Oh . . no kidding?
Isaiah 53 deals with the atonement.
Obviously that "rule" does not hold up since there is this parable of someone named Lazarus.
And the story of the rich man isn't a parable. In parables there are never names used.
You say, "if", and what if your condition on which you conditional statement is based is not met?
If we are righteous enough to become citizens in the city of God then we know that our sins have been pardoned. All of this could not have been if the Christ had not atoned for our sins. That is what is meant by atonement for sins of people.
reply to post by jmdewey60
Text You say, "if", and what if your condition on which you conditional statement is based is not met? What if you don't have to "follow rules" or "be righteous" to enter the kingdom? You go off track right from the start and what follows continues in the wrong direction. Go ahead and establish for me your premise, then I can continue this discussion. If you choose not to substantiate them, then that would tell me that you have no scriptural authority but are giving what is only a personal theory as if it was gospel truth which to me seems deceptive and of course by extension, of Satan.
What "false teachings" are those?
The very same false teachings are taught that Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. It is not a parable and is a happening with named people and named places. A parable is not so defined. Actually Luke’s account of Abraham’s Bosom is verified throughout scripture and also by Christ Jesus’ doctrine.
The "real places" you include in your so-called proof, is Hades, not a specific geographical "real" place that you can find on a map.
The Parable of the rich man and Lazarus (also called the Dives and Lazarus or Lazarus and Dives) is a well-known parable of Jesus appearing in the Gospel of Luke.
That is also, like I said before about your other opinion, outdated and erroneous. If you study Bible commentaries you find out that you have to go outside the Bible to understand all the references that Revelation uses.
. . . Revelations explains itself when it uses symbolic teaching and is very simple to correlate with other scriptures.
The "thousand years" is only in Revelation. And what tells you that it is meant to be understood literally as exactly a thousand years, rather than a thousand and one, or a thousand and two? There isn't anything like that because it is not meant to be taken literally.
The thousand years and second advent of the Christ is not just symbolic in the book of Revelations of Jesus to John. It is verified throughout the scriptures.
Jesus reigns over his kingdom from heaven but the actual kingdom itself is in the world that we live in.
Yes Jesus does reign over His kingdom of heaven now but that Kingdom is a celestial kingdom named the Kingdom of God, The Kingdom of Heaven, The House of many mansions, and the city of God.
That is in revelation. I don't see anything "celestial" about it. Isaiah talks about an ideal world which of course can not be taken literally where you have figurative things like the lion lying down with the lamb.
In that city is the paradise of the Lord and in that paradise of the Lord is the tree and water of life. It is not symbolic but is a real celestial city and is offered to you and everyone who will want to live forever. Also Isaiah prophesied of this very same New Jerusalem.
All you are doing is repeating what you said earlier.
If we are righteous enough to become citizens in the city of God then we know that our sins have been pardoned.
And I have to repeat myself by saying that there is nowhere in the Bible that describes Jesus "atoning for sins". God forgives sins by just forgetting them, that is what the Bible says.
All of this could not have been if the Christ had not atoned for our sins. That is what is meant by atonement for sins of people.
I hope that you realize that there is not a literal covenant, like a piece of parchment gets unrolled by an angelic scribe in a heavenly legal office and the terms of a contract gets drawn up.
This entire happening is the result of a new covenant that Jesus sealed with His blood and that could only be realized by His sacrifice on the cross.
You wording here seems weird to me and designed to give a mental picture of "the sacrifice" as if it was some sort of prescribed procedure where there was some sort of exchange made with some dark entity, that released some sort of power, all in a sort of ceremonial fashion.
If He had not chosen to offer Himself as the sacrifice in His death, then the Kingdom of Heaven would never have been established . . .
How do you know that?
. . . and mankind would never have been able to live forever in the celestial New Jerusalem. In other words all people would be forever in Sheol.
Which is all pure conjecture on your part, since the Bible describes none of that.
The bodies that were raised from their graves at Jesus' crucifixion were not resurrected souls. They were terrestrial bodies that God gave life to motion. The spirits of those bodies were not in those bodies. Those spirits of those bodies were (at that time) in Sheol. A similar happening occurred as Lazarus was restored. Lazarus was not resurrected at the the time he died in the bible. Lazarus was restored from the bosom of Christ. Jesus is the resurrection and was the first to resurrect.
