The wages of sin is DEATH, not eternal torment in Hell.

[he-man]

As I have shown the Jews, long before any contact with Greeks, believed in a place of unending punishment, they called that place both hades and Gehenna. Nothing Jesus said contradicted or dispelled that belief.

:o I guess you must know more than (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cf. Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. vv.), of the Fathers generally (Tert. de Animd, c. Iv. ; Jerome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. § 105, &c. ; see Pearson on Creed, Art. v.), and of many moderns (Trench on the Parables, p. 467; Alford on Luke xvi. 23). Who says: This was the belief of the Jews after the exile

Elsewhere in the N. T. Hades is used of a place of torment (Luke xvi. 23; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Matt, xi. 23, Ac). Consequently it has been the prevalent, almost the universal, notion that Hades is an intermediaie state between death and resurrection, divided into two parts, one the abode of the blessed and the other of the lost.

This was the belief of the Jews after the exile, who gave to the places the names of Paradise and Gehenna (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cf. Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. vv.), of the Fathers generally (Tert. de Animd, c. Iv. ; Jerome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. § 105, &c. ; see Pearson on Creed, Art. v.), and of many moderns (Trench on the Parables, p. 467;
Alford on Luke xvi. 23).

In holding this view, main reliance is placed on the parable of Dives and Lazarus; but it is impossible to ground the proof of an important theological doctrine on a passage which confessedly abounds in Jewish metaphors.
" Theologia pai-aboUca non est demonstrativa " is a rule too valuable to be forgotten ; and if we are to turn rhetoric into logic, and build a dogma on every metaphor, our belief will be of a vague and contradictory character. Dogmatism on this topic appears to be peculiarly misplaced.

HELL. This is the word generally and unfortunately used by our translators to render the Hebrew Sheol ( sheol), or (vWE7) : "αιδης, and once θανατος, 2 Sam. xxii. 6 : Inferi or Inferna, or sometimes Mors).

We say unfortunately, because — although, as St. Augustine truly asserts, Sheol, with its equivalents Inferi and Hades, are never used in a good sense (De Gen. ad Lit. xii. 33), yet —the English word Hell is mixed up with numberless associations entirely foreign to the minds of
the ancient Hebrews.

It would perhaps have been better to retain the Hebrew word Sheol, or else render it always by " the grave " or " the pit."

Ewald accepts Luther's word Holle; even Untewelt, which is suggested by De Wette, involves conceptions too human for the purpose. Passing over the derivations suggested by older writers, it is now generally agreed that the word
comes from the root (7Sti7), "to make hollow" (comp. Germ. Holle, "hell," with Hohle, "a hollow "), and therefore means the vast hollow subterranean resting-place which is the common receptacle of the dead (Ges. Thes. p. 1348; Bottcher, de Inferis, c. iv. p. 137 fF.; Ewald, ad Ps. p. 42).

It is deep (Job xi. 8) and dark (Job x. 21, 22), in the
centre of the earth (Num. xvi. 30; Deut. xxxii. 22), having within it depths on depths (Prov. ix. 18), and fastened with gates (Is. xxxviii. 10) and bars (Job xvii. 16).

Some have fancied (as Jahn, Arch. Bibl. § 203, Eng. ed.) that the Jews, like the Greeks, believed in infernal rivers: thus Clemens Alex, defines Gehenna as " a river of fire " (Fragm. 38), and expressly compares it to the fiery rivers of Tartarus (Strom, v. 14, 92); and TertuUian says that it was supposed to resemble Pyriphlegethon (Apolog. cap. xlvii.).
The notion, however, is not found in Scripture, for Ps. xviii. 5 is a mere metaphor.

It is clear that in many passages of the O. T. Sheol can only mean " the grave," and is so rendered in the A. V. (see, for example, Gen. xxxvii. 35, xlii. 38; 1 Sam. ii. 6; Job xiv. 13). In other passages, however, it seems to involve a notion of punishment, and is therefore rendered in the A. V.
by the word " Hell."

But in many cases this translation misleads the reader. It is obvious, for instance, that Job xi. 8; Ps. cxxxix. 8; Am. ix. 2 (where " hell " is used as the antithesis of "heaven"), merely illustrate the Jewish notion of the locality of Sheol in the bowels of the earth. Even Ps. ix. 17, Prov. xv. 24, v. 5, ix. 18, seem to refer rather to the danger of terrible and precipitate death than to a place of infernal anguish.
In the N. T. the word Hades (like Sheol) sometimes
means merely "the grave" (Rev. xx. 13; Acts ii. 31; 1 Cor. xv. 55), or in general "the unseen world." It is in this sense that the creeds say of our Lord κατηλθεν εν αδ&#951 orεις αδου, descendit ad inferos, or inferna, meaning " the state
of the dead in general, without any restriction of happiness or misery" (Beveridge on Art. iii.), a doctrine certainly, though only virtually, expressed in Scripture (Eph. iv. 9; Acts ii. 25-31).

Similarly Josephus uses Hades as the name of the place
whence the soul of Samuel was evoked (Ant. vi. 14,HELL)
DR. WILLIAM SMITH'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

 

[Der Alte]

No, I don't mean the anonymous people who write and change the articles at Wiki. Everything that I have read concerning Hades in the Wickipedia is in line with all other sources pertaining to Hades. So, I'll ask again with different words: Do you know something about Greek mythology that the contributors to Wickipedia didn't know? If so, what is it?

If other credible sources provide evidence which supports your argument, why quote Wiki? Check it out, every article has multiple [Edit] links. Anybody can change anything at any time without review or control. I have done it a few times to prove to people who questioned me, that it can be done.

Please show by the post # number or # numbers where you have shown that the Jews, long before any contact with Greeks, believed in a place of unending punishment, they called that place both Hades and Gehenna. Thanks.

