careful, shouldn't we? to not take away from the scriptures what is meant to be there - to do so is heresy. I do not write this as an adversary, but simply as a sister in Christ who wants you to be sure that those words could not have been spoken by Jesus before you start spreading that belief.
You have no idea what Luke 16 is about. Yes, Jesus really said what is recorded in Matthew 25 and which certainly addresses the issue of eternal condemnation and eternal salvation - These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life [25:46].
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Yup...I do...The problem is that you fail to understand the symbolism that is contained within that Parable...You are probably a Moderator cut: Bleep also...
Resorting to accusing me of anti-Semitism is uncalled for, but is something that I would expect from you. I understand what Jesus was saying in Luke 16 just fine.
Quote:
So you say...
No. What Jesus Himself said in Matthew 25:41,46.
We're done here.
Last edited by mensaguy; 03-14-2015 at 03:01 PM..
Reason: Quoted post edited
Resorting to accusing me of anti-Semitism is uncalled for, but is something that I would expect from you. I understand what Jesus was saying in Luke 16 just fine.
No. What Jesus Himself said in Matthew 25:41,46.
We're done here.
No, you do not understand what he was saying in Luke 16...
That is what the writer said that he said...
Typical of you, Mike, just run away when someone proves you wrong...
Mike, don't let these peoples' false ideas and confusions get to ya, we've been on this
forum for years and the same errors and heresies pop up over and over and over again.
It's a tiresome thing.
Mary Baker Eddy wrote in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures "'God is Love.' More than this we cannot ask, higher we cannot look, further we cannot go. To suppose that God forgives or punishes sin according as His mercy is sought or unsought, is to misunderstand Love..." Ernest Holmes, in The Science of Mind, said "The essence of love, while elusive, pervades everything...Only love knows love, and love knows only love...A universal sense alone bears witness to the divine fact: God is Love and Love is God" (qtd. in "God is Love, But is Love God?" by Elliot Miller). These ideas are reminiscent of the ancient Gnosticism. However, to quote Miller,
What was controversial about Jesus and the apostles was not that they renounced the law of Moses with its sacrificial system...but rather that they claimed that the Law was fulfilled by the life, sacrificial death, and resurrection of Christ. It was on that basis alone that the Law was set aside; thus there was never a denial of the Law's legitimacy but rather a confirmation of it
The idea that God is Love comes from 1 John 4:7-10:
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Notice verse 10, which I have underlined. Propitiation means satisfaction and appeasement. God sent his son as a satisfaction of the Law, which called for death as punishment for sin and appeasement for the just wrath of God.
J.I. Packer wrote in Knowing God (qtd. by Miller) that
When scripture speaks of God anthropomorphically, it does not imply that the limitations and imperfections which belong to the personal characteristics of us sinful creatures belong also to the corresponding qualities in our Holy Creator... .....God's wrath in the Bible is never the capricious, self-indulgent, irritable, morally ignoble thing that human anger so often is. It is, instead, a right and necessary reaction to objective moral evil. God is only angry where anger is called for. Even among men, there is such a thing as righteous indignation...But all God's indignation is righteous.
In order to fully understand that God is love, we must also recognize his wrath, for only then can we appreciate how he has saved us.
Now why did John write that "God is love" rather than "God is loving?" In the Greek there is no article to love, only to God. The fact that God is love, is truth, is righteousness, etc are all essential attributes to his nature. But "unlike humans, God's being does not consist of a complex aggregation of parts. He does not have or possess attributes that He might act on one...at the expense of another..." (Miller).
So when we speak of punishment it is not apart from God being love, but rather a part of it. Where in the Bible is sin ever called finite? Sin creates impurity in our souls and can only be purified by Jesus, and I have not found adequate evidence thus far to say that everyone is going to heaven.
I do not see the idea of "eternal torment" to be the ultimate blasphemous doctrines (in fact Jesus seems to indicate that the blasphemous doctrine against the trinity is likely to be considered the ultimate blasphemous doctrine in Mark 3). I also don't believe the idea was concocted by man, given the number of references to "eternal sin," "eternal punishment," "eternal fire," and "eternal destruction" in the New Testament.
