Would a just and merciful God send most of His creation to an eternal hell?

[Pneuma3]

I have never believed that this was something that Jesus said. It just plain does not fit. It reeks of both Jewish and Greek myth.

I do not believe that Jesus ever, ever compromised the truth, nor was He ever inconsistent in what He taught, not by parable or otherwise. I believe that an integral part of Christ's mission here on this earth was to destroy the myths and misconceptions of man concerning the true and the living God, and to teach the truth in their stead. Luke 16:19-31 reeks with such myths and misconceptions about the true and the living God. i.e. Being carried to Abraham's bosom by angels when one dies as the Jews believed is not truth but it is a lie that came from the imagination of man. That one goes to a place called Hades when they die, is not truth, but again it is a lie concocted by the vain imagination of man. I don't believe Jesus ever told a half truth. Do you?

thoughts on those scriptures?

I have read two articals by Eby one about the rich man and Lazarus and the other on the jubile they were both very good articals I would sujest you read Ebys thoughts on the rich man and Lazarus if you have not yet read it, I think George posted the link under the thread of said name.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Well as I said before I used the YLT as it was a bit more clear than the KJV which has choosen to use the word vain.

Here is BDB defintion of the Hebrew

1) lie, deception, disappointment, falsehood
1a) deception (what deceives or disappoints or betrays one)
1b) deceit, fraud, wrong
1b1) fraudulently, wrongfully (as adverb)
1c) falsehood (injurious in testimony)
1c1) testify falsehood, false oath, swear falsely
1d) falsity (of false or self-deceived prophets)
1e) lie, falsehood (in general)
1e1) false tongue
1f) in vain

I do not think that this verse was simply referring to people not believing what the scribes had written but rather is saying that what the scribes had written was false. Jesus had some pretty harsh words for the scribes also.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Brother most people find what they are looking for and if you look for error you will find it, if you look for reconciliation you will find it, it just takes a lot more seeking.

This is very true, but we should not be looking for either of these. Instead we should be searching for the truth.

 

[Pneuma3]

Well as I said before I used the YLT as it was a bit more clear than the KJV which has choosen to use the word vain.

Here is BDB defintion of the Hebrew

1) lie, deception, disappointment, falsehood
1a) deception (what deceives or disappoints or betrays one)
1b) deceit, fraud, wrong
1b1) fraudulently, wrongfully (as adverb)
1c) falsehood (injurious in testimony)
1c1) testify falsehood, false oath, swear falsely
1d) falsity (of false or self-deceived prophets)
1e) lie, falsehood (in general)
1e1) false tongue
1f) in vain

I do not think that this verse was simply referring to people not believing what the scribes had written but rather is saying that what the scribes had written was false. Jesus had some pretty harsh words for the scribes also.

is it not you beleif that the scribes wrote the law falsely?

The people in Jer. day also made this accusation and God said lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

 

[Pneuma3]

This is very true, but we should not be looking for either of these. Instead we should be searching for the truth.

all looking for the truth SS, but if you reject scripture because you cannot reconcile it with other scripture you maybe just giving up on truth that is held within them.

 

[Soul Searcher]

is it not you beleif that the scribes wrote the law falsely?

The people in Jer. day also made this accusation and God said lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

And who are the they here? The people? The scribes?

Do you really believe that God would write in stone thou shalt not kill then through the scribes write thou shalt kill? Perhaps it is the scribes who rejected the word of the Lord and made up thier own law resulting in much bloodshed.

 

[Soul Searcher]

all looking for the truth SS, but if you reject scripture because you cannot reconcile it with other scripture you maybe just giving up on truth that is held within them.

And if you twist scripture to fit you may be missing the truth completely. All people reject scripture, many limit it to only what is in the bible but there is much that was not included. Many will argue about what is and is not scripture. When the bible was compiled they argued about it for many years and then destroyed many scripture that did not fit the way they thought it should reconcile. People were killed, writings destroyed all in the name of God who commanded us "thou shalt not kill"

That being said I do not recall saying that I reject any scripture at all so I am wondering where you get the idea that I do? I have said that there are errors in the text. I have said that portions or parable/fable perhaps even myth. I have said that we have no way of knowing that the original documents were error free, but I do not recall rejecting anything. Like you I have tried to reconcile and continue to try but there are parts that do not easily reconcile.

The biggest one of all being "thou shalt not kill" How many time do you think that the OT tells us God commanded men to kill whether it be animals or men?

Many will say well it actually means thou shalt not murder which I disagree with but even then there is much murder in the name of God in the OT.

Jesus indicated that if you hate and desire to kill you are guilty of murder in your heart, do we believe Jesus's definition of murder or do we use our legal definitions to try and justify/reconcile all the instances of bloodshed?

