Why do some people think Hell isn't real?

[Timothew]

You say that when a person perishes and becomes dead they remain conscious.
I would like to have you prove this. Everyone I know that has perished and been dead has been completely unconscious. If they were conscious they would object to being buried. (And especially the embalming. That right there would have be torture on a conscious person.)

When I die, if I am still conscious while I am dead, I'm going to ask the mortician to not embalm me. Since, as you claim, I will be conscious. In fact, since I will be conscious while I am dead, I'll just hop up and go fishing. Why not? If my boss calls, I have the perfect excuse. "I can't come to work today, I'm dead. I'll be in tomorrow."

Now, please prove that dead people are alive. You are asking for special pleading on the word "Dead". Go ahead and prove that dead means alive.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Thsi verse says straight out that they perish. Why can't you see this? Why do you deny the very words of the bible?

If one cannot see, they are...?

Don't worry about it, my friend, much of this is general, and I have taken no offense at what has been said...I expect it. Though I will have great joy when discussion can focus on the exegesis, apart from emotional response.

Of course we are going to imply one is "blind" but I don't think most mean for it to come across as a personal attack, just exasperation, lol.

God bless.

 

[Timothew]

If one cannot see, they are...?

Don't worry about it, my friend, much of this is general, and I have taken no offense at what has been said...I expect it. Though I will have great joy when discussion can focus on the exegesis, apart from emotional response.

Of course we are going to imply one is "blind" but I don't think most mean for it to come across as a personal attack, just exasperation, lol.

God bless.

Well, of course the solution is to get a seeing eye dog. Just think of me as your dog.

I'll try to put a smiley on the posts when I am razzing. I don't intend anything to be mean. I've been told that I'm going to hell ALOT. I'm glad that you aren't like those guys. (exclusively tormentists)

It is just frustration. The bible says plainly that the wicked perish and will be no more, and you say something like "but that doesn't mean that they die and cease to exist!" I just can't get used to this. Everytime that happens my jaw still drops and I say :o

 

[dollarsbill]

"Annihilation" is filled with holes and totally unBiblical.

 

[seeingeyes]

Hell is deduced., like the Trinity. It is not explicitly stated, but you can discern the reality of it.,
Do you think it's a coincidence that the Orthodox, Catholic, and even Protestant churches all universally agree that Hell is real? I doubt very seriously any heretic is going to convince me otherwise.

Technically, Tim isn't a heretic (nor is anyone else in this thread so far as I can tell):

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. (CCC)

He would be schismatic, or possibly apostate depending on how you define 'the Christian faith'.

 

[P1LGR1M]

You say that when a person perishes and becomes dead they remain conscious.
I would like to have you prove this.

I already have, in my view, but, nevertheless, I will focus on this central issue.

But first, I will address these statements, and then toward the end provide the scriptural basis for what seems to sound like a silly position.

So bear with me, lol.

Everyone I know that has perished and been dead has been completely unconscious.

But you are speaking of temporal death, Timothew. Consider, those you have known that have died...are they gone forever?

Do you not believe that those you believe were saved that have passed are with the Lord, and those that you are not sure about are in Hades? Awaiting judgment?

Or do you also subscribe to soul sleep, which might teach an unconscious state, but in no means teaches annihilation?

This is the single point, that if you will just understand that scripture teaches is a fact, then you will abandon the doctrine of annihilation. Just as all who ahere to this doctrine, they make a doctrinal pie of distinguishable facts. Death is death! as you have insisted. Destruction is destruction! As you have insisted. And no room is given to such considerations as man is already, at birth...dead. He is born separated from God.

The Lord came that He might give life, and until the Lord bestows that LIFE...one is dead.

If they were conscious they would object to being buried. (And especially the embalming. That right there would have be torture on a conscious person.)

In order to make this a statement worthy of consideration, one would also have to say that annihilation occurs upon physical death.

Is that your belief?

If it is not, then you will likely believe there is a conscious existence after physical death, and one either goes to be with the Lord or goes to Hades to await judgment.

So where do you stand?

When I die, if I am still conscious while I am dead, I'm going to ask the mortician to not embalm me.

