Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The concept of Hell

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   


Text
I'm saying Hell does not exist. I am not an annihilationist - we cease to exist when we die, and that is what the resurrection is for.
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


LazarusShort

I understand your wanting to believe that your understanding of scripture is correct but I believe you don't understand what you have posted. That is according to most bibles.

I used the 1611 KJV and then went to to Aramaic Pe#ta and both cite the same. Matthew uses the Greek word hell eight times. Mark four times. Luke three times. Acts two times. James and 2 Peter one time each. Revelations four times.

Now all of this is strictly theology on both your and my understanding. The man on the cross who was crucified beside Jesus confessed his sins and asked for forgiveness. (Luke 23:40-43) Now follow this closely. If Jesus was in Paradise that same day that He was killed then He could not have been unconscious. He had gone to Paradise with this man. Both were dead and in order to have been in this Paradise this man and Jesus were not in an unconscious state in a grave.

At this time Paradise was located in Sheol and in a compartment beside and separated from hell. (Book of Luke). It was this paradise in which Jesus descended into the earth on the day of His death. It was later that He led the captives of this earthly Paradise out of the earth and into the celestial Paradise of New Jerusalem. That is the Kingdom of God that He preached while alive and that is the very first resurrection from terrestrial to celestial.

Now the Apostle Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 that Paradise is in the third heaven. The first heaven is the atmosphere of this world. The second heaven is the rest of this universe outside the atmosphere of this earth. The third heaven is the celestial realm outside of this universe. This is that of whivh Paul has referenced.

Revelations 2:7 tells us that the tree of life is in this Paradise which is in the third heaven.
Revelations 22: 2,14 tells us that this Paradise with the trees and water of life are in the kingdom of God which is the City called New Jerusalem. (Read the entire 21 and 22 chapters of Revelations)

My point? The crucified man who was with Jesus was taken to live forever in New Jerusalem on the very day that he died. Not laying in dirt waiting for resurrection, which is rabbinic Judaic theology, but was judged and taken as a conscious spirit into the kingdom of heaven on the day of death. That is Jesus' doctrine.

Another point is to be observed. is the question as to what is the purpose of heaven or hell if you are unconscious? If hell is cast into the lake of fire then why would God cast an empty non existent hell into a lake of ethereal fire? Isn't that contradictory? You say you do not believe in a hell and then you state that death and hell are cast into a lake of fire. That doesn't make any sense.

Resurrection means re birth. When you die you are judged immediately and sentenced as a conscious spirit with a complete memory bank. You will go to one of several places. One is hell and the other New Jerusalem and that will depend upon your sentence. If you are in hell you are a naked spirit with a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44). If you are in New Jerusalem you are a clothed celestial spirit with a celestial body and a white stone with your new name written on that stone. This is all found in Revelations.

As hell and death are cast into the lake of eternal ethereal fire, it is shown that those that are in hell are already judged and now face the death of the spirit. This is called the second death. It is believed by some that this is called death because the spirit loses consciousness and only the worm (image) will dance in the ethereal fire. (Isaiah 66 chapter)

Look into this and you will see that most Christians are not even aware of where they will spend eternity.




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Seede, actually I think I understand perfectly what I have posted. What we are discussing is a deep subject and mentioning two English translations is not sufficient to settle the issue, for we must get into our linguistic time machine and take a little trip.

What is “Hell”? It is both a word with a long history, and a concept. In older understandings of the word, it meant both a cover (noun) and to cover (verb). Our word “helmet” means a covering (hel) for the head. In older understandings, it meant the grave. The ancient Greeks used to bury their dead, and in dire dircumstances, even a handful of dirt was sufficient to sent the deceased to Hades/the grave. In the old days, folks who lacked a root cellar would bury produce underground between layers of straw, and it was called “helling,” meaning to cover. Likewise, placing thatch on the roof of a house was to “hell” (cover) the house. Like must things linguistic, it is complex, but the words/concepts of “hell” and “grave” are always close. Long ago, the original usage of the word “hell” got confused with the introduction of the Scandinavian goddess “Hel” into the culture. We as Christians must, of course, reject any word, term, or concept coming in from pagan sources, don’t you agree? I have even made a decision to NOT mention the name of pagan deities, so I just cite them so: [pagan deity, name not mentioned per command of YHVH]. I mention “Hel” in particular so that you will see the linguistic connection. A few hours with a good concordance and the Oxford Englich Dictionary (an authoritative reference on the history of English words) should key you in on the complexities and simplicities of this “hell” issue.

OK, moving on. You mention that thus-and-so books of the Bible mention “Hell” so many times. You need to go back and see what the original writers meant, and what words they actually used. Further, ever wonder why the apostle Paul never mentions “Hell”? No – not once! Ever wonder what the Bible would have said IF eternal-torture-in-Hell was a reality? Let’s start: God would have told Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would die AND risk eternal torture in Hell. And on and on, through the centuries, writer to writer, prophet after prophet, God missed every chance to warn us of everlasting Hell, did He not? If “Hell” is so dire, why not?? Because it is not? God’s fulminations against sinners amounted to “Why would you die?,” not “Why would you die, and go to Hell?” Even at the end of the Great White Throne judment, the punishment is only the second death. As I said before, if Death and Hell/Grave are thrown into the Lake of Fire, and the last enemy to be defeated is Death, then NO ONE can then be dead and in Hell. It is really so simple, while your theology seems to border on Rube Goldberg.