I will do better than that. My previous posts.

[post=63318413]JE-Jews and Hell[/post]

[post=63314072]JE-Jews and Hell[/post]

[post=63598623]Talmud-Jews and Hell[/post]

[post=63318413]Talmud-Jews and Hell[/post]

I believe your connecting rods must be bent. According to Greek myth there were five rivers that separated Hades from the world of the living; one of the rivers was Phlegethon - the river of fire. (The river that flows with fire which burns and does not consume. - Virgil VI, 265, 551.# No wonder the rich man's tongue was so scorched.

There is no river of fire in Luke 16, thus your claim fails. Guess the person who allegedly incorporated the alleged "myth" forgot those little details. I wonder if you can explain to me how all the NT manuscripts were changed, supposedly, to include a Greek myth in Luke 16, and nobody noticed it? How were those forgers able to find every copy of Luke whereever it was; Rome, Greece, Asia (Turkey) Assyria, Alexandria, Babylon etc. and simultaneously change every ms. in existence without getting caught and while this was supposedly happening there was not one true believer anywhere in the world to object.

So, you and E.W. Bullinger agree in what is metonymy and metaphor, etc. How convenient.

What I also found was, out of the hundreds of figures of speech that Bullinger identified, Luke 16:19-31 was not included.

And you know this, how? You need to be more careful with your accusations. Because I did not name my sources does not mean that they are mysterious sources. True enough I don't know anything about the Hebrew language , and little about the Greek, (except some (not much --wasn't interested - now I regret that) that stuck with me from my father who knew biblical Greek well.
And anyway, I figure that if I needed help with anything pertaining to the Greek language, He-man would help if I needed it.

What makes you think that He-man knows anything more about Hebrew or Greek than you do. How do I know? Because if you had any credible, verifiable, grammatical, lexical, etc. sources you would have identified them by now.

Although it seems like I remember that you have in the past have mentioned that you hold Strong's in some disdain, (please excuse me if I have you confused with someone else on this forum) I doubt that you know any more about either the Greek or the Hebrew languages than Strong's.

Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. I have claimed no authority in Greek, or Hebrew. That is why I cite the acknowledged resources, e.g. TDNT, TWOT, BAGD, BDB, Louw-Nida, K&D, Wallace, Robertson.

I gave you a few of the passages (Job 24:19-20, Psa. 115:17, Eccl. 9:5) which verify the claim that that Isa. 14:9, Ezek. 32:21, 31 is prophetic figuarative speech, but you have dismissed them as being SPAM-Fig. . . .

I explained SPAM-Fig in the paragraph you quoted; symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor, figurative. Proves you are not even reading my posts. I have refuted your out-of-context proof texts, Job 24:19-20, Psa. 115:17, Eccl. 9:5. They do not prove anything about Isa. 14:9, Ezek. 32:21, 31. I wonder when Ezekiel told Pharaoh what was going to happen to him, if Pharaoh understood it was only a figure of speech?

Eze 32:2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.
. . .
Eze 32:21 The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.
. . .
Eze 32:31 Pharaoh shall see them, and shall be comforted over all his multitude, even Pharaoh and all his army slain by the sword, saith the Lord GOD.​

Do you even know what empirical evidence is? Please define that for me. I always thought that empirical evidence was "a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation", or " information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim".

That works for me. When have you ever provided any or when do you plan on providing some?

No, you go back and read your own posts and then tell me the post # number is . If you can't do this, and I suspect you can't, then everyone is going to know that you have told another falsehood.

I'll rush right in and do that as soon as you prove that you ever kicked my fanny about anything. The truth is I was not the one who got their botox whupped, thoroughly. Who now is telling falsehoods?

 

[he-man]

If other credible sources provide evidence which supports your argument, why quote Wiki?.

Deleted

 

[Timothew]

According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death.

I don't know why anyone is arguing that the wages of sin is not death but eternal torture instead. To do so is to deny what the Bible says. To argue with God as it were. Not a good idea.

 

[Evergreen48]

If other credible sources provide evidence which supports your argument, why quote Wiki?

Because I can copy and paste from Wickipedia, which I can't do from other sources that I have, since they are not on line sources.

Check it out, every article has multiple [Edit] links. Anybody can change anything at any time without review or control. I have done it a few times to prove to people who questioned me, that it can be done.

So?

Please show by the post # number or # numbers where you have shown that the Jews, long before any contact with Greeks, believed in a place of unending punishment, they called that place both Hades and Gehenna. Thanks.

I will do better than that. My previous posts.

JE-Jews and Hell

JE-Jews and Hell

Talmud-Jews and Hell

Talmud-Jews and Hell

[/quote]

I saw quite a Gehenna mentioned quite a few times in those excerpts, but no mention of Hades.

There is no river of fire in Luke 16, thus your claim fails. Guess the person who allegedly incorporated the alleged "myth" forgot those little details.

There definitely is fire in the parable of the rich man and Laszarus, for the rich man says that he is tormented in the flame. And, since we find the rich man talking and apparently in full control of his faculties, apparently the fire did not consume him. (Phlegethon - the river of fire. (The river that flows with fire which burns and does not consume.)

I wonder if you can explain to me how all the NT manuscripts were changed, supposedly, to include a Greek myth in Luke 16, and nobody noticed it? How were those forgers able to find every copy of Luke whereever it was; Rome, Greece, Asia (Turkey) Assyria, Alexandria, Babylon etc. and simultaneously change every ms. in existence without getting caught and while this was supposedly happening there was not one true believer anywhere in the world to object.

Nobody, including myself said anything about all the NT manuscripts being changed or forged. You have a large imagination. But holding that thought for a moment, how do we know that every copy of Luke included the parable of the rich man and Lazarus?