No, you won't. When one dies one will either go to Heaven or to Hades.

This illustrates that the point I have tried to make is not being comprehended.

Since, as you claim, I will be conscious. In fact, since I will be conscious while I am dead, I'll just hop up and go fishing. Why not? If my boss calls, I have the perfect excuse. "I can't come to work today, I'm dead. I'll be in tomorrow."

Let me ask this: does one receive life when they are born again or not?

Let me give a counter-point to this biblical fact (that death and destruction does not mean cessation of existence and that one can be dead and conscious as well):


John 11:25-26

King James Version (KJV)


25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?



Believers will never...die.

Want to debate these words of the Lord? I know you will not,because I am going to guess that you believe this just as well as I do.


In v.25 we see reference to physical death and in v.26 we see reference to spiritual life.

How can both be true? Does the Lord contradict Himself? Not at all, He is declaring a spiritual truth which is not only foundational to our soteriology, but is foundational to a right conclusion upoon the fate of the damned.

Now, please prove that dead people are alive.

Be glad to:

As we see in the verse posted above, those that believe on the Son will never die. Why? Because they have the Life of Christ through regeneration.

Now consider those that do not have life, they are alive:


John 6

King James Version (KJV)

25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


I will try to keep my comments brief, as the scripture speaks for itself.

Here we see those that are disciples of Christ, following Him for the benefit of temporal gain (v.26).

In v.27 they are told not to seek after temporal gain, but to seek after that Bread which gives eternal life, that a man should not die. The children of Israel received "bread" (provision for life, temporal) in the wilderness. yet they died (physically). It is important to recognize that the Lord here contrasts physical life with eternal life.

In vv. 28-29 He tells them plainly, in answer to their question, how one can attain eternal life, by believing in Him.

And they confuse what the Lord is saying to them, confusing physical life as the intent of His words rather than eternal life. They are incredulous:


30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.


They now desire a sign, that the Lord prove that what He says is true. They appeal to their relationship with God, and the provision Moses gave Israel in the wilderness, which is in itself...error, which the Lord corrects:


32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.


The Lord refers to Himself...He is the source of Life. In the wilderness the life in view is temporal, the Bread from Heaven refers to provision for eternal life.


33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.


Why does not the Lord commend these fine fellows for asking for the Bread of Life?

Why? Because He knew their hearts. And He pointedly calls them...unbelievers.


37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

This statement is erroneously taught that it will not be until resurrection that men receive eternal life, but that is put to rest in the next verse:


40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.


Now we can strengthen the fact that those that believe on the Son have eternal life, not...will have eternal life. And we can see that in John 11:6, for example, posted above. The Lord would not say that men that do not believe have not life and those that do will never die...

For if they do not have life, they are already dead, right?

As always, unbelievers evidence the lack of life and the fact that they are not saved byeir words and deeds. Here we see their words. We will see their deeds in v.66:


41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.


42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

And I will just condense the rest of the passage to highlight the point being made, as this is getting long (though I am confident that if you go back and look at this chapter you will see that nothing has been taken out of context).

Note-I did not condense it enough, lol, so I will have to...


...continue.

 

[P1LGR1M]

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.


44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.


46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.


47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.




Not...will have, but has everlasting life. Contrasted with:





48 I am that bread of life.


49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.


50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.


51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?


53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.





Contrasted are physical life which was sustained in the wilderness with eternal life which has but one source: Jesus Christ and specifically through His flesh (death).



These "disciples" were learning, but they rejected what was being taught. They rejected the notion that they should "eat of the Lord flesh and drink of His blood" through misunderstanding what the Lord was saying. They did not understand that God is the source of life. They did not understand that the Lord references His death, which He will plainly speak of on a number of occasions. Peter himself rejected this notion, and was severely rebuked.




54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.




Again the Lord makes it clear that those that "eat His flesh and drink His blood" have eternal life. And because they have eternal life...they cannot die. They will die physically (unless they are raptured of course) but that does not affect their condition which is that of possessing eternal life through Christ.



The opposite condition are those that do not believe on the Son who have no life. THey are, spiritually, dead. Separated from God. And we will see that those that do have life, who cannot die, are joined to God because they are reconciled and indwelt:





55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.


