the fallacy of eternal torment and related issues

[Soul Searcher]

Daneel, I'm not here to play games, these questions seem rather pointless imo.

 

[Dottie]

It might be a false teaching if you had any EVIDENCE, which you do not have and have not posted. Lightfoot wrote in the 19th century, what primary historical Jewish sources does he cite, if any?

Since John Lightfoot was born in 1602 and died in 1675, I highly doubt that he could have been a 19th Century writer.

A little about John Lightfoot . . . .

[John Lightfoot (March 29, 1602 - December 6, 1675) was an English churchman and rabbinical scholar.



He was born at Stoke-on-Trent, the son of Thomas Lightfoot, vicar of Uttoxeter, Staffordshire. He was educated at Morton Green near Congleton, Cheshire, and at Christ's College, Cambridge, where he was regarded as the best orator among the undergraduates. After taking his degree he became assistant master at Repton in Derbyshire; after taking orders, he was appointed curate of Norton-under-Hales in Shropshire. There he attracted the notice of Sir Rowland Cotton, an amateur Hebraist, who made him his domestic chaplain at Bellaport. Shortly after the removal of Sir Rowland to London, Lightfoot, abandoning an intention to go abroad, accepted a charge at Stone in Staffordshire, where he continued for about two years. From Stone he removed to Hornsey, near London, for the sake of reading in the library of Sion College.

His first published work, entitled Erubhin, or Miscellanies, Christian and Judaical, written in his spare time and dedicated to Cotton, appeared in London in 1629. In September 1630 he was presented by Cotton to the rectory of Ashley in Staffordshire, where he remained until June, 1642. He then went to London, probably to supervise the publication of his next work, A Few and New Observations upon the Book of Genesis: the most of them certain; the rest, probable; all, harmless, strange and rarely heard of before. Soon after his arrival in London he became minister of St Bartholomew's Church, near the Exchange; and in 1643 he was appointed to preach the sermon before the House of Commons on occasion of the public fast of March 29. It was published under the title of Elias Redivivus, the text being Luke 1. 17; in it a parallel is drawn between the John the Baptist's ministry and the work of reformation which in the preathe parliament of his own day. Lightfoot was one of the original members of the Westminster Assembly; his "Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines from January 1, 1643 to December 31, 1644" is a valuable historical source for the brief period to which it relates. He was assiduous in his attendance, and, though frequently standing alone, especially in the Erastian controversy, he exercised considerable influence on the outcome of the discussions of the Assembly.

In 1643 Lightfoot published A Handful of Gleanings out of the Book of Exodus, and in the same year he was made master of Catharine Hall by the parliamentary visitors of Cambridge, and also, on the recommendation of the Assembly, was promoted to the rectory of Much Munden in Hertfordshire; he kept both appointments until his death. In 1644 the first instalment of an unfinished work was published in London. The full title was The Harmony of the Four Evangelists among themselves, and with the Old Testament, with an explanation of the chiefest difficulties both in Language and Sense: Part I. From the beginning of the Gospels to the Baptism of our Saviour. The second part, From the Baptism of our Saviour to the first Passover after, followed in 1647, and the third, From the first Passover after our Saviour's Baptism to the second, in 1650. On August 26, 1645 he again preached before the House of Commons on the day of their monthly fast. His text was Rev. xx. I, 2.