Now to deepen your understanding, let me tell you what the Lake of Fire really is. It is not an annihiliation machine. To be cast into it is the Second Death, yes, but we know from the very fact of the Ressurrection that death is not final, don’t we? If we scan the Bible from one end to the other, we find that God often depicts Himself as fire, consuming fire, refining fire, and soap. Soap?! Yes, soap cleanses, and so does fire, by burning away dross. What is our dross? Beliefs, attutudes, sins, ways of life – anything contrary to the ways of God. Those who are thrown in the LoF have their wood, hay, and stubble burned away until there is nothing more to consume. When that has happened, their gold, silver, and precious stones will be left, even if it is just a little, and they will be fit for the Kingdom. But that time is a LONG way off.

As to Jesus and the converted thief, consider what your version of it means. Jesus and the thief go to Paradise right away. That means that Jesus never really died, and if that is true, we are still in our sins and our faith is in vain. Does that sound familiar? Paul saw it very clearly: Jesus had to die as a man, and lie dead for three days in the grave, helled by His shroud and tomb. The KJV wording of “I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” makes void the whole plan of salvation! The original Greek had NO punctuation, and “I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.” makes just as much sense grammatically, and a whole lot more sense theologically. Every scripture MUST be consistent with every other scripture (and I believe properly understood, they do) and to take one little bit and build on it independent of the rest can quickly take you into dangerous theo(il)logical territory.

Laz

BTW, there are Bible versions which do not mention Hell at all, anywhere.
edit on 4-9-2013 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Seede

Laz has done a very good job of presenting the Truth.That is all anyone can ever do however only the creator God can reveal the Truth for someone to "know".That is what is of paramount importance...knowing.Many, many believe many, many things ...and the majority are not the Truth.

The false doctrine of the eternal punishment or annihilation of hell is not The Truth.The evidence against the hell doctrine is overwhelmingly in the scriptures.I don't believe it because it is in the scriptures because that is only the testimony of Yahoshua...God is salvation.I don't "believe" it is true at all ...I know it is true.That is the only way it can be known.Many believe many things but that's all it is ..belief.

Knowing the Truth is one of the highest hurdles God has to throw everyone over because we can't jump it (or any of them) on our own.No one likes getting tossed on their head however that is what will happen to everyone.Gods thoughts and ways are not ours in the least.

God is just and merciful.God is corrective not punitive.The eternal punishment/annihilation of hell doctrine has no justice or mercy and is 100% punitive with nothing redemptive.It is all the polar opposite of the creator Gods character and nature.To know Gods nature(name) will be the most natural thing there is to know.Not knowing Gods nature/name is to not know God at all.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   


Text Seede, actually I think I understand perfectly what I have posted. What we are discussing is a deep subject and mentioning two English translations is not sufficient to settle the issue, for we must get into our linguistic time machine and take a little trip.

reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


Once again Laz - God Bless you

I do not agree with you on several points but then we are discussing theology and Christianity is nothing but theology. I will try to explain so bear with me.

The first Christian church and mother church of all Christianity was the Jerusalem church. This church existed well into the second century (135 CE) and the Roman Gentiles had absolutely nothing to do with its conception or its operation for well over forty years. The Jerusalem Christians were all with Aramaic and sister language of Hebrew. At the onset of its foundation the Greek Hellenists had nothing to do with the Jerusalem Church's liturgy and in fact were not part of their congregation.

What I am saying is that Torah (at this time) was Aramaic and Hebrew only and the apostles preached and taught in the church in the language of Aramaic and Hebrew. That is a fact. We cannot produce these original letters of the Apostles which most reliable scholars will believe were written in the Aramaic and Hebrew. As you have pointed out, I cannot simply accept two English versions of the GREEK. You hit the nail on the head. What I do accept is the Hebrew and Aramaic languages of the original manuscripts.

Where can I get these Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts in a bible format? The only place that is opened for the average layman is a Lamsa Bible or go to "Aramaic Pesh itta Bible Repository. Dr. Lamsa is Assyrian and the Assyrian Christians claim that they have the Aramaic and Hebrew OT and NT in a bible format. In other words you can theoretically compare the Greek with the Aramaic and Hebrew in English. As it is now you are caught up in the NT Greek manuscripts only.

Hell is a Greek rendition of the underworld as the Greeks understood Hell to be. As you read your English NT, the language that was translated was from Greek to English. Not Aramaic Hebrew to English. Your OT Torah could have been either Hebrew to English (Masoretic text) or the Greek to English (Septuagint text). As you use your English concordance it will depend upon whether you have a Greek to English only or a combination of Aramaic Hebrew to English as well as Greek to English. I assume you have taken all of this into account.

My teachings are from sitting under Christian rabbis and not the gentile organized religions so that may explain the difference between your understanding and my understanding of scripture. I do not mean to denigrate you or your religion but I can see that we could never agree between Greek and Hebrew renditions of scriptures.

Before Abram came upon the scene, the ancient Hebrews believed that all people (collectively and at death) entered a underworld called Sheol. At this time they observed the seven Noahic laws that governed the morality of men. Then the idea was presented that if men were accountable while alive then they must be accountable in death. This was a gradual acceptance of the people and in time became logical and true.

