Two Questions for Universalists (tradition, Lutheran, ritual, priests)
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.
You would rather believe he speaks of possibly going to the lake of fire just as a threat since no one actually goes there? If that is true, then are his words wasted, or what purpose would they serve? Trivia?
I haven't added anything. I mearly point out that the rest of scripture is silent, and draw one reasonable conclusion.
I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly on that last sentence. You'll base your belief on your own reason where Scripture is silent? And, in this case, in spite of your "reasonable conclusion," as you call it, being to the exclusion of many Scripture passages directly speaking of, "...God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Ti 2:3, AV) I wonder how you can say such self-contradictory things, that you add your own "reasonable conclusion," yet say, "I haven't added anything?" It gives me a chill to think of God's promise to those who add to the words of this particular book's prophecy, that He will adding the curses and plagues of this book to them.
Then too, your answer above admits the truth of what I pointed out concerning the verse (Rv 20:15): "And if anyone was not found written in the scroll of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." This "if" is never answered: one million? one? none? some? It is silent if, whether any at all were ever found. You have to add that. This is why I earlier answered your assertion by stating repeatedly IT IS NO WRITTEN!!! (But people cannot hear.)
I hear your reaction to the truth of what is written to be mocking God. Perhaps you mean to mock what you assume I conclude based on the fact of this or even other similar verses in Scripture. I don't remember saying what I believe about the lake of fire. I do remember stating and often re-stating catelogs of Bible facts that are ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1Man
I used the ESV quotes. The use there of death and Hades was not my own.
This is in response to a list of observable Bible facts. The meat of what was said is thrust aside, seemingly dismissed by refering to a translation that inconsistently renders the Greek in order to prejudice the reader toward certain doctrinal positions. That is just what I pointed out. Here it is again with added numeration of the facts I noted in what you quoted: "I hope you remember that when you consider that 1.) there is nothing in the translations or the original languages that state hades is geehena, or tartarus is hades. It is 2.) the translators who have unlawfully pasted "hell" over these various words that the Holy Spirit chose to make His revelation know to us. I try to 3.) not dismiss singulars or plurals thinking the Lord just made a slip of the pen. And 4.) words spelled differently not meaning the same should be respected for what they are. 5.) The lake of fire is never called "hell" by the translators!"
"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." (John 15:20, AV) I find many people who don't know what the Bible does or does not say repeat the mantra, "We believe the Bible." Show them the facts and they believe in the religion they've been indoctrinated into, blind to the facts of Scripture even when they're repeatedly shown them. Many can't even listen to anything other than their own opinion. Jesus says, "Why is it that you cannot understand me? It is because you cannot hear my word."
I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly on that last sentence. You'll base your belief on your own reason where Scripture is silent? And, in this case, in spite of your "reasonable conclusion," as you call it, being to the exclusion of many Scripture passages directly speaking of, "...God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Ti 2:3, AV) I wonder how you can say such self-contradictory things, that you add your own "reasonable conclusion," yet say, "I haven't added anything?" It gives me a chill to think of God's promise to those who add to the words of this particular book's prophecy, that He will adding the curses and plagues of this book to them.
Then too, your answer above admits the truth of what I pointed out concerning the verse (Rv 20:15): "And if anyone was not found written in the scroll of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." This "if" is never answered: one million? one? none? some? It is silent if, whether any at all were ever found. You have to add that. This is why I earlier answered your assertion by stating repeatedly IT IS NO WRITTEN!!! (But people cannot hear.)
I hear your reaction to the truth of what is written to be mocking God. Perhaps you mean to mock what you assume I conclude based on the fact of this or even other similar verses in Scripture. I don't remember saying what I believe about the lake of fire. I do remember stating and often re-stating catelogs of Bible facts that are ignored.