What I believe is that entering the kingdom is not a future event but what we do now, which is that we hear the gospel, we believe, and we repent, and are baptized.
If that is what you believe then I cannot change your mind.
Back to my original objection, where does it say that in the Bible?
There are some people who become offended when another declares that they are righteous. I do not mean to show this in that manner. Being righteous in the biblical sense means that you are justified by the grace of God. Not that you or I are saints or perfect but only that our filthiness of this flesh has been forgiven by Jesus.
That was part of what Jesus did on the cross, where the very sight of him was utterly abhorrent, but God accepted him anyway, which should give us hope for ourselves being accepted. That's why Paul said that "he was made sin for us".
Every man and woman who has ever lived were not good enough on their own merit to be righteous but we must at least try.
No, I mean that those things happen when you enter the kingdom, not before. That is with the understanding that we do that, entering the kingdom, here and now, and not at some future time.
You did not say it but you inferred that God does not require rules and regulations in our behavior.
No, again, quite the opposite, I get alerted to action when I see people attempting to pass off that we can get by with a pretend righteousness that is by some sort of pronouncement where we are "accounted"righteous by having Jesus' righteousness presented as evidence instead our own life.
In fact you appear to be angry at the thought that God would ever dare to imply that you must obey any rules of conduct.
Nope, I don't believe in all of that. I think we have to be scrupulous about our behavior and that we need to pray to God for His spirit to be able to be righteous people, otherwise we will find ourselves cut off from the land of the living.
That sounds like our modern culture of love. God is love and He would never dare to harm anyone.
That's how I feel about what you are saying.
Sounds like feelgood philosophy but it is not of the bible that I read.
My problem is with your definition of the kingdom and how you circumvent the requirements by offering substitute righteousness and substitute payment, things the New Testament does not teach.
Like it or not there are rules to observe in order to become a citizen of the Kingdom of God.
That you have no biblical authority for your concept of the kingdom or what it takes to enter into it.
What say you jmdewey60 ?
reply to post by jmdewey60
Text All you are doing is repeating what you said earlier. You are not making sense because you are saying on one hand that there is this future kingdom and on the other hand you are saying that you have to meet the qualification for admittance now, meaning before we can enter, and can have that knowledge of that future admittance now. What you are doing is ignoring what the Bible is actually about, and making it all relate only to this other world that you just made up.
Seeing how I am not dead, it is future to me, and will be for as long as am alive, which is the time that I am concerned with right now.
The only time you can call this a future kingdom is when you are alive and waiting to die.
I think that if you are living as a Christian now, then that would also be what is your preparation for whatever comes after this life, starting with the judgment.
“If” there is this New Jerusalem wouldn't you want to prepare now to live forever in this utopia?
If you are not living according to the Christian ideals, including having the right motives for your actions, like loving others as yourself, then all the "believing", no matter what it is in, will be useless.
In other words it would be a big gamble on your part to believe in this and have it turn out to be a scam.
"Heavens" as it comes out in the English translation may look as if it is plural but it is not plural in the original languages.
But note that this says heavens. Plural.
The writer of 2 Peter was in a figurative way talking about the destruction of the current man-made system, which was then the Roman Empire. He was probably just copying the verbiage from Revelation.
Then there are others that believe that this entire universe is destroyed and God creates a new universe and world. They base this upon Apostle Peter’s writing.
The book, 2 Peter doesn't say that. Also, Peter didn't write that book but it is a later forgery in his name.
What I understand from this end time happening is that this entire universe will be destroyed just as Peter has told us.
Which should be an indication to the reader that this is obviously symbolic and not to be taken at all literally. People can't live at 30,00 feet, which would be still in the foundation, meaning no one would be living in the city itself.
As I understand this, the city alone will be 1,500 miles cubed.
If the city is symbolic, then so is the "newness" of heaven and earth (which is just another way of saying the environment that we live in).
You wrote Quote “There is a city that comes from heaven but it comes to this earth and it is symbolic of the church being from God.” Unquote
But that is not what John tells us. John says it will be a new earth because the old earth will pass away.