56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.





Now I would at this point caution that we do not read into this that there were disciples that at this point in time have life. The reference to His flesh and blood are a reference to His death on the Cross, and this has not taken place yet. If we read John 13-17 with an eye on the prophetic nature of the teaching of Lord, keeping in mind that these things will take place after His death, burial, and resurrection, as well as Pentecost (in the case of the coming of the Comforter), we will not mangle the teaching.

Again, here we see mention of those that believe receiving the Spirit of Christ, which is synonymous with receiving the Holy Spirit.



And, sorry, but it difficult not to just include the rest of the passage, so I hope you will forgive me if this seems long. It should take about two minutes to read, though...lol.






57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.


58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.





The life Christ came to give is unprecedented in scripture. We know "thier fathers" includes Moses as they appeal to Him earlier in the discussion. The Lord concludes them dead. And again we see the contrast between the physical (your fathers...are dead) and the spiritual (he that eateth of the Bread of Life shall live forever and will never die). Because of this, the Second Death cannot affect those that have Life in Christ.






59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.


60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?





We don't have the religious leaders in view here, but disciples. All through the teaching they reveal unbelieving hearts.





61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?


62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?





"You have difficulty believing this? Just wait!" the Lord seems to say.





63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.





Man cannot live by bread alone. That is as certain as anything scripture teaches. Man might eat bread and live physically. He might even eat bread supernaturally supplied to them from God, as we see in the Old Testament.



But for spiritual life, one must believe on the Son, for He is the One that teaches how this is acheived.


In other words, eating manna in the wilderness was not to produce spiritual life, it was merely for physical sustenance. And just like the disciples here, those in the wilderness did not receive Life, but died.




64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.


65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.





And one of the saddest statements in scripture: because they rejected the teaching of Christ, they no longer followed Him, they ceased to learn of Him.


Not even an "almost thou persuadest me to believe."

You are asking for special pleading on the word "Dead". Go ahead and prove that dead means alive.

Hope that helps, Timothew. This is just a start to this particular aspect of "life and death."


It is proved that the Lord concludes men spiritually dead, though they are alive. It looks like this



Unbeliever: physically alive/spiritually dead.


Believer: spiritually alive whether he is physically alive or not.


It is said, the saved are born twice and die once; the lost are born once and die twice.



God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Well, of course the solution is to get a seeing eye dog. Just think of me as your dog.

I'll try to put a smiley on the posts when I am razzing. I don't intend anything to be mean. I've been told that I'm going to hell ALOT. I'm glad that you aren't like those guys. (exclusively tormentists)

It is just frustration. The bible says plainly that the wicked perish and will be no more, and you say something like "but that doesn't mean that they die and cease to exist!" I just can't get used to this. Everytime that happens my jaw still drops and I say :o

If you like, but the smilies are not necessary.

In discussion we have a great opportunity to train ourselves in self-control. Really. The intent focus not to let people upset you will result in...people not upsetting you. Leaving you to respond in a more rational and reasonable way which hopefully will not end the conversation.

It is easy to turn a discussion into a slugfest, but what is gained? Either one truly wants to discuss scripture or they do not.

As for the jaw, take a handkerchief, wrap it worund your head so that...

Just kidding. Look, there are some points that have to be settled. For now, I suggest we focus on the Life of the believer as opposed to the death which all men are born with. If we can make a conclusion on this, the discussion may progress.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Hello Soulgazer, sorry for taking so long but you might have noticed I am both sharpening my iron and have quite a few others in the fire, lol.

But I am looking forward to our discussion, as with you there are some aspects that differ from others that adhere to annihilation, so it has a different focus. Which is, a denial of the veracity of scripture which is accompanied by an acceptance of what most Christians would themselves reject, such as what they would view to be spurious books and a total reliance upon the words of other men, not to mention leaning heavily into self-reliaance.

Where one can pretty much determine their beliefs as it is convenient. I don't say that to be smug or offensive, simply to put my view on the table.

Now then...

If it does not actually mean "eternal torment" then it should be reworded to what it actually means.