Let me start again. The Bible said they are cast into the lake of fire, those whose names are not found in the book of life when it is opened at the GWT. The Bible never says they come out! I conclude they are left there (even if only likely) because the Bible goes no further with these particular ones. This is NOT putting words into scripture. It is more putting words into scripture by saying they will come out later, because it is NOT taught in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMRohde
This is in response to a list of observable Bible facts. The meat of what was said is thrust aside, seemingly dismissed by refering to a translation that inconsistently renders the Greek in order to prejudice the reader toward certain doctrinal positions. That is just what I pointed out. Here it is again with added numeration of the facts I noted in what you quoted: "I hope you remember that when you consider that 1.) there is nothing in the translations or the original languages that state hades is geehena, or tartarus is hades. It is 2.) the translators who have unlawfully pasted "hell" over these various words that the Holy Spirit chose to make His revelation know to us. I try to 3.) not dismiss singulars or plurals thinking the Lord just made a slip of the pen. And 4.) words spelled differently not meaning the same should be respected for what they are. 5.) The lake of fire is never called "hell" by the translators!"
"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." (John 15:20, AV)
Did it occur to you that you are arguing semantics to the extent that you lose the message? I really don't care that they used "hell" to describe a number of elusive death states or places. None of them is desireable compared to Abrham's bosom or the new Jerusalem; "heaven". Hell defined is derived from an old english term helan, which meant to conceal. The message is unique, but you seem to be caught up in "what is 'hell'" rather than what must one do to have eternal life and avoiding whatever 'hell' is, whatever its name happens to be in truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMRohde
I find many people who don't know what the Bible does or does not say repeat the mantra, "We believe the Bible." Show them the facts and they believe in the religion they've been indoctrinated into, blind to the facts of Scripture even when they're repeatedly shown them. Many can't even listen to anything other than their own opinion. Jesus says, "Why is it that you cannot understand me? It is because you cannot hear my word."
And some who have been indoctrinated to hate certain poor examples of one church or another have blindly fallen victim to the pain it has caused them to the point that the truth is denied if it conjures any memory of that painful past. I know too many people who have given up on church as a whole because of a bad pastor, or others that have given up on the Bible because of someone who misused it.
You are clearly a schooled, well-spoken man. Part of the trouble I have reading some of your posts is that they sometimes seem to get hung up on disecting the Word so much that the Word itself seems to get overlooked. Don't miss the forest for the trees, so to speak. Just the same, a man of your calibur should be less judgmental of some who are only putting forth healthy argument (whether well done or not) and save the more biting remarks for those who truly desrve them.
To understand what the Lake of fire is look at this post in my "Gospel in a nutshell" thread.
The lake of fire is no idle threat... many are going there. But it is the very vehicle that will lead to their repentance and salvation and acceptance of Christ.
There is much more to understanding the lake of fire if you are truly interested. There is a good series on the bible-truths.com sites.
Quote:
Let me start again. The Bible said they are cast into the lake of fire, those whose names are not found in the book of life when it is opened at the GWT. The Bible never says they come out! I conclude they are left there (even if only likely) because the Bible goes no further with these particular ones. This is NOT putting words into scripture. It is more putting words into scripture by saying they will come out later, because it is NOT taught in the Bible.
Actually Revelations says they are thrown into the lake of fire, but then it doesn't say what happens to them. It doesn't say how long they are in there for.
There is some indication in Rev 22:17 that whoever is thirsty can come and drink of the water of life (Christ).
But elsewhere we know God will reconcile ALL things (Col 1:20), and bring ALL things under one head (Eph 1:10).
So should we assume those in lake of fire fry forever, or should we assume God reconciles them along with ALL things, since that is what the bible actually says?
The core problem with the non-universal view is that it is rooted in fear: you advocate hedging your bets that God will smite and hate out of fear of the possibility.
Takes a lot more courage to stand strong in the name of universal and unconditional love (and experience what that love really means), face the condemnation of society rooted in fear and, perhaps someday, the judgment of a god.
In such a hypothetical case, I would simply say to that god, "I don't want any part of your heaven. You demand fear from your followers, and that does not take courage. That simply takes servitude through threat of punishment like a child submissive to an abusive father who demands love with a leather belt held high. There is no growth in that. I'll take your Hell. Can't be any worse than that."
Just read this again and want to say Brilliant response again.
To understand what the Lake of fire is look at this post in my "Gospel in a nutshell" thread.
The lake of fire is no idle threat... many are going there. But it is the very vehicle that will lead to their repentance and salvation and acceptance of Christ.
There is much more to understanding the lake of fire if you are truly interested. There is a good series on the bible-truths.com sites.