As Abraham died and was revered as a good man, he became honored with the understanding that he was in Sheol and in a separation from the unjust spirits. After all if he detested ungodliness while alive then he must do the same in death. This honor was described as Abraham's Bosom. This described all spirits of the dead who were honorable. So Abraham's Bosom became a compartment in Sheol which was separated from the other bad spirits. Now note that at this time Sheol was a place of a 12 month punishment of spirits. So the Bosom of Abraham (while in Sheol) was still far removed from this other portion of Sheol.

It was many years later that a name was given to this bad portion of Sheol and that name was Gehinom. So we wound up with Abraham's Bosom (Paradise) and Gehinom. Both are Sheol but divided into several camps. The first mention of Gehinom was in the Talmud and Midrash and was to show shame to the ancients who practiced child sacrifice at (Gei Ben Hinom) meaning the Valley of the son of Hinom.

Now we see that the Greeks have entered the picture in the days of Jesus. The Greeks have taught that this Gehinom is their name for hell. The Roman Catholic church adopted their purgatory from the 12 month punishment period of the Hebrews who are punished for 12 months in Sheol and then released. The reasoning is that God would never punish anyone forever. The catch is that this only applied to the Hebrews (Jews) and not the heathens.

I leave that with wishing you the best.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


Seede, would it surprise you that I am aware of the problems inherent in translating from one language (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) into English? I know that a whole mindset goes along with the language which is difficult to filter out. I am also aware of the long and glorious history of the Assyrian Orthodox Church, the true eastern church.

However, I am Bible-Only oriented. I have NO use for various forms of midrash , Kabbalah, or the Talmud. I reject any view which has developed in religious circles, whether Jewish or Christian. If the Bible has not spoken, I know nothing...

Knowing God, who He is, what He likes, what He abhors, is more important than theology, and religion is not sufficient.

Here is an essay of mine which will expand on what I have spoken of:

JUST BREATHE, the Gospel According to Laz

What are we, anyway? God tells us in Genesis 2:7, for He was there.

From the KJV II: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And man became a living soul.”

From the Ferrar Fenton Version (FFV): “The EVER-LIVING GOD afterwards formed Man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the life of animals; BUT MAN BECAME A LIFE-CONTAINING SOUL.”

Now a lot is said in this one verse – let’s see how these parts: dust, breath, and soul fit together. The first thing to note is that God made man from the “dust of the ground.” Whether it was dust, dirt, or red clay is not too critical here, though the Miao people of China do refer to Adam as the “Patriarch Dirt” in their lore. Also see Genesis 3:19: “…for dust you are, and to dust you shall return,” for a bit more on the dust connection.

OK, we have a body, called “man” because of what is about to happen, but this man/body is not yet alive, not yet a soul. God next bestowed the body with a Life Force – He breathed into the lifeless body “the breath of life” or “ruach.” The Hebrew word “ruach” covers a range of meanings - breath, wind, spirit - and is fairly close to the Greek “pneuma,” the Latin “spiritus,” and the English “breath.” However, the word “soul” is never far away, for they are closely associated.

Back to our story, we have a dust/dirt body, now with breath/life-force/spirit, and what results? Man then becomes a “living soul.” Note that! Genesis, God’s Word is telling us that Adam/man does not HAVE a soul – no, Adam/man IS a soul, a living soul. It is common for Christians of just about any persuasion to talk about “your soul,” but that is just plain wrong. We are souls, living souls, living persons. I learned all this in the SDA church, by the way, and in that, they were entirely correct.

To reiterate thus far:

DUST + GOD’S CREATIVE WORK = A DEAD BODY

DEAD BODY + BREATH OF LIFE = LIVING SOUL

Looking through my Strong’s Concordance at the entries for the word “soul,” I see that the English language so often treats it as something that one possesses, rather than is, so I think this may be how the “your soul” usage came about. But no, as a good friend once told me, your soul doesn’t go flipping off to Heaven when you die. What returns to God is the breath/spirit which He gave in the beginning. The Revelation states that there are seven Spirts of God, and elsewhere the Holy Bible says that God is Spirit. The part of us which is Spirit is God’s portion, and therefore it returns to Him on our death. Perhaps no one has said it better than Solomon, though his view is dark and despairing:

“For one event is for the sons of Adam, and one event for the animals; - and the one event that is to them is; - as these die, so those die; and the same breath is to all; - and man dies the same as the cattle! Is not the whole vanity? The whole go to one place; the whole come from dust; and the whole return to the dust. Who knows that the breath of the sons of Adam when it goes, ascends? And that the breath of the cattle, when it goes down, departs to the earth?-“ [Eccleiastes 3:19-21 FFV]

What Solomon says, and as Fenton translated it, ties in with Genesis 2:7, where Fenton translates “the life of animals,” instead of the more usual “breath of life.”

What are we left with then, when we die? I posted this above:

DEAD BODY + BREATH OF LIFE = LIVING SOUL

To deepen your understanding, let's just reverse the process:

LIVING SOUL – BREATH OF LIFE = DEAD BODY

When you die, you stop breathing. Now as we all know, a lot of other things happen at and after death, but the Biblical view equates life with having breath, so I'm going to stick with that.

made simple: soul - breath = body

Expanded a bit, at the risk of redundancy:

living person (soul) - life (breath) = dead/lifeless body

It's just the making of Adam in reverse, and what do we end up with?