Actually it has. We call that translation. Apart from existing in the First Century and be aquainted with all aspects of the use of the language and...the abuses, even as we see in our day, such as changing "What did you say?" to "Say what?" or "Brother" to Bro," then we are left to translation that seek to make the original easily undersatandable.

But we do know enough to say that we can understand eternal to mean etrnal and destruction to mean destruction, but, we have to also look at the context of the whole counsel of God. Just as we would look at the 20th century in the 40th century in a broader base to understand the use of words like "cool." Or "Bad." Or even "murder." If a 40th century scholar concluded from the statement "This heat is murder" that the heat was personally responsible for murdering someone, then we would have a paallel to the problem I see annihilationists having, whereby they charge those that believe punishment is eternal that they teach God as a torturer rather than the torture is more like the phrase..."This heat is murder."

Hope that makes sense.

Our Gnostic scripture teaches degrees of punishment.

Extra-biblical sources are generally accepted because they are similar to the word of God.

When it comes to the books I personally hold as false writings, this is something that one must for him/herself make a decision on. Knowing that we will be judged according to the knowledge we possess, I myself do not think it necessary to study beyond the 66 books which I myself believe to be inspired of God. Let's face it...there is enough there to keep one busy for three lifetimes or more.

I have read in the Apocrypha, and was not impressed. While I believe we can give some historical value to some of it, again, I do not recognize it as inspired.

However, I believe this still denotes a childish appreciation for the power of God. He is God, for goodness sake, and nothing is supposed to be out of his power.

Exceot maybe creating the world in six days?

Making a donkey speak like a man?

Beginning the human race with two people?

Quite the opposite of "childish faith," if you ask me. It speaks volumes about one's conclusions about God. First that He could not do these things, and secondly that He could not properly reveal His works and will to man and keep it pure.

Continued...

 

[Soulgazer]

Technically, Tim isn't a heretic (nor is anyone else in this thread so far as I can tell):

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. (CCC)

He would be schismatic, or possibly apostate depending on how you define 'the Christian faith'.

I am a Heretic I do not subscribe to catholicism in any of its forms, pre or post council of Trent. A "Heretic" is a meaningless term unless you are talking about keeping someone out of your particular denomination. Paul stated that he was considered a Heretic----and Jesus too, of course, was considered a heretic by the Jews.

 

[P1LGR1M]

My thought process is extremely objective. I am trained in critical thought. This isn't the first time I have been up against superstition.

Well, I guess what one considers objective and critical thinking are open for debate as well.

Have some decaf, Soulgazer...I thought we were trying to be friends here.

lol, okay, sorry, but I do have a facetious streak that I have to vent once in a while: don't hold that against me.

I don't see how calling the opposing views "superstition" is an example of objective critical analysis.

Especially when all one has as a measuring stick is the word of other men and his own.

Six says?

Six seconds would have been enough.

But how would that have gone over, "Everything just was."

lol

Adam and Eve?

Yep.

Just to villify myself further, I will confess I am a YECist. I believe we are nearing six thousand years of existence in this universe, and that the Millennial Kingdom will satisfy the pattern and model set in Genesis to make a "week" of millennia.

Makes sense to me, despite the "proofs" of science which are, much like anything outside of the scriptures and even like scripture itself, open to debate.

And the eerily similar basis for such belief hinges on a rejection of God and His word. Or, in your case, the word.

Did Moses see God's butt?

You tell me:

Exodus 33:20-23

King James Version (KJV)


20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.



Moses could not look upon God's face, but he could look at His________?


Pkay, please answer this question for me, kindly fill in the blank:

If I am looking at someone, and they turn around, I am then looking at thier__________.


What word would you use, Soulgazer?

How one interprets is always dependant upon what is in their heart. Backside, though it can be seen in reference to the back parts pf animals, does not mean one has to focus on a particular anatomical region, but would, I would think, convey the picture of the back view of the object in view.

What do you think?

Did a donkey talk?

God cannot arrange this?

Is there anything too hard for the Lord? (and you can probably end this conversation by responding with "Can God create a rock too big for Him to carry? lol)

metaphor?

Metaphor is used sometimes.

We just have to becareful what we conclude is metaphor and what isn't. How could a donkey speaking be considered metaphor?