Like I wrote before, I see the logic in your reply, and I respect the thought that has gone into its formation. So I would like to know what you think of the passages that seem to speak of hell as I indicated above, and what do you believe we are being saved from if there is no hell?
Mike, don't let these peoples' false ideas and confusions get to ya, we've been on this
forum for years and the same errors and heresies pop up over and over and over again.
It's a tiresome thing.
True enough. Satan has deceived many, and they unwittingly, and in some cases knowingly promote those false ideas.
I also don't believe the idea was concocted by man, given the number of references to "eternal sin," "eternal punishment," "eternal fire," and "eternal destruction" in the New Testament.
If it were eternal, then the word "Aidios" would have been used without beginning or end. It’s not a reference to that which is Eternal (aidios), having no beginning or end. Furthermore, the words endless torment (adialeipton timorion) or eternal imprisonment (aidios eirgmos) and eternal punishment (aidios kalasin) do not appear anywhere in the Greek New Testament, at least not in conjunction. Therefore, whoever says that there is an eternal (aidios) time set for punishment (kalasin) beyond this life is sadly mistaken. It's a limited duration of aionion (age-during, which is the word used) kalasin (punishment - chastisement or correction) which is in view; but the day and hour that it begins and ends is unpredictable. If it were eternal, then the word Aidios would have been used. But not even Jesus used the word for eternal in conjunction with punishment.
The Hebrew term or word Olam, merely pertains to that which is over the horizon or out of sight. There is nothing, no words in the Scriptures that relate to an eternal time of pain or suffering.
I recently spoke to a history professor who specializes in Ancient, Medieval, and Church history, as well as Biblical Archaeology and is an ordained pastor. He pointed out that unlike any of Jesus' parables, in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, a name is actually used. Not a single one of Jesus' parables uses a specific name. "Parable" itself means to "throw down beside," and uses the word "like." "Like" is not used when Jesus spoke of Lazarus and the rich man. And to quote a friend of mine, "even if it is metaphorical it's still true."
Isn't a parable an illustration ?_______How did Jesus always address the crowds according to Matthew 13: 34 vs 36 ?
Where is the word ' like ' used in the illustration or parable of the ' rich man and the steward ' of Luke 16 vs 1-13 ?
Where is the word 'like' at Luke 7 vs 41-43 ?
Where is the word 'like' at Luke 11 vs 5-8 ?
Where is the word 'like' at Luke 12 vs 16-21 ?
Where is the word 'like' at Luke 13 vs 6-9 ?
Where is the word 'like' at Luke 14 vs 16-21 ?
Where is the word 'like' at Luke 18 vs 1-8 ?
Where is the word 'like' at Luke 18 vs 9-14 ?
Lazarus was a common name in Jesus' day - John 11:1. Lazarus is a Greek form of the Hebrew name: Eleazar.
The bosom position of Abraham was Not literally Abraham's bosom - Hebrews 11 vs 13,30 - but a favored position.
Abraham has Not yet received the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham - Genesis 12:3; 22:18 - because all who died before Jesus died - Acts 2:34; Matthew 11:11; Daniel 12 vs 2,13 - did Not ascend to heaven, but will have a future earthly resurrection during Jesus' coming 1000-year kingdom governmental rule over earth. That is why the ' future tense ' is used at Acts 24:15 that there ' will be ' a resurrection.......
I know that Sheol is the same place as Hades. It's the place that has become today's "Hell". Except today's "Hell" is not what Sheol/Hades was.
Gehenna was the forever burning trash heap outside Jerusalem, a proper name of a place, incorrectly translated as hell, but instead I believe was the lake of fire referred to in the book of Rev. Sheol/Hades was destroyed during the judgment, and tossed into this lake of fire.
.... and what is the definition of the lake of fire found at Rev. 20 vs 13,14 but ' second death '
Both biblical hell ( mankind's temporary stone-cold grave ) and enemy death are cast into ' second death ' - 1st Cor. 15:26
Once everyone in the Bible's temporary hell/grave is ' delivered up ' ( resurrectred ) out of hell - Rev. 20 vs 13,14 - then emptied-out hell is cast vacant into that symbolic ' second death ' for vacated hell. Even Satan ends up in ' second death ' - Rev. 21:8, ' second death ' because Jesus ends up destroying Satan according to Hebrews 2:14 B.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