The breath/Spirit returns to God, who gave it. It belongs to Him, and since it is most certainly a part of one of the seven Spirits of God, it is Him. That being so, it doesn't go to "Hell" if it's part of God, does it? No, it goes to the Heavenly realms.

The body begins to decay, and one way or the other, returns to the ground, which gave it. That being so, it doesn't go to "Hell," except in the sense of the grave (the original meaning of “Hell,” I believe) - there's no point in sending lifeless bodies to a Hell of eternal torment, is there? It would be absurd.

Oops! What happened to the soul? Gone, gone! It no longer exists, as the living person no longer exists. It doesn't return to anything - it's just like a chemical molecule when it is broken up into it's component atoms – you have atoms, no molecule. Poof! Consider a water molecule undergoing electrolysis – and remember that our bodies are mostly water - the hydrogen bubbles off one electrode, and oxygen bubbles off the other. Asking where the soul went is as pointless as asking where the water went.

It is common for people to think that not only do we have a soul, but an immortal soul. The concept of an immortal soul comes to us from Greek philosophy, but the Biblical view is that the soul is mortal. A few examples will establish this. In Psalm 22:29, we read: “…none can keep alive his own soul.” Ezekiel 18:4 is very telling: “The soul that sins, it shall die.” Finally, look at the Revelation 16:3 – “And every living soul in the sea died.” [all from the KJV II] So there you go, there is no soul, mortal or immortal, to send to Hell – no point sending the non-existent to “Hell.” There is nothing to go there at all, so I say Hell is non-existent: 404/Not Found. Now at this point, Damnationist objections will appear – God will resurrect all, some to be saved and some to be cast into Hell. I say, no, they are cast into the Lake of Fire, which is not Hell, but more on that later.

Did you know that “Hell” is also a verb? This is how my father explained it to me. Back in the old days, before refrigeration, if you lacked a root cellar, you had to keep fruits and veggies fresh by other means. Say you had a crop of apples to lay by. To do so, you would dig a trench to below the local frost line in the soil, lay down some straw, place a layer of apples on the straw, sprikle more straw on top of the apples, and cover the whole thing with the excavated dirt. At least, that was one method, and it was called “helling” the apples, meaning simply to put them into the ground until used.

Where does this leave us? The soul is no more, the Spirit has returned to God, the body is in the ground, and nothing is left over to go to Hell. It would be so easy to conclude, as Solomon did, that that is the end of us – to die just like an animal – but that is not the end of the story. Bear with me, and read on, please.

Before we leave the creation of Adam, let’s look at the genealogy of Jesus the Christ, in Luke 3:38 – “…the son of Adam, the son of God.” Now, Adam was made or begotten of God, but not as Jesus was, who was the “only begotten Son.” No, Jesus had birth by a woman and possessed the full indwelling of the Spirit. Adam had neither, but we see that he was converted from inanimate matter to a living, breathing, thinking person (soul) by the use of some small dose of breath/Spirit, apparently as much as an animal gets, or not much more. Adam, by this, was immersed into the world of matter, experience, consciousness. Just before God made Adam, we see this reference to water, in Genesis 2:6 – “But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.” [KJV II] It puts me in mind of what Jesus said to Nicodemus: “…unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” [John 3:5 KJV II] Is it just possible that the creation of Adam was just such a thing as Jesus was saying – being born of water and the Spirit? Only the ingredient of dust is mentioned as being used, but God must have made or added quite a bit of water to the dust to make Adam’s body. If so, it was a baptism, an immersion into the reality of the world.

Now, let’s look ahead some 4,000 years, to the time of Jesus, the Christ. In the Gospels, we see a lot of water – there is John the Baptist at the river Jordan, there is the Sea of Galilee, there is water made into wine at a wedding, and there is Jesus’ strange comment to Nicodemus. I am going to try to make sense of that. Mentioned only in the Gospel of John, we read: “Jesus then said to them again, Peace be on you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you. And when He said this He breathed on them and He said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit!” [John 20:21-22 KJV II]

Now if we have kept the creation of Adam fresh in our minds through hundreds of pages of the Old and New Testaments, we see something truly amazing happening! These men, souls, disciples of Christ, are being given more of the Spirit of God. If they were not receiving more, this exercise would have been pointless. Later, we see the same thing happening in an even more amazing way, in Acts 2, where we read, “…a sound was heard from the sky, similar to that of a very violent tempest-blast, filling the whole house…And they saw…fiery tongues, which settled upon every one of them. And they were all filled with Holy Spirit; and began to speak in foreign languages, as the Spirit endowed them with clear expression.” [Acts 2:2-4 FFV]