Great. Now convince me that the God of Love ordered Joshua to destroy every living thing he came in contact with.

That is not something I can do. Nor can Iconvince you the heavens and the earth were created in six days. Nor would I try to.

Ooops----"All who ever came before me were as thieves and robbers". Well, I guess that part is true enough.

The way you work this is interesting. There is an irreverence for the things of God, including His Person (as evidenced in the back parts comment) that I would caution you against.

To have Christ "walking on mud puddles" is something you know will offend some...is that your objective? Is that the objective part of your theology? lol

It does finish the Parable started in Enoch.

Do you think that the reference is to those that were false christs? rather than a general condemnation of the very scriptures He Himself taught from, and about?

You see, I believe that an action, if it is evil, is evil of it's own accord. There were women doing their dishes, tending their babies, men who were just trying to get their work done...and Oooops....here comes Attila..Hitl..errr Joshua.

As do I, which is why I make an effort not to offend, not to mock, not to ridicule. I try to have respect for the person, if not the doctrine...that I cannot have respect for. Have you ever considered the mercy of God to be seen in the deaths of those babies? Consider that they did not grow up to be idolaters like their parents? And thus were spared condemnation on an eternal level?

And by the way, I do see this as an attempt at humor, and am not offended. I employ humor as often as I can (at least I hope its humor, lol).

Hey, maybe his men were reluctant...."it's OK private, God told me we had to....make sure you look in their pockets and bring me any coins you find." Gott Mit Unns.

It is not for me to decide or judge how the Lord exacts judgment.

The people of the land were being judged for their idolatry.

As a sidenote, I am sure you are familiar with the Epoch of Gilgamesh. Are you aware that some scholars believe this to represent Nimrod? Fascinating topic. Just throwing that in for free, lol.


Continued...

 

[dollarsbill]

I'm a 'literalist'. That's the only way the Bible makes sense.

 

[Soulgazer]

Hello Soulgazer, sorry for taking so long but you might have noticed I am both sharpening my iron and have quite a few others in the fire, lol.

But I am looking forward to our discussion, as with you there are some aspects that differ from others that adhere to annihilation, so it has a different focus. Which is, a denial of the veracity of scripture which is accompanied by an acceptance of what most Christians would themselves reject, such as what they would view to be spurious books and a total reliance upon the words of other men, not to mention leaning heavily into self-reliaance.

Where one can pretty much determine their beliefs as it is convenient. I don't say that to be smug or offensive, simply to put my view on the table.

Now then...




Actually it has. We call that translation. Apart from existing in the First Century and be aquainted with all aspects of the use of the language and...the abuses, even as we see in our day, such as changing "What did you say?" to "Say what?" or "Brother" to Bro," then we are left to translation that seek to make the original easily undersatandable.

But we do know enough to say that we can understand eternal to mean etrnal and destruction to mean destruction, but, we have to also look at the context of the whole counsel of God. Just as we would look at the 20th century in the 40th century in a broader base to understand the use of words like "cool." Or "Bad." Or even "murder." If a 40th century scholar concluded from the statement "This heat is murder" that the heat was personally responsible for murdering someone, then we would have a paallel to the problem I see annihilationists having, whereby they charge those that believe punishment is eternal that they teach God as a torturer rather than the torture is more like the phrase..."This heat is murder."

Hope that makes sense.



Extra-biblical sources are generally accepted because they are similar to the word of God.

When it comes to the books I personally hold as false writings, this is something that one must for him/herself make a decision on. Knowing that we will be judged according to the knowledge we possess, I myself do not think it necessary to study beyond the 66 books which I myself believe to be inspired of God. Let's face it...there is enough there to keep one busy for three lifetimes or more.

I have read in the Apocrypha, and was not impressed. While I believe we can give some historical value to some of it, again, I do not recognize it as inspired.





Exceot maybe creating the world in six days?

Making a donkey speak like a man?

Beginning the human race with two people?

Quite the opposite of "childish faith," if you ask me. It speaks volumes about one's conclusions about God. First that He could not do these things, and secondly that He could not properly reveal His works and will to man and keep it pure.