Rejecting the doctrine of the millenarian sects, Lightfoot had various practical suggestions for the repression of current "blasphemies", for a thorough revision of the authorized version of the Scriptures, for the encouragement of a learned ministry, and for a speedy settlement of the church. A Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, ironical and critical; the Difficulties of the text explained, and the times of the Story cast into annals. From the beginning of the Book to the end of the Twelfth Chapter. With a brief survey of the contemporary Story of the Jews and Romans (down to the third year of Claudius) was published later that year. In 1647 came The Harmony, Chronicle, and Order of the Old Testament, followed in 1655 by The Harmony, Chronicle, and Order of the New Testament, inscribed to Cromwell.In 1654 Lightfoot had been chosen vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, but continued to live at Munden, in the rectory of which, as well as in the mastership of Catharine Hall, he was confirmed at the Restoration. The remainder of his life was devoted to helping Brian Walton with the Polyglot Bible (1657) and to his own best-known work, the Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, in which the volume relating to the Gospel of Matthew appeared in 1658, that relating to the Gospel of Mark in 1663, and those relating to 1 Corinthians, John and Luke, in 1664, 1671 and 1674 respectively. While travelling from Cambridge to Ely, where he had been collated in 1668 by Sir Orlando Bridgman to a prebendal stall, he caught a severe cold, and died at Ely. The Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae impensae in Acta Apostolorum et in Ep. S. Pauli ad Romanos were published posthumously.The Works of Lightfoot were first edited, in 2 vols. fol., by G Bright and Strype in 1684; the Opera Omnia, cura Jo/i. Texetii, appeared at Rotterdam in 1686 (2 vols. fol.), and again, edited by J Leusden, at Franeker in 1699 (3 vols. 101.). A volume of Remains was published at London in 1700. The Hor. Hebr. et Talm. were also edited in Latin by Carpzov (Leipzig, 1675-1679), and again, in English, by Gandell (Oxford, 1859). The most complete edition is that of the Whole Works, in 13 vols. 8vo. edited, with a life, by R Pitman (London, 1822-1825). It includes, besides the works already noticed, numerous sermons, letters and miscellaneous writings; and also The Temple, especially as it stood in the Days of our Saviour (London, 1650).]

As to what primary historical Jewish sources he cites; This man probably knew as much about Jewish traditions and beliefs as the Jews who lived at the same time he dido. An that was quite an accomplishment way back then, since he did not have the advantage of your online Jewish Encyclopedia, but rather went straight to the pre Christian era writings of the Jews themselves.

Jewish Encyclpedia indeed. LOL! LOL!

 

[Dottie]

Now read this excerpt from this learned man's (Lightfoot) commentary on the 16th chap. of Luke.

[19. [There was a certain rich man.] Whoever believes this not to be a parable, but a true story, let him believe also those little friars, whose trade it is to shew the monuments at Jerusalem to pilgrims, and point exactly to the place where the house of the 'rich glutton' stood. Most accurate keepers of antiquity indeed! who, after so many hundreds of years, such overthrows of Jerusalem, such devastations and changes, can rake out of the rubbish the place of so private a house, and such a one too as never had any being, but merely in parable. And that it was a parable, not only the consent of all expositors may assure us, but the thing itself speaks it.

The main scope and design of it seems this, to hint the destruction of the unbelieving Jews, who, though they had Moses and the Prophets, did not believe them, nay, would not believe, though one (even Jesus) arose from the dead. For that conclusion of the parable abundantly evidenceth what it aimed at: "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."

20. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

[Lazarus.] I. We shew in our notes upon St. John 11:1, in several instances, that the word Lazar is by contraction used by the Talmudists for Eleazar. The author of Juchasin attests it: in the Jerusalem Talmud every R. Eleazar is written without an Aleph, R. Lazar.

II. In Midras Coheleth there is a certain beggar called Diglus Patragus or Petargus: poor, infirm, naked, and famished. But there could hardly be invented a more convenient name for a poor beggar than Lazar, which signifies the help of God, when he stands in so much need of the help of men.

But perhaps there may be something more aimed at in the name: for since the discourse is concerning Abraham and Lazarus, who would not call to mind Abraham and Eliezer his servant, one born at Damascus, a Gentile by birth, and sometime in posse the heir of Abraham; but shut out of the inheritance by the birth of Isaac, yet restored here into Abraham's bosom? Which I leave to the judgment of the reader, whether it might not hint the calling of the Gentiles into the faith of Abraham.

The Gemarists make Eliezer to accompany his master even in the cave of Machpelah: "R. Baanah painted the sepulchres: when he came to Abraham's cave, he found Eliezer standing at the mouth of it. He saith unto him, 'What is Abraham doing?' To whom he, He lieth in the embraces of Sarah. Then said Baanah, 'Go and tell him that Baanah is at the door,'" &c.