What I also found was, out of the hundreds of figures of speech that Bullinger identified, Luke 16:19-31 was not included.

Luke 16:19-31 is not figurative speech. It is a parable. That could be why it wasn't included.

What makes you think that He-man knows anything more about Hebrew or Greek than you do.

'he-man' does not boast about his education in the Greek language, but by reading his posts I can tell that he does know the Greek language quite well. I don't know about his knowledge of the Hebrew language.

How do I know? Because if you had any credible, verifiable, grammatical, lexical, etc. sources you would have identified them by now.

Really I can't think of any circumstance in this particular thread where it would have been necessary for me to identify my sources. But I wouldn't identify my sources for you for all the gold in China, or even if you beat me with the rod of correction.

Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions.

Really? Who found them?

I have claimed no authority in Greek, or Hebrew. That is why I cite the acknowledged resources, e.g. TDNT, TWOT, BAGD, BDB, Louw-Nida, K&D, Wallace, Robertson.

In several of your posts in this thread you have cited the fact that you have had formal education in the two languages. That, IMO is claiming authority in Greek or Hebrew.

I explained SPAM-Fig in the paragraph you quoted; symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor, figurative. Proves you are not even reading my posts.

Yes, I read your posts, though admittedly they are becoming more boring with each post, and I don't see the definition for SPAM-Fig in any of them.

I have refuted your out-of-context proof texts, Job 24:19-20, Psa. 115:17, Eccl. 9:5. They do not prove anything about Isa. 14:9, Ezek. 32:21, 31.

That is not true. You have not refuted the scriptures (Job 24:19-20, Psa. 115:17, Eccl. 9:5) as being indisputable proof that Isa. 14:9 & Ezek. 32:21, 31 are figurative prophetic language. I am not sorry to have to tell you this, but your just saying you have refuted them does not make it so. The scriptures under consideration say what they say, and they mean the same in what ever context one might find them. As a matter of fact, I don't believe they could be placed in any particular context at all.

I wonder when Ezekiel told Pharaoh what was going to happen to him, if Pharaoh understood it was only a figure of speech?

Eze 32:2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.
. . .
Eze 32:21 The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.
. . .
Eze 32:31 Pharaoh shall see them, and shall be comforted over all his multitude, even Pharaoh and all his army slain by the sword, saith the Lord GOD.

What God told Ezekiel to do was to take up, or make a poem - an elegy or a dirge - which would be negative toward Pharoah. It would not necessarily tell Pharoah what was was going to happen to him.

That works for me. When have you ever provided any or when do you plan on providing some?

I did not claim that I had ever provided any empirical evidence or that I was going to. YOU are the one who said that I did not rely on empirical evidence:

SPAM-Fig copout. Anything which contradicts your beliefs you cavalierly dismiss as symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor or figurative. Relying, not on empirical evidence, but solely on what you know in your heart. Problem with this is it cannot be verified or falsified. And it doesn't matter to you when some of those "know in your heart" conflict with Jewish interpretation.

So, I took it that you were the one who would be the provider of empirical evidence.

I'll rush right in and do that as soon as you prove that you ever kicked my fanny about anything. The truth is I was not the one who got their botox whupped, thoroughly. Who now is telling falsehoods?

Yeah, right. You wish.

I believe I have done my work here in this thread so I'm moving over to the Poll about Matthew 24 which has been revived. I see you have interfered over in that one too. Have you voted?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I did not realize God picked sides here. I have noticed many claim to speak for Him. As opinions clearly differ on what death/dying means, they cannot all be correct in those claims - as it were.
On the other hand am very certain many non-Christians and atheist alike would be delighted to be told God ends their "existence" (twice by the accounting of some) rather than rewarding their rejection Justly.

 

[he-man]

If other credible sources provide evidence which supports your argument, why quote Wiki?

:o Lol! He is afraid to comment to anyone that has the evidence!

(Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cf. Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. vv.), of the Fathers generally (Tert. de Animd, c. Iv. ; Jerome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. § 105, &c. ; see Pearson on Creed, Art. v.), and of many moderns (Trench on the Parables, p. 467; Alford on Luke xvi. 23). Who says: This was the belief of the Jews after the exile

Elsewhere in the N. T. Hades is used of a place of torment (Luke xvi. 23; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Matt, xi. 23, Ac). Consequently it has been the prevalent, almost the universal, notion that Hades is an intermediaie state between death and resurrection, divided into two parts, one the abode of the blessed and the other of the lost.

This was the belief of the Jews after the exile, who gave to the places the names of Paradise and Gehenna (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cf. Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. vv.), of the Fathers generally (Tert. de Animd, c. Iv. ; Jerome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. § 105, &c. ; see Pearson on Creed, Art. v.), and of many moderns (Trench on the Parables, p. 467;
Alford on Luke xvi. 23).

 

[Comprehender]

According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death.

I don't know why anyone is arguing that the wages of sin is not death but eternal torture instead. To do so is to deny what the Bible says. To argue with God as it were. Not a good idea.

What is the bible, but a collection of books (aprox 66) of writings of imperfect people, like you and I.

What is sin?
IMO, sin is incorrect thought and related e-motion and action.
It originates in thought.
Jesus taught the power of thought, (metaphysics like placebo effect) even over body, by healing a man's physical condition by saying, "Arise. Thy sins are forgiven thee." Then he perceived people watching thought him to be blasphemous, he said, (paraphrasing) "Why think you evil in your hearts? Whether I say thy sins are forgiven thee, or arise and walk - it is the same." And the man was healed.