Actually Revelations says they are thrown into the lake of fire, but then it doesn't say what happens to them. It doesn't say how long they are in there for.
There is some indication in Rev 22:17 that whoever is thirsty can come and drink of the water of life (Christ).
But elsewhere we know God will reconcile ALL things (Col 1:20), and bring ALL things under one head (Eph 1:10).
So should we assume those in lake of fire fry forever, or should we assume God reconciles them along with ALL things, since that is what the bible actually says?
The sequence of events for those at the throne of judgment in Rev 20:12-15 are first judgment, then, if their names are not found in the book of life, they are thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:8 specifically tells us of some that are thrown into the lake of fire they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. If some are thrown in forever, why think some are later retrieved? The Bible doesn't tell us any are actually retrieved.
Those whose name is not found in the book of life are mentioned again in 21:27 where we are reminded they will not ever enter the city.
The river of the water of life flows from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city (Rev 22:1-2). Since those cast into the lake of fire neither had their names in the book of life nor are ever allowed into the city, it would seem very unlikely they would be the ones referred to in Rev 22:17 "let the one who is thirsty come".
In scripture fire has been shown:
1-not to consume at all (Moses and the burning bush)
2-to refine, not consuming but purifying
3-to consume entirely (Elijah and the priests of Baal)
Deuteronomy 4:24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
Isaiah 33:14 The sinners of Zion are afraid; trembling has siezed the godless: "who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with the everlasting burnings?"
Let me start again. The Bible said they are cast into the lake of fire, those whose names are not found in the book of life when it is opened at the GWT. The Bible never says they come out! I conclude they are left there (even if only likely) because the Bible goes no further with these particular ones. This is NOT putting words into scripture. It is more putting words into scripture by saying they will come out later, because it is NOT taught in the Bible.
You can repeat the lie from whatever version you can find. We all know there are looser versions, paraphrases that may have some value; but, not to determine with certainty what is Written. Being a Christian, the primary documents that I follow for what to believe and practise God chose to give in Greek and Hebrew. While I rely somewhat on many scholars, I've seen in my lifetime the imperative to be ever more vigilant in selectiong which scholars are reliable. In searching the Scriptures I never expected to uncover such overwhelming revelation concerning Institutional Christianity. It's claim to orthodoxy is fraudulent. Their authority is relative to one another in a religious bureachracy. Their titled elite may be the gatekeepers for those in their brandname cages; but, "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." (Rv 18:2, AV)
The Scripture simply never says if any one is found to qualify for being cast into the lake of fire. Why is it so hard to admit it?
Are you able to hear "whosoever" is a questioning pronoun unanswered and, only a possibility, indefinate unless answered in the passage, which it is not? How many whosoevers, any or none? Here are the facts:
Rev 20:15, AV (with Strong's numbers) -- "And 2532 whosoever 1536 was 2147 0 not 3756 found 2147 written 1125 in 1722 the book 976 of life 2222 was cast 906 into 1519 the lake 3041 of fire 4442."
Though not the best version, the underlying Greek is positively there for AV's "whosoever" 1536.
The Greek is: ei teis and it is a pronoun.
According to Thayers Lexicon:ei is first a conditional particle,if; secondly, an interrogative particle, whether.
Authorized Transaltion (KJV) is 79 occurences.
AV (incidence of how translated) — if any man 35, if any 19, if a man 8, if any thing 6, if ought 3, whosoever 2, misc 6
(At a minimum, 73 out of 79 are translated with "if" as is also true for the controverted passage in many if not most other translations. "Whosoever" is only 2 times...versus 73 "ifs," indicating AV translator's preference.)
Try using this url. I've put it for my "home" in my browser so I can open it in another window for quick referece: Blue Letter Bible - Language Tools
"And if anyone was not found written in the scroll of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (Rv 20:15, CLT) Why did it not say, "One or many, none or at least some were found and cast into the lake of fire?" Why never an answer to the "if, whether?" It is so well established according to the advocates of ceaseless torture forever it should be no problem to turn to a couple of the many passages that actually do say something to that effect. (I know there aren't any. I am baiting you!)