[Full of sores.] In the Hebrew language, stricken with ulcers. Sometimes his body full of ulcers, as in this story: "They tell of Nahum Gamzu, that he was blind, lame of both hands and of both feet, and in all his body full of sores. He was thrown into a ruinous house, the feet of his bed being put into basins full of water, that the ants might not creep upon him. His disciples ask him, 'Rabbi, how hath this mischief befallen thee, when as thou art a just man?'" He gives the reason himself; viz. Because he deferred to give something to a poor man that begged of him. We have the same story in Hieros Peah, where it were worth the while to take notice how they vary in the telling it.

22. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

[He was carried by the angels.] The Rabbins have an invention that there are three bands of angels attend the death of wicked men, proclaiming, "There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked." But what conceptions they have of angels being present at the death of good men, let us judge from this following passage:

"The men of Tsippor said, 'Whoever tells us that Rabbi [Judah] is dead, we will kill him.' Bar Kaphra, looking upon them with his head veiled with a hood, said unto them, 'Holy men, and angels took hold of the tables of the covenant, and the hand of the angels prevailed; so that they took away the tables.' They said unto him, 'Is Rabbi dead then?'" The meaning of this parabolizer was this; Holy men would fain have detained R. Judah still in the land of the living, but the angels took him away.

[Into Abraham's bosom.] ...The Jewish schools dispose of the souls of Jews under a threefold phrase, I can hardly say under a threefold state:--

I. In the garden of Eden, or Paradise. Amongst those many instances that might be alleged, even to nauseousness, let us take one wherein this very Abraham is named:

"'He shall be as a tree planted by the rivers of waters.' This is Abraham, whom God took and planted in the land of Israel; or, whom God took and planted in Paradise." Take one instance more of one of equal fame and piety, and that was Moses: "When our master Moses departed into Paradise, he said unto Joshua, 'If thou hast any doubt upon thee about any thing, inquire now of me concerning it.'"

II. Under the throne of glory. We have a long story in Avoth R. Nathan of the angel of death being sent by God to take away the soul of Moses; which when he could not do, "God taketh hold of him himself, and treasureth him up under the throne of glory." And a little after; "Nor is Moses' soul only placed under the throne of glory; but the souls of other just persons also are reposited under the throne of glory."

Moses, in the words quoted before, is in Paradise; in these words, he is under the throne of glory. In another place, "he is in heaven ministering before God." So that under different phrases is the same thing expressed; and this, however, is made evident, that there the garden of Eden was not to be understood of an earthly, but a heavenly paradise. That in Revelation 6:9, of 'souls crying under the altar,' comes pretty near this phrase, of being placed under the throne of glory. For the Jews conceived of the altar as the throne of the Divine Majesty; and for that reason the court of the Sanhedrim was placed so near the altar, that they might be filled with the reverence of the Divine Majesty so near them, while they were giving judgment. Only, whereas there is mention of the souls of the martyrs that had poured out their blood for God, it is an allusion to the blood of the sacrifices that were wont to be poured out at the foot of the altar.

III. In Abraham's bosom: which if you would know what it is, you need seek no further than the Rhemists, our countrymen (with grief be it spoken), if you will believe them; for they upon this place have this passage: "The bosom of Abraham is the resting-place of all them that died in perfect state of grace before Christ's time; heaven, before, being shut from men. It is calledin Zachary a lake without water, and sometimes a prison, but most commonly of the divines Limbus patrum; for that it is thought to have been the higher part or brim of hell," &c.

If our Saviour had been the first author of this phrase, then might it have been tolerable to have looked for the meaning of it amongst Christian expositors; but seeing it is a scheme of speech so familiar amongst the Jews, and our Saviour spoke no other than in the known and vulgar dialect of that nation, the meaning must be fetched thence, not from any Greek or Roman lexicon. That which we are to inquire after is, how it was understood by the auditory then present: and I may lay any wager that the Jews, when they heard Abraham's bosom mentioned, did think of nothing less than that kind of limbo which we have here described. What! Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, &c., in a lake without water, in prison, on the very brim of hell! Is this to be in paradise? is this to be under the throne of glory? And was Lazarus carried thither by angels when he was carried into Abraham's bosom?