What is the worst sin? - To deny one's sins, & to try to push them on someone else instead... parable of the priest who was pridefully saying he was glad he wasn't such a sinner as the tax collector praying next to him, when Jesus affirmed the the tax-collector's humility. Also one crucified thief by Jesus tried to blame Jesus for their condition, saying, "If you're the son of God, why don't you save us from this!" Then the other thief, humbly acknowledging his weakness repremanded the other & said, (Paraphrasing) "Stop harassing him. We deserve this, but this man doesn't... (then turning to Jesus).. "please remember me." Jesus said he will be with him in paradise.

So, sin (incorrect thought & related emotion & action) can contribute to spiritual/emotional and physical death (ie heart disease is linked to anger & anger is often the product of unrealistic expectations/incorrect thoughts - especially in feeling put down & seeking revenge).

 

[Der Alte]

I saw quite a Gehenna mentioned quite a few times in those excerpts, but no mention of Hades.

. . . When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). . . .

Jewish Encyclopedia Online​

There definitely is fire in the parable of the rich man and Laszarus, for the rich man says that he is tormented in the flame. And, since we find the rich man talking and apparently in full control of his faculties, apparently the fire did not consume him. (Phlegethon - the river of fire. (The river that flows with fire which burns and does not consume.)

Pagans practiced some form of baptism, so that must be copied too. Pagans had temples, priests, etc. so that must have been copied too. As I said there is no river of fire in Luke. Guess whoever forged that must have forgotten that little detail.

Nobody, including myself said anything about all the NT manuscripts being changed or forged. You have a large imagination. But holding that thought for a moment, how do we know that every copy of Luke included the parable of the rich man and Lazarus?

If it is not genuine then it is a forgery. You claim that Luke 16:19-31 is a Greek fable, not original with Jesus, ergo it must be a forgery. We know that all known copies of Luke have vss. 16:19-31, by consulting the textual apparatus in all scholarly copies of the Greek NT. There are a few textual variations for v. 21 the words [SIZE="+1"]των ψιχιων των πιπτοντων[/SIZE] are inverted, [SIZE="+1"]των πιπτοντων των ψιχιων[/SIZE] "the crumbs the table." Nothing else in the passage has any textual variations.

Luke 16:19-31 is not figurative speech. It is a parable. That could be why it wasn't included.

Wrong as usual. Bullinger considered parables as figures of speech, specifically "Continued Simile, Comparison by continued resemblance," p. 751. Although I disagree with his Theology, Bullinger does not list Luke 16:19-31 as a figure of speech.

Really? Who found them?

Online Bible Org. and Zondervan Publishers, found that the original Strong's has about 15,000 errors or omissions.

http://www.onlinebible.net/faqs.html

Zondervan - The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: 21st Century Edition - John R. Kohlenberger III - 9780310233435

In several of your posts in this thread you have cited the fact that you have had formal education in the two languages. That, IMO is claiming authority in Greek or Hebrew.

Your opinion on this means diddly squat. Greek scholars certainly do not consider me an authority, nor do I. I know how to read maps, that does not make me a cartographer.

Yes, I read your posts, though admittedly they are becoming more boring with each post, and I don't see the definition for SPAM-Fig in any of them.

Evidently you didn't read very well. Second comment from the bottom. This post, which you quoted and I referred you back to, what SPAM-Fig means follows the words "SPAM-Fig copout"

Previous post click here

That is not true. You have not refuted the scriptures (Job 24:19-20, Psa. 115:17, Eccl. 9:5) as being indisputable proof that Isa. 14:9 & Ezek. 32:21, 31 are figurative prophetic language. I am not sorry to have to tell you this, but your just saying you have refuted them does not make it so. The scriptures under consideration say what they say, and they mean the same in what ever context one might find them. As a matter of fact, I don't believe they could be placed in any particular context at all.

You saying I did not refute your misinterpretation of the proof texts does not make it so. I provided a more logical meaning for your proof texts. You can deny all you want but you cannot prove me wrong or yourself correct. All you can do is make noise.

What God told Ezekiel to do was to take up, or make a poem - an elegy or a dirge - which would be negative toward Pharoah. It would not necessarily tell Pharoah what was was going to happen to him.

Take up does not mean make up. You should try actually reading scripture before you try to tell someone what it "really means." God told Ezekiel what to say, he did not have to make up anything.

Eze 32:1-2
(1) And it came to pass in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
(2) Son of man, take up [[SIZE="+1"] נשׂא[/SIZE]] a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.

H5375 [SIZE="+1"]נסה נשׂא[/SIZE] nâśâ' nâsâh
naw-saw', naw-saw'
A primitive root; to lift, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, absolutely and relatively: - accept, advance, arise, (able to, [armour], suffer to) bear (-er, up), bring (forth), burn, carry (away), cast, contain, desire, ease, exact, exalt (self), extol, fetch, forgive, furnish, further, give, go on, help, high, hold up, honourable (+ man), lade, lay, lift (self) up, lofty, marry, magnify, X needs, obtain, pardon, raise (up), receive, regard, respect, set (up), spare, stir up, + swear, take (away, up), X utterly, wear, yield.​

Ezekiel was commanded to tell the lamentation to Pharaoh. I repeat my comment, I wonder if Pharaoh knew that it was only figurative, as you claim?

I did not claim that I had ever provided any empirical evidence or that I was going to. YOU are the one who said that I did not rely on empirical evidence:

I know! So what's new?

So, I took it that you were the one who would be the provider of empirical evidence.

I have.

Yeah, right. You wish.

Puerile!

I believe I have done my work here in this thread so I'm moving over to the Poll about Matthew 24 which has been revived. I see you have interfered over in that one too. Have you voted?

What a joke.

 

[Timothew]

I did not realize God picked sides here. I have noticed many claim to speak for Him. As opinions clearly differ on what death/dying means, they cannot all be correct in those claims - as it were.
On the other hand am very certain many non-Christians and atheist alike would be delighted to be told God ends their "existence" (twice by the accounting of some) rather than rewarding their rejection Justly.