Now, the first thing to notice is not explicit in the quoted text, but the whole number of the ones who were disciples/followers of Jesus at that time was about 120, as mentioned in chapter 1. Here, we already see more people being given the Spirit than were mentioned in all of the entire Old Testament, and before the book of Acts closes, hundreds and thousands more received the Spirit. Clearly, God is beginning a new age of the Spirit here, and opening up the way back to Him to great masses. This time around, the Spirit is being given to souls who already have a minimal amount of it. Further, this is not the intimate, personal act of giving a little puff of breath to one man, but it is now a mighty event, with a blast of wind/breath/Spirit, and the new element of fire. Is the Pentecost event a further act of baptism on God’s part? Peter quotes Joel later in chapter 2: “…I WILL POUR OUT MY SPIRIT UPON ALL FLESH…” [Acts 2:17 FFV]. “Pour out” reminds us of water, and with the Spirit, it does follow the pattern set up in the creation of Adam/man. I’m going to put it thus:

soul + Spirit (more of it) = saint

Or, to expand it a bit, a soul with the minimal amount of Spirit, receives a lot more, and becomes a saint, a person who is justified and sanctified before God. Many call this gift of the Spirit the “Earnest,” a sort of down-payment as a promise of the full amount to be given later. This was made possible by Jesus taking upon Himself the sins of us all. If we think of sin in terms of debt, He cancelled our debt of sin, and made it possible for us to go free at the appointed time, and receive our proper inheritance. The reader should go to to the law God gave to Moses, and read up on the Law of the Jubilee (beginning in Leviticus 25), for it established the pattern of the spiritual release of mankind from the bondage of sin and death. Every fifty years, trumpets would sound across the land to announce it, and I think this looks forward to the “last trumpet” as mentioned in I Corinthians 15:52 – “…at the last trumpet – for a trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised forever pure…” [KJV II]

Let’s review a bit. We know now how man was made, and by that we know by extension what man is and consists of. We know that when we die, we’re dead, not alive in some immortal afterlife in some automatic way. I like to think of our life in the here-and-now as short preface to something which would reduce the Library of Congress to a Haiku in comparison. The death separating the two seems all too final and awful to us, but I see it as nothing more than a turn of the page, after the preface is finished. It is not even to be feared. Now we delve into what happens after that “last trumpet.”



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   


Text
The soul is no more, the Spirit has returned to God, the body is in the ground, and nothing is left over to go to Hell. It would be so easy to conclude, as Solomon did, that that is the end of us – to die just like an animal

reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


Laz – God Bless you

I have read and reread your blog and I have also read some of your Fenton Bible. To be honest I only examined some high points of the Fenton rendition and discarded it from my mind as it was taken from Westcott and Hort and I do not accept that as majority textual manuscripts. But that being said I will not argue the point.

As to your blog. I agree with some of what you have written but not the key points of your belief. I do thank you for your information and the time it must have taken. You left one very important point out of your writing and that was the resurrection of what ever is to be resurrected.

You claim that the spirit goes back to the Creator and the soul returns to the original elements of which it was created. I agree that the soul returns to the terrestrial elements but I do not agree that the spirit of man necessarily returns to the Creator in the sense that it becomes part of the Creator again. I do however believe that the spirit of man who has become a son of the Father will abide with the Father as a separate entity as he is now in the soul. The spirit that is now living in your soul does not change in either substance or image as the soul dies. It retains its same image in a spiritual body as it appears in the terrestrial body This is all found in 1st Corinthians 15:35-49.

As you were given a portion of the spirit of God you became separated from the Holy Spirit as a separate entity and will never more become as you were before you were created. The proof of this is that if you are evil and unjustified you cannot be a portion with God. God does not associate with evil. The proof of this is that god created evil and evil became disassociated with the Father. As Lucifer was thrown down, being evil, shows that God will not allow evil to abide with Him. Being disassociated with the Father is to be refrained from the celestial realm of which is the Fathers house.

Solomon was wise and with all of the knowledge at his disposal he was still confounded as to the spirit of man and creation. As you re read Deuteronomy 3:19-21 bear in mind that Solomon is not teaching you anything. He is asking you because he does not have the answers. As of the days of Jesus “no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven”. John 3:12 --- That was the answer that Solomon did not have. As Jesus died and presented New Jerusalem (Kingdom of God) , then man’s spiritual body, which was in Sheol, was resurrected into the celestial body and allowed to enter the city, eat and drink of the food and water of life and live forever.

In death you will have a spiritual body (in hell) or a celestial body (in New Jerusalem) with the same image as you now have just as the scriptures have shown which I have shown you. (1st Corinthians 15: 39-45) -- Soul (Spirit) sleeping theology is not true in the doctrine of Christ Jesus.

You have not addressed the question as to resurrection. Resurrection of what? That old decayed soul which has returned from this earth only to die once again? Hebrews 9:27 – “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” If you subscribe to Judaic philosophy then you must die twice but that is not Jesus’ doctrine. Think about this. When your soul dies the author of Hebrews (9:27) tells us that you are judged. Now if the soul dies (only one time) and the spirit has been wisped away as a vapor, then what is to be judged? Are you then saying that the soul is renewed and united with that spirit that is with God? Your soul cannot be renewed as before you died only to die once more. It would have to die again because flesh and blood is not allowed in heaven. -- 1st Corinthians 15:50 “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption”. – That leaves two deaths of the same soul does it not? Also would that entail two judgments?

Another question I would like to address is that of the lake of fire. The lake of fire is only realized at the very end of judgment. Why is a non existent hell cast into the lake of fire? If no one is in hell then why is it mentioned at all and what is it? I never got that answered from you. Would that be your metaphor?