Was Jesus changing the law or was he correcting the law that was in error?

 

[Rev. Smith]

Jesus indicated that if you hate and desire to kill you are guilty of murder in your heart, do we believe Jesus's definition of murder or do we use our legal definitions to try and justify/reconcile all the instances of bloodshed?

Was Jesus changing the law or was he correcting the law that was in error?

Jesus was changeing the law, as it was promised he would do. Recall that Moses promised that another would come to make a new covenant.

To me the ressurection of Jesus marked the end of the process of creation, God wrought man and ordered his world. For the coming eons he perfected that creation until it was ready to serve His purpose. This was done mostly through Isreal, to insure the faithful remnamt he required.

Once the work of Jesus was done, God ceased to be the Lord of Histroy, no longer would he move one people against another. For the rest of history the weeds and grain would grow up together, to be differetiated only in the end. As Jesus taught in the parable, the world was sown with good seed, and bad. The Glory of Jesus' forgiveness is that through grace a weed may become grain. Miracles abound every day, but of a different sort then in the age of the Law.

So yes, the same God the once killed and commanded his servants to kill in order to advance his work no longer does so, this world is now fully ours - and rsponsibility for what we do in and with it is fully ours as well.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Jesus was changeing the law, as it was promised he would do. Recall that Moses promised that another would come to make a new covenant.

To me the ressurection of Jesus marked the end of the process of creation, God wrought man and ordered his world. For the coming eons he perfected that creation until it was ready to serve His purpose. This was done mostly through Isreal, to insure the faithful remnamt he required.

Once the work of Jesus was done, God ceased to be the Lord of Histroy, no longer would he move one people against another. For the rest of history the weeds and grain would grow up together, to be differetiated only in the end. As Jesus taught in the parable, the world was sown with good seed, and bad. The Glory of Jesus' forgiveness is that through grace a weed may become grain. Miracles abound every day, but of a different sort then in the age of the Law.

So yes, the same God the once killed and commanded his servants to kill in order to advance his work no longer does so, this world is now fully ours - and rsponsibility for what we do in and with it is fully ours as well.

I agree with about 99% of this.

But I would state it as being more accurate that He was clarifying the meaning and intent of the Law. He pointed out that the intent of the Law was never to be "the perfect idol of reign", but rather required the proper spirit so as to know when each element of the Law was appropriate and when not. The real reign is that of the Holy Spirit, not legal constructs. Thus the spirit governs above the Law.

The fundamental Laws were not changed, merely clarified into their place of submission to the Holy Spirit.


I would also have to say that the "end of the process" was only begun with the advent of Jesus. The completion of the end is yet to come. The blueprint of the capstone was presented, has been built, but has yet to be tested before the eyes of all before placement. (but the journey's end is within arms reach.)

 

[Soul Searcher]

I agree with about 99% of this.

But I would state it as being more accurate that He was clarifying the meaning and intent of the Law. He pointed out that the intent of the Law was never to be "the perfect idol of reign", but rather required the proper spirit so as to know when each element of the Law was appropriate and when not. The real reign is that of the Holy Spirit, not legal constructs. Thus the spirit governs above the Law.

The fundamental Laws were not changed, merely clarified into their place of submission to the Holy Spirit.

I agree, perhaps correcting was the wrong term, but then again to clarify would be to correct the errors in understanding so they can see what the law really means.

 

[Havahope]

Jesus was changeing the law, as it was promised he would do. Recall that Moses promised that another would come to make a new covenant.

I don't believe Jesus was changing the law. I believe He simply taught obedience to the Spirit of the law, not obedience to the letter of the law.

To me the ressurection of Jesus marked the end of the process of creation, God wrought man and ordered his world. For the coming eons he perfected that creation until it was ready to serve His purpose. This was done mostly through Isreal, to insure the faithful remnamt he required.

To me, the resurrection of Jesus marked the BEGINNING of all things being created "by Him, through Him, and for Him".

Revelation 21:5 Then He who was seated on the throne said, "I am re-creating all things." And He added, "Write down these words, for they are trustworthy and true."

Once the work of Jesus was done, God ceased to be the Lord of Histroy, no longer would he move one people against another.. . . .

. . . . . . So yes, the same God the once killed and commanded his servants to kill in order to advance his work no longer does so, this world is now fully ours - and rsponsibility for what we do in and with it is fully ours as well.