The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God says that the wages of sin is death. Therefore God says that the wages of sin is death. I don't speak for God, I am just repeating what God said. If you disagree that the wages of sin is death, it is nothing to me. God said that it is. God didn't pick a side here. But I did. I picked God's side, the side that says "the wages of sin is death". Whose side are you on? Are you on the side that agrees with God that the wages of sin is death or are you on the side that disagrees and says the wages of sin is eternal torment in Hell?

 

[he-man]

As I said there is no river of fire in Luke. Guess whoever forged that must have forgotten that little detail.

Some have fancied (as Jahn, Arch. Bibl. § 203, Eng. ed.) that the Jews, like the Greeks, believed in infernal rivers: thus Clemens Alex, defines Gehenna as " a river of fire " (Fragm. 38), and expressly compares it to the fiery rivers of Tartarus (Strom, v. 14, 92); and TertuUian says that it was supposed to resemble Pyriphlegethon (Apolog. cap. xlvii.). In Greek mythology, the river Phlegethon (, English translation: "flaming") or Pyriphlegethon (Πυριφλεγέθων, English translation: "fire-flaming") was one of the five rivers in the infernal regions of the underworld, along with the rivers Styx, Lethe, Cocytus, and Acheron. Plato describes it as "a stream of fire, which coils round the earth and flows into the depths of Tartarus." It was parallel to the river Styx. It is said that the goddess Styx was in love with Phlegethon, but she was consumed by his flames and sent to Hades. Eventually when Hades allowed her river to flow through, they reunited. ENCYCLOPEDIA. PYRIPHLE′GETHON (Purithlegethôn), flaming with fire, is the name of one of the rivers in the lower world. (Hom. Od. x. 513; Strab. v. p. 244.

The notion, however, is not found in Scripture, for Ps. xviii. 5 is a mere metaphor.

I guess you must know more than (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cf. Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. vv.), of the Fathers generally (Tert. de Animd, c. Iv. ; Jerome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. § 105, &c. ; see Pearson on Creed, Art. v.), and of many moderns (Trench on the Parables, p. 467; Alford on Luke xvi. 23). Who says: This was the belief of the Jews after the exile

Elsewhere in the N. T. Hades is used of a place of torment (Luke xvi. 23; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Matt, xi. 23, Ac). Consequently it has been the prevalent, almost the universal, notion that Hades is an intermediaie state between death and resurrection, divided into two parts, one the abode of the blessed and the other of the lost.

This was the belief of the Jews after the exile, who gave to the places the names of Paradise and Gehenna (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cf. Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. vv.), of the Fathers generally (Tert. de Animd, c. Iv. ; Jerome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. § 105, &c. ; see Pearson on Creed, Art. v.), and of many moderns (Trench on the Parables, p. 467;
Alford on Luke xvi. 23).

In holding this view, main reliance is placed on the parable of Dives and Lazarus; but it is impossible to ground the proof of an important theological doctrine on a passage which confessedly abounds in Jewish metaphors.

" Theologia pai-aboUca non est demonstrativa " is a rule too valuable to be forgotten ; and if we are to turn rhetoric into logic, and build a dogma on every metaphor, our belief will be of a vague and contradictory character. Dogmatism on this topic appears to be peculiarly misplaced.

HELL. This is the word generally and unfortunately used by our translators to render the Hebrew Sheol ( sheol), or (vWE7) : "αιδης, and once θανατος, 2 Sam. xxii. 6 : Inferi or Inferna, or sometimes Mors).

We say unfortunately, because — although, as St. Augustine truly asserts, Sheol, with its equivalents Inferi and Hades, are never used in a good sense (De Gen. ad Lit. xii. 33), yet —the English word Hell is mixed up with numberless associations entirely foreign to the minds of
the ancient Hebrews.

It would perhaps have been better to retain the Hebrew word Sheol, or else render it always by " the grave " or " the pit."

Ewald accepts Luther's word Holle; even Untewelt, which is suggested by De Wette, involves conceptions too human for the purpose. Passing over the derivations suggested by older writers, it is now generally agreed that the word
comes from the root (7Sti7), "to make hollow" (comp. Germ. Holle, "hell," with Hohle, "a hollow "), and therefore means the vast hollow subterranean resting-place which is the common receptacle of the dead (Ges. Thes. p. 1348; Bottcher, de Inferis, c. iv. p. 137 fF.; Ewald, ad Ps. p. 42).

It is deep (Job xi. 8) and dark (Job x. 21, 22), in the
centre of the earth (Num. xvi. 30; Deut. xxxii. 22), having within it depths on depths (Prov. ix. 18), and fastened with gates (Is. xxxviii. 10) and bars (Job xvii. 16).

It is clear that in many passages of the O. T. Sheol can only mean " the grave," and is so rendered in the A. V. (see, for example, Gen. xxxvii. 35, xlii. 38; 1 Sam. ii. 6; Job xiv. 13). In other passages, however, it seems to involve a notion of punishment, and is therefore rendered in the A. V.
by the word " Hell."

But in many cases this translation misleads the reader. It is obvious, for instance, that Job xi. 8; Ps. cxxxix. 8; Am. ix. 2 (where " hell " is used as the antithesis of "heaven"), merely illustrate the Jewish notion of the locality of Sheol in the bowels of the earth. Even Ps. ix. 17, Prov. xv. 24, v. 5, ix. 18, seem to refer rather to the danger of terrible and precipitate death than to a place of infernal anguish.
In the N. T. the word Hades (like Sheol) sometimes
means merely "the grave" (Rev. xx. 13; Acts ii. 31; 1 Cor. xv. 55), or in general "the unseen world." It is in this sense that the creeds say of our Lord κατηλθεν εν αδ&#951 orεις αδου, descendit ad inferos, or inferna, meaning " the state
of the dead in general, without any restriction of happiness or misery" (Beveridge on Art. iii.), a doctrine certainly, though only virtually, expressed in Scripture (Eph. iv. 9; Acts ii. 25-31).