Another vital question is as follows. Do you accept that there are two resurrections and that whoever is in the first resurrection is exempt from the final judgement?



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 

I'm sorry to interrupt your scholarly conversation, they're rare on ATS, but please allow me to ask one quick question.


However, I am Bible-Only oriented. I have NO use for various forms of midrash , Kabbalah, or the Talmud. I reject any view which has developed in religious circles, whether Jewish or Christian. If the Bible has not spoken, I know nothing...
I always thought the Bible did not teach people to ignore the words spoken by the Apostles. The idea that only the Bible itself has authority is foreign to me. I don't remember it being the teaching of the Bible itself. Would you explain it to me? There's a lot I have to learn.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Laz – God Bless you

[answers by Laz are in brackets]
[Seede, may the Father and the Son bless you also!]

I have read and reread your blog and I have also read some of your Fenton Bible. To be honest I only examined some high points of the Fenton rendition and discarded it from my mind as it was taken from Westcott and Hort and I do not accept that as majority textual manuscripts. But that being said I will not argue the point.

[I have little use for the Wescott & Hort New Testament text myself, and read Fenton mostly for the Old Testament.]

As to your blog. I agree with some of what you have written but not the key points of your belief. I do thank you for your information and the time it must have taken. You left one very important point out of your writing and that was the resurrection of what ever is to be resurrected.

[I should have mentioned that my essay is as yet unfinished.]

You claim that the spirit goes back to the Creator and the soul returns to the original elements of which it was created. I agree that the soul returns to the terrestrial elements but I do not agree that the spirit of man necessarily returns to the Creator in the sense that it becomes part of the Creator again. I do however believe that the spirit of man who has become a son of the Father will abide with the Father as a separate entity as he is now in the soul. The spirit that is now living in your soul does not change in either substance or image as the soul dies. It retains its same image in a spiritual body as it appears in the terrestrial body This is all found in 1st Corinthians 15:35-49.

[Um, it is so difficult to prise people from ingrained thinking. When I explain what the Bible says about the way God constituted man/Adam, they go right back to the “you have a soul” thinking. I’m trying to say YOU ARE a soul. Let me say it again – your body rots in the ground, while you (the soul) goes something like . The soul is no more…]

As you were given a portion of the spirit of God you became separated from the Holy Spirit as a separate entity and will never more become as you were before you were created. The proof of this is that if you are evil and unjustified you cannot be a portion with God. God does not associate with evil. The proof of this is that god created evil and evil became disassociated with the Father. As Lucifer was thrown down, being evil, shows that God will not allow evil to abide with Him. Being disassociated with the Father is to be refrained from the celestial realm of which is the Fathers house.

[Yes, but don’t get pre-existent on me.]

Solomon was wise and with all of the knowledge at his disposal he was still confounded as to the spirit of man and creation. As you re read Deuteronomy 3:19-21 bear in mind that Solomon is not teaching you anything. He is asking you because he does not have the answers. As of the days of Jesus “no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven”. John 3:12 --- That was the answer that Solomon did not have. As Jesus died and presented New Jerusalem (Kingdom of God) , then man’s spiritual body, which was in Sheol, was resurrected into the celestial body and allowed to enter the city, eat and drink of the food and water of life and live forever.

[Yes, Solomon did lack ultimate answers. We see that his reach exceeded his grasp, but he did pose the rhetorical question as to our spirit versus the spirits of animals. God gave them all breath, and Solomon could not see the better destiny of man.]

In death you will have a spiritual body (in hell) or a celestial body (in New Jerusalem) with the same image as you now have just as the scriptures have shown which I have shown you. (1st Corinthians 15: 39-45) -- Soul (Spirit) sleeping theology is not true in the doctrine of Christ Jesus.

[Those verses mention a celestial/spiritual body, but do not place one in Hell, and another in the Kingdom. Again, First Corinthians was written by Paul, who never mentioned Hell. “Soul Sleep” is only an analogy, and no analogy is perfect – this one is far from perfect, for in sleep we get to dream – in death, we don’t.]

You have not addressed the question as to resurrection. Resurrection of what? That old decayed soul which has returned from this earth only to die once again? Hebrews 9:27 – “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” If you subscribe to Judaic philosophy then you must die twice but that is not Jesus’ doctrine. Think about this. When your soul dies the author of Hebrews (9:27) tells us that you are judged. Now if the soul dies (only one time) and the spirit has been wisped away as a vapor, then what is to be judged? Are you then saying that the soul is renewed and united with that spirit that is with God? Your soul cannot be renewed as before you died only to die once more. It would have to die again because flesh and blood is not allowed in heaven. -- 1st Corinthians 15:50 “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption”. – That leaves two deaths of the same soul does it not? Also would that entail two judgments?

[My view on the resurrection is very simple. First, I don’t subscribe to the rapture doctrine. Second, I see resurrection as a repeat of the making of man/Adam, except that the new man or woman is resurrected as flesh and bone – no blood. I believe that our lymphatic system is a remnant of our original, pre-blood, circulatory system. The overcomers will be resurrected first, according to the barley harvest, and will not enter judgment. Non-overcomer believers will be resurrected according to the wheat harvest, and will not enter judgment, but will miss out on rulership. Non-believers, and others not in the Book of Life will go into the LoF, for purification. Ultimately, they get into the Kingdom also.]