As for myself, I have to wonder why God would command man, in no uncertain terms, "Thou shalt not kill", and then turn around and command them "to kill", when He was perfectly capable of doing the job Himself without any help at all from man.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I don't believe Jesus was changing the law. I believe He simply taught obedience to the Spirit of the law, not obedience to the letter of the law.

for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.-2 Cor 3:6

As for myself, I have to wonder why God would command man, in no uncertain terms, "Thou shalt not kill", and then turn around and command them "to kill", when He was perfectly capable of doing the job Himself without any help at all from man.

Does seem rather odd that God would command people to break the commandment doesn't it? Then along comes Jesus and tells them no that's not what you should be doing, do not hate your enemies, love them instead, do good to them, pray for them, fast for them and so on.

 

[Havahope]

Have you read Eby's
thoughts on those scriptures?

I have read two articals by Eby one about the rich man and Lazarus and the other on the jubile they were both very good articals I would sujest you read Ebys thoughts on the rich man and Lazarus if you have not yet read it, I think George posted the link under the thread of said name.

Yes, I have read the article by Preston Eby which GeorgeE posted in the "Rich Man and Lazarus" thread. Mr. Eby goes on the assumption, and stands on the premise that these passages belong in the writing of the book of Luke, and that it was something that Jesus actually said. I do not hold that view, so it doesn't "ring a bell" for me.

Now I suppose the question would be if whether or not Mr. Eby has read my (lowly as they are) comments, and what his comments would be in regard to them.

 

[Pneuma3]

And if you twist scripture to fit you may be missing the truth completely. All people reject scripture, many limit it to only what is in the bible but there is much that was not included.

Many will argue about what is and is not scripture. When the bible was compiled they argued about it for many years and then destroyed many scripture that did not fit the way they thought it should reconcile. People were killed, writings destroyed all in the name of God who commanded us "thou shalt not kill"

Well everyone thinks everyone else is the one twisting scriptures to suite their own doctrine, so for me it all comes down to eye of the beholder, and I don’t believe we have the whole of scripture in our bibles. There are two sides to the commandments as I see them, one is telling us we should not kill the other is the promise side of the commandment meaning thou shalt not kill.

Example: thou shalt not lust is a command telling us not to lust.
The promise side of thou shalt not lust is telling us we will not lust.
This promise side come in as we are abiding in Christ because Jesus Christ fulfilled the promise side of all the law.

That being said I do not recall saying that I reject any scripture at all so I am wondering where you get the idea that I do? I have said that there are errors in the text. I have said that portions or parable/fable perhaps even myth. I have said that we have no way of knowing that the original documents were error free, but I do not recall rejecting anything. Like you I have tried to reconcile and continue to try but there are parts that do not easily reconcile.

Reject was probably the wrong word to use on my part SS.
I agree that many things are not easily reconciled but just because I can’t reconcile them as of yet does not mean I tell people that the scriptures are in error. I try the best I can to point out other translations of the scriptures.

The biggest one of all being "thou shalt not kill" How many time do you think that the OT tells us God commanded men to kill whether it be animals or men?

Brother when the laws are written in our hearts and minds ( they are being written even now )
We to will fulfill the command thou shalt not kill.

Many will say well it actually means thou shalt not murder which I disagree with but even then there is much murder in the name of God in the OT.

Jesus indicated that if you hate and desire to kill you are guilty of murder in your heart, do we believe Jesus's definition of murder or do we use our legal definitions to try and justify/reconcile all the instances of bloodshed?

Was Jesus changing the law or was he correcting the law that was in error?

Man cannot live by the letter of the law for it is itself a ministration of death.
Jesus lived and taught the promise side of the law.

If you only look at the law as a command telling us not to do something then you miss out on seeing the promise of the fulfillment of the law in us imho.

 

[Pneuma3]

Yes, I have read the article by Preston Eby which GeorgeE posted in the "Rich Man and Lazarus" thread. Mr. Eby goes on the assumption, and stands on the premise that these passages belong in the writing of the book of Luke, and that it was something that Jesus actually said. I do not hold that view, so it doesn't "ring a bell" for me.

Now I suppose the question would be if whether or not Mr. Eby has read my (lowly as they are) comments, and what his comments would be in regard to them.

you do not see Jesus saying what is recorded.

Just because the scripture used the word hades which is a Greek myth does not exclude Jesus useing a myth in parable to teach a lesson.

Maybe by using the Greek hades he was pointing out to us that hades is not real only a myth.

 

[Rev. Smith]

I don't believe Jesus was changing the law. I believe He simply taught obedience to the Spirit of the law, not obedience to the letter of the law.