Similarly Josephus uses Hades as the name of the place
whence the soul of Samuel was evoked (Ant. vi. 14,HELL)
DR. WILLIAM SMITH'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God says that the wages of sin is death. Therefore God says that the wages of sin is death. I don't speak for God, I am just repeating what God said. If you disagree that the wages of sin is death, it is nothing to me. God said that it is. God didn't pick a side here. But I did. I picked God's side, the side that says "the wages of sin is death". Whose side are you on? Are you on the side that agrees with God that the wages of sin is death or are you on the side that disagrees and says the wages of sin is eternal torment in Hell?

My point was that the position that one "knows" what God said and therefore one is on God's side is rather self serving. Merely stating it certainly does not "prove" those who disagree with one's view are therefore "opposed" to God and not "on" His side.

I would hope most Christians feel they are "on" God's side, so it kind of goes without saying. Seems to me that feeling the need to say something like that in a discussion like this suggests either a weak position or an inability (perhaps for numerous reaons) to properly defend it.

Many Christians also feel Scripture supports what we "know" to be true. But rather than just state that it is so, and therefore one's position is "aligned" with God, when speaking with Christians holding opposing views, it would be more helpful to address other aspects of a particular view (like how it aligns with other beliefs held for example or it can be shown the ECF held this view or how it does not violate a believed Nature of God - Justice in this case). Instead some would rather just repeat (perhaps using different colors each time) that the Bible says this, it must mean this and therefore any opposed are against God.

If one is incapable of doing anything other than that, then perhaps a preaching forum directed at those who pretty much agree is more appropriate than attempting debate. Just a suggestion.

 

[Timothew]

Dr BubbaLove,

All I am saying is that the Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Feel free to disagree with what the Bible says. Good luck to you sir.

 

[he-man]

My point was that the position that one "knows" what God said and therefore one is on God's side is rather self serving. Merely stating it certainly does not "prove" those who disagree with one's view are therefore "opposed" to God and not "on" His side.

First of all look at and read Luke 11:23 (KJV) He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

It then behooves you to pay attention to exactly what that word conveys. κατα is the word translated as "apart" from. If you do not acknowledge what is taught by God thru Christ, it follows that you are not part of his teaching that the gift of God is eternal life. That proves that the opposite is eternal death and that life is conditional only as a servant through Christ.

Now, look at and read Romans 6:23 (KJV) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If you look at and read the two verses proceeding v. 23 and the context is clearly stated: Romans 6:21-22 (KJV) What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

What then does that teach about upon which side you wish to be considered? It is not our position to drive people away from repentance, in fact, just the opposite, and then it is up to God to divide the goats from the sheep.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 (KJV) And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
To oppose is ἀντιδιατίθημι anti to set oneself opposite
Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

I suppose you could sue me for revaeling the truth of the matter
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? (2) Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (3) Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?

 

[Der Alte]

Dr BubbaLove,

All I am saying is that the Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Feel free to disagree with what the Bible says. Good luck to you sir.

Why do you repeatedly make accusations that you know are not true? I am quite certain that Dr. B has never said or implied that he disagrees with "the wages of sin is death." But that appears to be the only verse in your Bible. Do you want to disagree with these verses?

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: ​

Everyone has sinned, so everyone will die, no exceptions. That satisfies Rom 6:23.

Now please show us where scripture says the wages of sin is death, then the resurrection, followed by the judgment, and finally a second death, or destruction/annihilation.

Hippolytus [A.D. 170-236] The Refutation Of All Heresies, Chap 23

These likewise acknowledge that there is a resurrection of flesh, and that soul is immortal, and that there will be a judgment and conflagration, and that the righteous will be imperishable, but that the wicked will endure everlasting punishment in unquenchable fire.

Hippolytus, Against Plato, On The Cause Of The Universe, Chap 3.

the lovers of iniquity shall be given eternal punishment. And the fire which is unquenchable and without end awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which dieth not, and which does not waste the body, but continues bursting forth from the body with unending pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no voice of interceding friends will profit them.​

And before you provide your one out-of-context sentence from Irenaeus.

Irenaeus, [A.D. 120-202.] Heresies, Book II, Chapter 33.5

Those, on the other hand, who are worthy of punishment, shall go away into it, they too having their own souls and their own bodies, in which they stood apart from the grace of God. Both classes shall then cease from any longer begetting and being begotten, from marrying and being given in marriage; so that the number of mankind, corresponding to the fore-ordination of God, being completed, may fully realize the scheme formed by the Father.​

Irenaeus never says that the unrighteous are annihilated or destroyed. Here they go away into punishment having their own bodies, and no longer marrying or begetting.

Irenaeus, Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 39.4

Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing. Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all good things with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God. For those persons who shun rest shall justly incur punishment, and those who avoid the light shall justly dwell in darkness. For as in the case of this temporal light, those who shun it do deliver themselves over to darkness, so that they do themselves become the cause to themselves that they are destitute of light, and do inhabit darkness; and, as I have already observed, the light is not the cause of such an [unhappy] condition of existence to them; so those who fly from the eternal light of God, which contains in itself all good things, are themselves the cause to themselves of their inhabiting eternal darkness, destitute of all good things, having become to themselves the cause of [their consignment to] an abode of that nature. ​

Note Irenaeus does not say that the unrighteous are destroyed or annihilated. If they are destroyed they do not inhabit anything. They do not dwell anywhere. They don’t exist, they are not destitute of anything. They do not inhabit darkness or anything else and they don’t have an abode.