Another question I would like to address is that of the lake of fire. The lake of fire is only realized at the very end of judgment. Why is a non existent hell cast into the lake of fire? If no one is in hell then why is it mentioned at all and what is it? I never got that answered from you. Would that be your metaphor?

[I said in my last post that Death and Hell/Grave are cast into the LoF. I’m not saying that “Hell” as you think of it is cast in, it is the Grave. I see it as mostly symbolic.]

Another vital question is as follows. Do you accept that there are two resurrections and that whoever is in the first resurrection is exempt from the final judgement?

[No, I believe in three ressurections, according to the three harvest festivals in the Law given to Moses. Those in the first resurrection (at least) will be exempt from the final judgment. In the fulness of time, all will pass judgment, otherwise, God can not become All in all.]



edit on 6-9-2013 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 

I'm sorry to interrupt your scholarly conversation, they're rare on ATS, but please allow me to ask one quick question.


However, I am Bible-Only oriented. I have NO use for various forms of midrash , Kabbalah, or the Talmud. I reject any view which has developed in religious circles, whether Jewish or Christian. If the Bible has not spoken, I know nothing...
I always thought the Bible did not teach people to ignore the words spoken by the Apostles. The idea that only the Bible itself has authority is foreign to me. I don't remember it being the teaching of the Bible itself. Would you explain it to me? There's a lot I have to learn.



Good question, Charles! The Bible does indeed NOT teach us to "ignore the words spoken by the Apostles." However, today we only have the writings of the Apostles, and of only a few of them. Faith is by hearing, but we have to go with what we have.

When we say that the Bible has authority, it implies an Author. Why so? Well, it refers to its Author, God, who spoke through His servants, scribes, prophets, and apostles. It records the very words of God, spoken directly to this person or that. It records God's words and message to His people Israel, upbraiding them for their sins and failure to follow Him. We know these words are true because of the underlying mathematical coding in the text - a coding far too complex to have arisen by chance or to have been produced by a mere human mind. It is too deep a subject to really get into here, but briefly, if we substitute the numerical values for the Hebrew and Greek letters (they lacked a separate system of symbols for numbers, and so used letters doing double-duty), we get a highly complex number sequence. It is like a watermark in the text, and no, I am not talking about the ELS codes. Individual words derive mathematical meaning by this method also, and the work of Bullinger is a good introduction to that. There is also a third level of coding, and that is the very ancient pictorial meanings of the letters/words. For instance, if we plug the pictorial meanings into the letters of the tetragrammaton (YHVH), we get "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail," that is to say, Jesus.

Besides all that, we have the tie-ins with history, as the Author was there. We have fulfilled prophecy, predicted and done in great detail, for the Author was there at both the writing and the fulfillment. We have the oral history of the Miao/Hmong people, who have passed the tale down, even to the phonetic names of the Biblical characters, in line with Genesis, right up to the scattering of the peoples at Babel, just as we would expect if it all happened as Genesis describes. This is easily found on the www, just key "Miao Genesis" into a search engine and read it for yourself, and it's a good read. We have a lot of concepts from Genesis encoded into the traditional Chinese writing system, and for this, see the book The Discovery of Genesis. We have myths and legends from about 500 cultures around the world, supporting the Genesis record of the great flood.

Truly, we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses! God has left His marks and clues everywhere, if we know to look and see.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by freedom7
My question for you all is, " Is the literal fire and brimstone concept of Hell being an endless torture chamber for all of eternity valid?


Yes


Originally posted by freedom7
Is it a lie perpetuated by the church?


No


Originally posted by freedom7
Does it exist just albeit in a less literal form but more of a symbolic kind of state of separation from God in the afterlife?


No lesser form. No symbolics


Absolute nonsense.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LionOfGODAbsolute nonsense.


Don't you think you need to explain your opinion?



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


Laz,

I want to commend you for an excellent presentation of the Truth.There are still so many things to know that this kind of discourse can never be complete.So as a reminder not an admonishment I say... only God can reveal this foundational truth to someone.The doctrines of men will deny it to their dieing breath unless God reveals it.

It isn't up to anyone to convince others of the Truth .They are only to present the Truth and let the Truth do it's job.It can be hard not to get caught up in senseless debate with those that can't hear yet.I empathize with them greatly.I have known deafness.However I know from MUCH experience they will not understand what you are saying no matter how "kindly" you say it..it is all and assault on "their religion" and "their God" (themselves).

The gospel that is being revealed is without observation.They will kick against the goads until they are struck down blind.The apostle Paul was the perennial example of the religious carnal mind as Saul.He rightly spoke that he was the chiefest of all sinners(imperfect.. immature). Only God could reveal the Truth to someone so blind.This is a massive generation of Sauls. Searching scriptures for life but never coming to "know" the Truth and failing to come to Yahoshua ...God is salvation for ALL mankind...that they would have life in this age.