Did it occur to you that you are arguing semantics to the extent that you lose the message? I really don't care that they used "hell" to describe a number of elusive death states or places. None of them is desireable compared to Abrham's bosom or the new Jerusalem; "heaven". Hell defined is derived from an old english term helan, which meant to conceal. The message is unique, but you seem to be caught up in "what is 'hell'" rather than what must one do to have eternal life and avoiding whatever 'hell' is, whatever its name happens to be in truth.
A little Bible study and we are supposed to have forgotten what we're talking about. The minute there's a break in the clouds, that the English "hell" isn't used legitimately, covering up several things God was talking to us about, we need to get practical all of a sudden. We won't admit the truth, only that we should get back to basics, to chose the good and reject the bad, whatever they're called. Let's get stupider and stupider! It doen't matter what God actually says, we should maintain the cartoon version because people would be confused by the truth. Gag me with a spoon!
And some who have been indoctrinated to hate certain poor examples of one church or another have blindly fallen victim to the pain it has caused them to the point that the truth is denied if it conjures any memory of that painful past. I know too many people who have given up on church as a whole because of a bad pastor, or others that have given up on the Bible because of someone who misused it.
People who hold offences and refuse to forgive, lacking enough widom to at least glimpse the big picture is one thing. But what I was speaking of had nothing to do with bitterness on my part, which seems inherent in your reply. I noted that there is a plethora of people who have learned a gimmick. Their teachers taught them to say the word: "we believe the Bible" without ever giving them the simple tools to determine what the Bible does or does not say. (The tools are concordances.) The Bible has little authority because people are ignorant of what is does or doesn't say. When I make an argument based on what is or is not written I notice it impacts few who care only to repeat what those in the religious sytems surrounding them have repeated. No chapter and verse: they are thought of as something "according to your interpretation," not authoritative decisively for faith and practice. If they truly believed the Bible they would be impressed by Bible facts.
You are clearly a schooled, well-spoken man. Part of the trouble I have reading some of your posts is that they sometimes seem to get hung up on disecting the Word so much that the Word itself seems to get overlooked. Don't miss the forest for the trees, so to speak. Just the same, a man of your calibur should be less judgmental of some who are only putting forth healthy argument (whether well done or not) and save the more biting remarks for those who truly desrve them.
"He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets: therefore meddle not with him that flattereth with his lips." (Prv 20:19, AV)
"A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin." (Prv 26: 28, AV)
"A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet." (Prv 29:5, AV)
I didn't finish high school. Only got a GED; but, I can read and use a few helps to Bible study. That seems to be avoided by the dispensationalists. Well, by about any in the demoninations (sp?) Real Bible study, from the first word in the first verse of a book consecutively all the way through to the last word in the last verse of that book, then on to the next book is like a bad word in todays religious scene. You pay the pastor/priest to do your studying for you. You've let them replace your functioning as a member of Christ's body, just like the rest in the audience. Pastor/priests prevent you from exercising all the gifts and blessings God gives you. Anybody who knows anything is eliminated as competion for the position of importance and the income of comfort enjoyed by the unbiblical elite. Accept their positions and you must accept the Order of Laymen, something totaly pagan. By His indwelling Spirit, all that Jesus is and does is in you and meant to be developed as you mature. I promise it ain't goin' to happen in the religious systems' brothels of Babylon. You "cannot find one man in a thousand, no, not in ten thousand." The sooner you leave it the sooner you can follow on to know the Lord. "Babylon is fallen and has become the cage for every foul and unclean bird." Look at the child molestation, openy practising homosexuals promoted to higher places in the bureachracy, the head of The National Association of Evangelicals involved for ten years in drugs and perverse sex with a male prostitute, the World Council of Churches funding terrorists, denial of basic beliefs of Christians for two millennia in these institutions, including denigration of the Bible. Gacy was a sunday school teacher in a Baptist Chruch. On and on it goes...
But I question how many times the same answers have to be given to the same people. Regarding your attitude about intentionally bringing a tortured baby into the world or not, like your attitude toward Rv 20:15, I remember my large cat that had to be wrapped in towels and held tightly to be given medicine. Even then I had to settle for getting bit. What kind of "forehead" do you have? Listen to what God told Ezekiel:
7 But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted.
8 Behold, I have made thy face strong against their faces, and thy forehead strong against their foreheads.
9 As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house. (Ezk 3:7-9, AV)
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.