Irenaeus, Heresies, Chapter 40.1

And this is what has been spoken by the prophet, “I am a jealous God, making peace, and creating evil things;” thus making peace and friendship with those who repent and turn to Him, and bringing [them to] unity, but preparing for the impenitent, those who shun the light, eternal fire and outer darkness, which are evils indeed to those persons who fall into them.​

Note Irenaeus does not say that the unrighteous are destroyed or annihilated. If they are, eternal fire and outer darkness has no meaning for them.

Irenaeus, Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 40.2

the same Father is manifestly declared [in this passage], “making peace and creating evil things,” preparing fit things for both; as also there is one Judge sending both into a fit place, as the Lord sets forth in the parable of the tares and the wheat, where He says, “As therefore the tares are gathered together, and burned in the fire, so shall it be at the end of the world. The Son of man shall send His angels, and they shall gather from His kingdom everything that offendeth, and those who work iniquity, and shall send them into a furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ​

Note Irenaeus does not say that the unrighteous are destroyed or annihilated. If they are destroyed they will not be wailing and gnashing their teeth.

Irenaeus, Heresies, Book II, Chapter 32.1

And, again, if there were really no such thing as good and evil, but certain things were deemed righteous, and certain others unrighteous, in human opinion only, He never would have expressed Himself thus in His teaching: “The righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father;” but He shall send the unrighteous, and those who do not the works of righteousness, “into everlasting fire, where their worm shall not die, and the fire shall not be quenched.”​

Note Irenaeus does not say that the unrighteous are destroyed or annihilated. If they are destroyed, everlasting fire and worms that do not die, have no meaning for them.

Irenaeus, Heresies, Book II, Chapter 34.1

In this account He states that Dives knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him — Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognized, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class [of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment. ​

Here Irenaeus says that all people continue in their former position. Souls continue to exist, they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognized, and retain the memory of things in this world, receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment. A person that is destroyed does not have a habitation.

 

[he-man]

Why do you repeatedly make accusations that you know are not true? I am quite certain that Dr. B has never said or implied that he disagrees with "the wages of sin is death."

:o The Bibile is more reliable than Greek mythology:
The punishment is eternal destruction.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 (Darby)
7 and to you that are troubled repose with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with [the] angels of his power,
8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who know not God, and those who do not obey the glad tidings of our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 who shall pay the penalty [of] everlasting destruction from [the] presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his might,
10 when he shall have come to be glorified in his saints, and wondered at in all that have believed, (for our testimony to you has been believed,) in that day.

Verse 9. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction[BARNES]

Da 12:2 — And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Now, look at and read Romans 6:23 (KJV) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If you look at and read the two verses proceeding v. 23 and the context is clearly stated: Romans 6:21-22 (KJV) What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Some have fancied (as Jahn, Arch. Bibl. § 203, Eng. ed.) that the Jews, like the Greeks, believed in infernal rivers: thus Clemens Alex, defines Gehenna as " a river of fire " (Fragm. 38), and expressly compares it to the fiery rivers of Tartarus (Strom, v. 14, 92); and TertuUian says that it was supposed to resemble Pyriphlegethon (Apolog. cap. xlvii.).

In Greek mythology, the river Phlegethon (, English translation: "flaming") or Pyriphlegethon (Πυριφλεγέθων, English translation: "fire-flaming") was one of the five rivers in the infernal regions of the underworld, along with the rivers Styx, Lethe, Cocytus, and Acheron. Plato describes it as "a stream of fire, which coils round the earth and flows into the depths of Tartarus." It was parallel to the river Styx. It is said that the goddess Styx was in love with Phlegethon, but she was consumed by his flames and sent to Hades. Eventually when Hades allowed her river to flow through, they reunited. ENCYCLOPEDIA. PYRIPHLE′GETHON (Purithlegethôn), flaming with fire, is the name of one of the rivers in the lower world. (Hom. Od. x. 513; Strab. v. p. 244.

The notion, however, is not found in Scripture, for Ps. xviii. 5 is a mere metaphor.

Do you know more than (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cf. Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. vv.), of the Fathers generally (Tert. de Animd, c. Iv. ; Jerome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. § 105, &c. ; see Pearson on Creed, Art. v.), and of many moderns (Trench on the Parables, p. 467; Alford on Luke xvi. 23). Who says: This was the belief of the Jews after the exile

Elsewhere in the N. T. Hades is used of a place of torment (Luke xvi. 23; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Matt, xi. 23, Ac). Consequently it has been the prevalent, almost the universal, notion that Hades is an intermediaie state between death and resurrection, divided into two parts, one the abode of the blessed and the other of the lost.

This was the belief of the Jews after the exile, who gave to the places the names of Paradise and Gehenna (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cf. Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. vv.), of the Fathers generally (Tert. de Animd, c. Iv. ; Jerome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. § 105, &c. ; see Pearson on Creed, Art. v.), and of many moderns (Trench on the Parables, p. 467;
Alford on Luke xvi. 23).

In holding this view, main reliance is placed on the parable of Dives and Lazarus; but it is impossible to ground the proof of an important theological doctrine on a passage which confessedly abounds in Jewish metaphors.

" Theologia pai-aboUca non est demonstrativa " is a rule too valuable to be forgotten ; and if we are to turn rhetoric into logic, and build a dogma on every metaphor, our belief will be of a vague and contradictory character. Dogmatism on this topic appears to be peculiarly misplaced.

HELL. This is the word generally and unfortunately used by our translators to render the Hebrew Sheol ( sheol), or (vWE7) : "αιδης, and once θανατος, 2 Sam. xxii. 6 : Inferi or Inferna, or sometimes Mors).