This is how it works.The many are called cannot hear.They only hear themselves and their religion and their God.However the Truth penetrates the darkness even though we won't see it.The Kingdom of God comes without observation it will only be found in their midst.That's Gods job.
edit on 7-9-2013 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Seede,

re: " Revelations four times."

re: "Revelations 2:7 tells us that the tree of life is in this Paradise..."

re: "Revelations 22: 2,14 tells us that this Paradise with the trees and water..."

re: "(Read the entire 21 and 22 chapters of Revelations) "

re: "This is all found in Revelations."


Any particular reason for adding an "s" at the end of Revelation?



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Rex282
 


Rex, I could not agree more. I know what you say is true, for in my own life I was a confident atheist but God put His hand on me by reason of my earthly father's prayers. He obtained no result until he got his own life in line with God's ways, and THEN things began to happen in my life without my will having anything to do with it. I was blind, but caught in the spotlight, and dragged/drawn into the Kingdom. It is God's choosing: each man in his order.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   


Text
Any particular reason for adding an "s" at the end of Revelation?

reply to post by rstrats
 


The Revelation Of Saint John The Divine is actually the correct description of this biblical booklet in most bibles. Some laymen will reference it as Rev or Rev. or Apocalypse. Some scholars reference this book as Revelations simply because it reveals many revelations which were revealed to John. Most people with a basic understanding of the books or book of the bible know exactly that there are not two works of Revelation and Revelations in the Greek manuscripts. In the past I have used Rev. and was criticized by my peers for doing so. I then took the most comfortable way out and started to reference this as Revelations from John to mankind but am now aware that this takes away from Jesus. In the future as I reference this work I will reference it as the work of The Revelation Of Saint John The Divine. That is when I reference it on ATS. I am sorry this confused you and thank you for your understanding.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The problem, as i see it, is God, being a loving entity, even loves Lucifer, and so we are caught inbetween the two....trying to get out of this hell, having been subscribed here via control and other measures.....for our energy, while it ( that soul energy) is utilized for purposes we may or ,may not agree with, but this is the price, in this particular place, wherever that is.

In my estimation, if you truly believe you on planet Earth, and the surface information is what you invest in, you are sorely lacking in what is going on......not that I know what is ,but from what I DO KINOW, that explanation just doesn;t fit at all... And, neither, really does hell....limbo maybe....but who knows,and if they did (who) they wouldn't be free to tell us , anyway. Holographic, anyone......
tHis is Gary Marshall, Bright Lights, Big City....
I have corrected this link multiple times. If you wish to watch and listen, please do a search on it, as I somehow cannot correct this link,.sorry, with Youtu.be but it does fit here, and IS worth a listen....sorry, I could not correct the link..
Tetra


editby]edit on 7-9-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Seede,

re: "The Revelation Of Saint John The Divine is actually the correct description of this biblical booklet in most bibles."

The title of the book in all the versions/translations that I've seen say that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ and not the Revelation of St. John.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by rstrats
 




TextThe title of the book in all the versions/translations that I've seen say that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ and not the Revelation of St. John.


@ rstrats

This is not to say that there are not bibles out there that do name this work as revelation of Jesus Christ but in the original 1611 KJV (first edition) as well as the 1560 Geneva bible the header of this work is definitely as follows. Geneva 1560 bible is named as "The Revelation of John the Divine" while the 1611 King James is named "The Revelation of S. John the Divine" and the revised King James Bible is named as "The Revelation Of Saint John The Divine".

The very first verse of these bibles which I named is as follows. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." Naturally this verse is word spelled in old English in the 1611 KJV and the 1560 Geneva bibles but is accurate in that it begins with---"The Revelation of Jesus Christ "

I also noted that in the Ferrar Fenton bible it is indexed as "Revelations" and titled "The Revelation By John The Divine". So I am sure that in the many bibles out there that you will find vast differences in wording but as far as I am aware the header is named as belonging to John and not Jesus.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


Common sense,
but then again that´s completely redundant in this particular forum.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


The title given to it by the multiple "bible translators" is derived from the first words of the text, ... the apokalypsis,... meaning "unveiling" translated "revelation.

This is the breakdown:

The apokalypsis=unveiling
of Jesus= which is not his name ..it is Yahoshua.It is the name above ALL names.A name is the nature/character of the thing named..it means .....God is salvation.

Christ= which is the translation of the Hebrew mashiach or messiah.It means the anointing or the anointed....it's definition is to smear on with oil which was symbolic of imparting the power of God.

All together it means
The unveiling of Gods salvation the imparted power of God.

It never says it was a revelation given to John it said it was sent and signified unto John to bare record of what he saw(perceived). The book Of Revelation is written in metaphor of the salvation of ALL mankind.The angel said ...to him that reads (understands, perceive ) will be blessed(advance,make progress) of the things to "shortly" take place.

It isn't prophecy of historical events 2,000 years in the future it ..Is,was ,will be what is happening to those that perceived as a testimony of the salvation of God.It clearly states "The testimony of Yahoshua IS the spirit of prophecy".

The content is all contained in the title.To not know the header is to not know what the book means.This book is nothing like what most people believe it is... yet billions will continue to try and decipher and speculate on it's meaning.Again ironically...it is all part of the process of salvation.To unveil how deceived man is by their religion.How far they will twist what they can't possibly know into something they want to believe.It truly is an unveiling. .and only God can unveil the knowledge of it and it is never by study deciphering...it is ALL seeing,hearing and listening.

edit on 10-9-2013 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join