Many hold that view, but I think it is inarguable that he DID change the law. The Law consists of over 600 admonshions that govern everything from agriculture to washing your cloths. Jesus wiped almost all of that away and replaced it with "Love God, Love your neighbor and keep the commandments." When he was asked which ones he listed the seven that follow the holiness code in the Ten Commandments (I presume to avoid redundancy with his Law 1.) Thus Jesus replaced over 600 LAWS with 10. Now it is true that his 10 will lead us to obey many of the others without having to refer to the Scriptures. You can't love your neighbor by lieing or cheating him, but others just fell away. You can love God, each other and keep the commandments and wear blended fabrics, be merciful to prostitutes and refrain from segragating our women when they have their period.

Yes, I agree that Jesus taught a spiritual life over a life of legalism, but he did so by a radical re-write of His law, he made a new covenant - as Moses promised he would.

To me, the resurrection of Jesus marked the BEGINNING of all things being created "by Him, through Him, and for Him".

Revelation 21:5 Then He who was seated on the throne said, "I am re-creating all things." And He added, "Write down these words, for they are trustworthy and true."

Of course, every ending is a beginnig - this will be true until the end of days. What ended and what began? I happen to think that what ended is as important a teacher to us as what began. The God of History became the God of the Soul. The world was his, when he didn't like what was going on he intervened and changed the course of history. Now the world is ours (ours, not Satan's as some would propose) and our history is our responsibility.

Have you ever wondered how we could see God as just if, as the Calvinists propose, man is incapable of good, is corrupt by nature? How is the animal steeped in evil that some protestants teach responsable for anything. If it is man's nature to sin then how is he responsable for sining? What did we have to be forgiveen for if how we lived was our nature, which we were (are) incapable of changeing? If the only Holy men and women are those elected by God, then are the sinners really wrongdoers being justly punished for their sins or merely unlucky to not have been choosen?

But if the ressurection put an end to all of that, to God ordering the world and moving men like chess peices, then free will and free action are finally both given to man, the world is ours and we are responsable for how we live in it.

As for myself, I have to wonder why God would command man, in no uncertain terms, "Thou shalt not kill", and then turn around and command them "to kill", when He was perfectly capable of doing the job Himself without any help at all from man.

See above -
Why do you assume that God needs nothing from man? He made us for a reason.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Thus Jesus replaced over 600 LAWS with 10.

Or Moses [or whoever wrote the books of the law] replaced 10 laws with over 600 and Jesus simply put it back the way it was supposed to be all along.

 

[EchoPneuma]

Or Moses [or whoever wrote the books of the law] replaced 10 laws with over 600.

The "lying pen of the scribes" perhaps..

and Jesus put it back right.....undoing the lies the scribes had added to the law of God.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Ever read the 12 commandments from the Gospel of the Nazerines?

 

[Havahope]

Many hold that view, but I think it is inarguable that he DID change the law. The Law consists of over 600 admonshions that govern everything from agriculture to washing your cloths. Jesus wiped almost all of that away and replaced it with "Love God, Love your neighbor and keep the commandments." When he was asked which ones he listed the seven that follow the holiness code in the Ten Commandments (I presume to avoid redundancy with his Law 1.) Thus Jesus replaced over 600 LAWS with 10. Now it is true that his 10 will lead us to obey many of the others without having to refer to the Scriptures. You can't love your neighbor by lieing or cheating him, but others just fell away. You can love God, each other and keep the commandments and wear blended fabrics, be merciful to prostitutes and refrain from segragating our women when they have their period.

Yes, I agree that Jesus taught a spiritual life over a life of legalism, but he did so by a radical re-write of His law, he made a new covenant - as Moses promised he would.



Of course, every ending is a beginnig - this will be true until the end of days. What ended and what began? I happen to think that what ended is as important a teacher to us as what began. The God of History became the God of the Soul. The world was his, when he didn't like what was going on he intervened and changed the course of history. Now the world is ours (ours, not Satan's as some would propose) and our history is our responsibility.

Have you ever wondered how we could see God as just if, as the Calvinists propose, man is incapable of good, is corrupt by nature? How is the animal steeped in evil that some protestants teach responsable for anything. If it is man's nature to sin then how is he responsable for sining? What did we have to be forgiveen for if how we lived was our nature, which we were (are) incapable of changeing? If the only Holy men and women are those elected by God, then are the sinners really wrongdoers being justly punished for their sins or merely unlucky to not have been choosen?

But if the ressurection put an end to all of that, to God ordering the world and moving men like chess peices, then free will and free action are finally both given to man, the world is ours and we are responsable for how we live in it.

Wow! Thats quite a sermon, Rev. But it doesn't convince me, or show me any reason why I should change my opinion. Sorry. Maybe next Sunday?

See above -
Why do you assume that God needs nothing from man? He made us for a reason.

Yes, God made us for a reason, but I don't think it was because He needed us to help Him with anything.