We say unfortunately, because — although, as St. Augustine truly asserts, Sheol, with its equivalents Inferi and Hades, are never used in a good sense (De Gen. ad Lit. xii. 33), yet —the English word Hell is mixed up with numberless associations entirely foreign to the minds of
the ancient Hebrews.

It would perhaps have been better to retain the Hebrew word Sheol, or else render it always by " the grave " or " the pit."

Ewald accepts Luther's word Holle; even Untewelt, which is suggested by De Wette, involves conceptions too human for the purpose. Passing over the derivations suggested by older writers, it is now generally agreed that the word
comes from the root (7Sti7), "to make hollow" (comp. Germ. Holle, "hell," with Hohle, "a hollow "), and therefore means the vast hollow subterranean resting-place which is the common receptacle of the dead (Ges. Thes. p. 1348; Bottcher, de Inferis, c. iv. p. 137 fF.; Ewald, ad Ps. p. 42).

It is deep (Job xi. 8) and dark (Job x. 21, 22), in the
centre of the earth (Num. xvi. 30; Deut. xxxii. 22), having within it depths on depths (Prov. ix. 18), and fastened with gates (Is. xxxviii. 10) and bars (Job xvii. 16).

It is clear that in many passages of the O. T. Sheol can only mean " the grave," and is so rendered in the A. V. (see, for example, Gen. xxxvii. 35, xlii. 38; 1 Sam. ii. 6; Job xiv. 13). In other passages, however, it seems to involve a notion of punishment, and is therefore rendered in the A. V.
by the word " Hell."

But in many cases this translation misleads the reader. It is obvious, for instance, that Job xi. 8; Ps. cxxxix. 8; Am. ix. 2 (where " hell " is used as the antithesis of "heaven"), merely illustrate the Jewish notion of the locality of Sheol in the bowels of the earth. Even Ps. ix. 17, Prov. xv. 24, v. 5, ix. 18, seem to refer rather to the danger of terrible and precipitate death than to a place of infernal anguish.
In the N. T. the word Hades (like Sheol) sometimes
means merely "the grave" (Rev. xx. 13; Acts ii. 31; 1 Cor. xv. 55), or in general "the unseen world." It is in this sense that the creeds say of our Lord κατηλθεν εν αδ&#951 orεις αδου, descendit ad inferos, or inferna, meaning " the state
of the dead in general, without any restriction of happiness or misery" (Beveridge on Art. iii.), a doctrine certainly, though only virtually, expressed in Scripture (Eph. iv. 9; Acts ii. 25-31).

Similarly Josephus uses Hades as the name of the place
whence the soul of Samuel was evoked (Ant. vi. 14,HELL)
DR. WILLIAM SMITH'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

 

[Dani K]

When you are dead you are in for an awakeing.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Dr BubbaLove,

All I am saying is that the Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Feel free to disagree with what the Bible says. Good luck to you sir.

Thanks for the luck, I could use it right now.

Actually the post I responed to does much more than what is now being offered. Specifically a false delimina was created - that either one is for the idea that a human soul which is damned ceases to exist or that human remains in eternal suffering in the next life. Then it was claimed that the choice as to which to believe puts one either on God's side or against. "Pick God's side" I believe was the wording.

So that is not "all" that was said and it still stands that by definition all Christian believes themselves to be (or at least trying) on "God's side" to use the same language used in the original post. And it also follows they all believe themselves to be supported in their beliefs by Scripture. Which then renders such statements as "feel free to disagree with the Bible" just as self-serving as saying one "picks God's side". IOW a point is not being made in such discussions saying such things, at least not among fellow Christians.

Again, I can see how such self-serving statements can serve to motivate a crowd of like minded Christians.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

First of all look at and read Luke 11:23 (KJV) He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

It then behooves you to pay attention to exactly what that word conveys.

I seldom use the word behoove. Have once heard preachers every Sunday who liked to speak this way.

But more to and back to the point - telling people what I believe the Bible says and asking them to "pay attention" and suggesting as a warning they better listen to me only works if they know who I am, if they believe I have credibility (for whatever reason) and they respect my opinion. It also helps if they already believe at least close to the way I do. Which is why I would describe such discourse as preaching.

If you do not acknowledge what is taught by God thru Christ, it follows that you are not part of his teaching that the gift of God is eternal life.

And there it is in a nut shell - believe the way I do and heed what I teach or essentially one is not on God's side. Useful I guess to keep a flock of fellow Christians in check and keep them from leaving for other Churches. I do not see how such language is useful in attempting to defend a position or make a point.

<...edit more of the same out....>

I suppose you could sue me for revaeling the truth of the matter
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? (2) Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (3) Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?

Not sure why anyone would think a Christian forum poster would desire to sue another - but the rhetoric is more of the same - bolstered by the suggestion that only one side of this thread speaks the "truth".

Again I would think that it is fairly obvious that one side is speaking the truth as the two main positions cannot both be true. However stating that I am speaking the "truth" does not bolster my position in such discourse. It is apparently often thought appropriate in a sermons to like minded people.

 

[he-man]

Again I would think that it is fairly obvious that one side is speaking the truth as the two main positions cannot both be true. However stating that I am speaking the "truth" does not bolster my position in such discourse. It is apparently often thought appropriate in a sermons to like minded people.

Isn't that what we are supposed to be, likeminded? Of one mind (to hen phronountes). "Thinking the one thing." Like clocks that strike at the same moment. Perfect intellectual telepathy. Identity of ideas and harmony of feelings. [RWP]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]&#963;&#965;&#956;&#968;&#965;&#967;&#959;&#953; togetherness with life[/FONT][/FONT]

Php 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, of one accord, of one mind.

Php 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

I do not see how such language is useful is attempting to defend a position or make a point.

attempting? 2Co 13:10 Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction.

11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.