Continued...

Again, I will not tell you what to believe. I responded to your question as why I didn't believe it. I find it futile to share what I know---a person can only learn if they wish to learn the subject to begin with. If you wish to know what I know, you would have to spend your own money and time to receive the education to be convinced that it has any validity. So you see, I am not going to make any attempts to convince you about the origins of the bible, though I may state some knowledge if it clarifies why I don't believe something. Fair enough?

Now, I may not believe in the divinity of the men who selected the books for your anthology, and I may not believe in the accuracy of the words or even verses, however I believe that thematically it is accurate enough for one to find "the perfect man" within.

Whereas you on the surface seem to find God limited to Justice, I have learned that I can fully agree with ancient Christian sources that Justice is the product of wisdom without love. Mercy is the product of Love and wisdom without justice.

Therefore one may believe in a just God, like the Muslems or the Jews or the alternative, a merciful God as portrayed, at least thematically, by many Christian scriptures.

Have you considered the mercy of God to those babies, that they did not grow up worshiping a false god like their murderers? Consider..Jesus told Peter to put away the sword for He could easily have twelve thousand angels fight for Him. To quote captain kirk, "Why would the Lord almighty need a starship". Jesus also said, "He who harms one of the least of these...SPLASSH!". Obviously killing babies is wrong. If it's wrong now, it was wrong then...Ergo...false god.

Per your sidenote.... Judaism is an offshoot of Zoroastrianism with some Egyptian and Babylonian mixed in. Late Sumerian influenced Zoroastrianism.

 

[dollarsbill]

So you see, I am not going to make any attempts to convince you.

Yes, we see.

 

[seeingeyes]

I am a Heretic I do not subscribe to catholicism in any of its forms, pre or post council of Trent. A "Heretic" is a meaningless term unless you are talking about keeping someone out of your particular denomination. Paul stated that he was considered a Heretic----and Jesus too, of course, was considered a heretic by the Jews.

You must be baptized in the RCC in order to be a heretic according to the catechism. We use the term loosely all the time to just mean 'someone who believes or says the wrong thing'. But I should think that a Catholic who is trying to claim that someone else is 'officially' a heretic should at least know what the RCC's 'official' definition is. Otherwise it's hard to take such a claim seriously.

So rest easy, you are merely apostate, friend.

 

[P1LGR1M]

They all said God commanded it----they sure weren't going to say it was a devil. However, actions do speak a whole lot louder than words.

That does not mean that words cannot be as deadly, especially on an eternal level where doctrine is concerned.

Not sure who the "they all" are.

Now that I have dumped on the Jewish faith, let me say I am not anti-semite---you can believe anything that helps you sleep as long as you don't harm anyone else.

In other words, "You want to believe false doctrine, I'm okay with that...just keep it out of my back yard," right?

The objective of the word of God is that man might know the One True God, and that they might know what is expected of Him. So I am always going to have an issue with those that teach a universal brotherhood of man, a universal Fatherhood of God, and that there are many paths to Heaven.

Whether or not you are anti-semitic or not is known toyou and God, and is irrelevant.

It is not irreverence to try to lead one to the truth, despite their "faith." In the case of the Jew, on a national basis, outside of Christ, Israel awaits the veil being removed, that she might embrace Christ. As a whole, Israel is a pretty secular nation at this point. And while I can have respect for the orthodox, this is not the same as considering them as being in relationship with God through the New Covenant. Only those that are in the Body of Christ from among them are on relationship with God in this Age.

As for the New testament, except for a few letters of Paul, I have read enough and talked with enough historians to be convinced most of it was written in the late first to mid second century.

You admnit it yourself: it is the historians that have led you to your conclusions. If you were concerned that there might be something to the reverence given the Holy Bible by millions of people you would be far more intent in searching this issue out for yourself.

Anyone can have their mind changed, but only the word of God can change the heart.

Understandable, as everybody thought that they weren't going to be around that long, and by the time anyone figured it out there was some scrambling to write some stuff down.

And they did. Rather than leave out anything, even if it might seem ludicrous, they wrote down every tale they had heard no matter the source.

Oh, you speak of the gnostic scriptures...