John is dealing with apocalyptic time here, not normal time. He is not talking about the future but is describing his seeing these symbols in a way that seems to be describing a future event, in order to place it into "That Day". In normal time, that day already happened and we are in the apocalyptic times, meaning what was foretold long ago but was a "mystery" to those foretelling it, but revealed to us now living it.
There is no church at this time.
What? As if your life coming to an end is not enough to wake you up to the harsh realities of life and death, and you have to make it even more severe with the very earth that you once lived in being destroyed too? Get real dude, someone who understands apocalypticism, like myself, is not motivated by wanting to "feel good" when they are interpreting apocalyptic writings like Revelation. It is only the desire to understand it for what it is.
That is a feelgood theology and it is not what the bible teaches.
You probably left a word out somewhere so that it makes your point hard to figure out here.
This is believed to be that house of many mansions that Jesus preached and the same as the Kingdom of God that was His constant theme. I do agree that this is a theological teaching and that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever as to this ever happening. There is much more literature to verify this theology but it would not be possible here to do that.
If you are dead, then your body ceases to function. Paul does not describe a person becoming a spirit. You just made that up and added it in.
This earthly body will cease to function, decay and return to this earth. What is left is your spirit. That spirit will receive a new covering for your spirit. This is called a spiritual body.
Which is all just a fantasy that you made up, using words that you mined from the Bible.
Because they are confined in this earth in a place called Sheol. They have not been accepted into the Kingdom of God.
Ask TrueJew about the Shekinah, that it is not in the Bible but comes from Medieval Kabbalah.
On the other hand, those who are accepted into the Kingdom of God have a covering of Shekinah glory which is believed to be a spiritual body of the celestial (Heavenly) order. Revelation calls this a white raiment.
And every bit of it is wrong because you only have a superficial understanding the Bible. First you have to learn what it actually says, then you can make informed conjecture.
Once again I state that this is all conjecture on my part.
reply to post by jmdewey60
Text But note that this says heavens. Plural. "Heavens" as it comes out in the English translation may look as if it is plural but it is not plural in the original languages.
reply to post by jmdewey60
Text If you are dead, then your body ceases to function. Paul does not describe a person becoming a spirit. You just made that up and added it in.
My source is the Bible.
Check your source and see what you are believing.
How could Isaiah agree with 2 Peter?
Isaiah agrees with 2nd Peter, which you proclaim is a forgery and which is entirely unfounded.
You are going by an old (now known to be baseless) theory to date the writing of Revelation. Today most New Testament scholars place it as the earliest book that is in the NT.
Peter could not possibly have copied any of the Revelations of John simply because he had been dead some twenty five years before Jesus gave John Revelations.
I already told you that it isn't plural so I don't know why you continue claiming that it is. That is an English convention to call what is above with an s at the end even though there is only one heavens. 2 Peter was written in Greek and the word is in the singular.
That means that heavens (Plural) . . .
You are just making this up. The OT knew three heavens and the NT knows seven. Read, Lord of the Cosmos: Mithras, Paul, and the Gospel of Mark, by Michael Patella OSB.
. . . the third heaven in which it is expanding into is totally unknown to them.
reply to post by jmdewey60
Text Ask TrueJew about the Shekinah, that it is not in the Bible but comes from Medieval Kabbalah. Revelation is using symbols of purity. What cult doctrines are you reciting?
Originally posted by Akragon
Originally posted by Rapha
reply to post by Akragon
Im not a "christian" but have you noticed only people with preexisting notions of "hell" ever experience these OOB trips to said firey pit?
These people, (in)famous world leaders like Stalin found out that Heaven and Hell exists when it was too late. Stalin had a temper tantrum and waved his fist at the ceiling. Silly little man.
Hell doesn't exist... Its nothing more then a mythological fear tactic used to control the populous
With ignorant sentences like this, this is why ATS is not on the NWO's hit-list as mentioned on BeforeItsNews.
Lol... Hell can't co-exist with the idea of a loving merciful creator...
Its simple logic... A loving father would not torture his children...
Only humans would create such mythological nonsense
Kinda like how we used to burn witches at the steak...
edit on 18-6-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)