Just kidding. I have spoken with many atheists that also make the mistake of placing their faith in the works of men.

Have you not read enough to know that God does not impart understanding to the natural man that he might have a proper view or understanding of His word?

The only understanding scripture gives natural man in regards to His word is the work of the Holy Spirit, which is given that man might be saved. The sad thing is this: many will have that work upon their hearts, and reject it. Then, there is a scramble...to seek out a basis for a conclusion that was made. Atheists do this. They will latch on to anything that soothes their conscience, which is hammered by the internal witness of God.

I have no problem with that either. I am pretty sure that the original charge that John was written by Cerenthus was true. I don't care.

It is apparent, sorry.

I look at all the scriptures, in the bible and out.

Not true: you just admitted you have not looked at all of the word of God.

I would highly recommend this.

This is simply a way to say "I accept other holy scriptures even if Christianity rejects them because they are contrary to what is written in the word of God."

Only by a study of the Bible can one compare that with extrabiblical sources. We see in scripture quotes from secular sources, not because all of what the source held to was to be embraced, but that even pagans didn't get everything wrong.

In other words, "even the blind dog finds the waterbowl every now and then."

Continued...

 

[gord44]

I have spoken with many atheists that also make the mistake of placing their faith in the works of men.

How do you know you aren't placing your faith in the works of men?

 

[dollarsbill]

How do you know you aren't placing your faith in the works of men?

How do you know he is?

 

[gord44]

How do you know he is?

I don't. That's why I asked.

 

[Soulgazer]

That does not mean that words cannot be as deadly, especially on an eternal level where doctrine is concerned.

Not sure who the "they all" are.



In other words, "You want to believe false doctrine, I'm okay with that...just keep it out of my back yard," right?

The objective of the word of God is that man might know the One True God, and that they might know what is expected of Him. So I am always going to have an issue with those that teach a universal brotherhood of man, a universal Fatherhood of God, and that there are many paths to Heaven.

Whether or not you are anti-semitic or not is known toyou and God, and is irrelevant.

It is not irreverence to try to lead one to the truth, despite their "faith." In the case of the Jew, on a national basis, outside of Christ, Israel awaits the veil being removed, that she might embrace Christ. As a whole, Israel is a pretty secular nation at this point. And while I can have respect for the orthodox, this is not the same as considering them as being in relationship with God through the New Covenant. Only those that are in the Body of Christ from among them are on relationship with God in this Age.











You admnit it yourself: it is the historians that have led you to your conclusions. If you were concerned that there might be something to the reverence given the Holy Bible by millions of people you would be far more intent in searching this issue out for yourself.

Anyone can have their mind changed, but only the word of God can change the heart.




Oh, you speak of the gnostic scriptures...

Just kidding. I have spoken with many atheists that also make the mistake of placing their faith in the works of men.

Have you not read enough to know that God does not impart understanding to the natural man that he might have a proper view or understanding of His word?

The only understanding scripture gives natural man in regards to His word is the work of the Holy Spirit, which is given that man might be saved. The sad thing is this: many will have that work upon their hearts, and reject it. Then, there is a scramble...to seek out a basis for a conclusion that was made. Atheists do this. They will latch on to anything that soothes their conscience, which is hammered by the internal witness of God.









It is apparent, sorry.








Not true: you just admitted you have not looked at all of the word of God.

I would highly recommend this.

This is simply a way to say "I accept other holy scriptures even if Christianity rejects them because they are contrary to what is written in the word of God."

Only by a study of the Bible can one compare that with extrabiblical sources. We see in scripture quotes from secular sources, not because all of what the source held to was to be embraced, but that even pagans didn't get everything wrong.

In other words, "even the blind dog finds the waterbowl every now and then."

Continued...

Of coarse I admit it, when it comes to sourcing the bible. Otherwise I might subscribe to "pagan" belief that John wrote
John", or the Apostle John and the Prophet John are the same person.

People throw the word "Pagan" around as if it were a religion. It simply meant "Uneducated" or "Bumpkin".

There are two great periods of paganism in Christianity. The Black death that wiped out the centers of learning was one. The second will remain my secret lest I get thrown off the board