We meet with a phrase amongst the Talmudists; Kiddushin, fol. 72: it is quoted also from Juchasin, fol. 75. 2. Let us borrow a little patience of the reader, to transcribe the whole passage:

"Rabbi [Judah] saith to Levi, Represent the Persians to me by some similitude. He saith, They are like to the host of the house of David. Represent to me the Iberians. They are like to the angels of destruction. Represent to me the Ismaelites. They are like the devils of the stinking pit. Represent to me the disciples of the wise, that are in Babylon. they are like to ministering angels. When R. [Judah] died, he said, Hoemnia is in Babylon, and consists of Ammonites wholly. Mesgaria is in Babylon, and wholly consists of spurious people. Birkah is in Babylon, where two men interchange their wives. Birtha Sataia is in Babylon, and at this day they depart from God. Acra of Agma is in Babylon. Ada Bar Ahava is there. This day he sits in Abraham's bosom. This day is Rabh Judah born in Babylon."

Expositors are not well agreed, neither by whom, nor indeed concerning whom, those words are spoken, This day he sits 'in the bosom of Abraham.' And for that reason have I transcribed the whole period, that the reader may spend his judgment amongst them. The author of Juchasin thinks they may be the words of Adah Bar Ahavah spoken concerning Rabbi Judah. Another Gloss saith, They are spoken of Adah Bar Ahavah himself. Let us hear them both: "The day that Rabbi died, Rabh Adah Bar Ahavah said, by way of prophecy, This day doth he sit in Abraham's bosom." "There are those indeed that expound, This day doth he sit in Abraham's bosom, thus; that is, This day he died. Which if it be to be understood of Adah Bar Ahavah, the times do not suit. It seems to be understood therefore, This day he sits in Abraham's bosom: that is, This day is Adah Bar Ahavah circumcised, and entered into the covenant of Abraham."

But the reader may plainly see, having read out the whole period, that these words were spoken neither by Adah nor of him, but by Levi, of whom we have some mention in the beginning of this passage, and spoken concerning Rabbi Judah that was now dead. It is Levi also that saith, that in his room, on that very selfsame day, was Rabh Judah born in Babylon, according to the common adage of their schools, which immediately follows; "A just man never dies, till there be born in his room one like him." So saith R. Meir; "When R. Akibah died, Rabbi [Judah] was born: when Rabbi Judah died, Rabh Judah was born: when Rabh Judah died, Rabba was born: when Rabba died, Rabh Isai was born."]

 

[Dottie]

Josephus was ONE (1) person, a Jewish soldier who was adopted by and became a Roman citizen.

[Josephus, Flavius (AD 37?-101?), Jewish historian, born in Jerusalem of both royal and priestly lineage. His original name was Joseph Ben Matthias. A man both learned and worldly, he was a member of the Pharisees, and also a public figure who, before the Jewish revolt against Rome (66), had made friends at the court of Emperor Nero.

The parts played in the revolt by the Zealots, and their opponents the Pharisees, who considered it futile, led to ambiguity in the historical record of the role of Josephus, a Pharisee, in the conflict. His own writings present two conflicting accounts of his mission in the province of Galilee (in what is now Israel). According to one account, he took command of the Jewish forces there to lead the Galilean phase of the revolt, but the other, later, account contends that he sought to subdue the revolt rather than lead it. Whichever story may be true, apparently he prepared Galilee for the coming onslaught and in 67 valorously repulsed the advance of Vespasian, the Roman general who was soon to become emperor, defending the fortress of Jotapata for 47 days before surrendering. Josephus would have been sent as a prisoner to Nero had he not had the wit to prophesy that his captor, Vespasian, would himself one day be emperor. This prophecy accorded with Vespasian's ambitions, and the general kept Josephus with him, thus probably saving his life. While Vespasian's prisoner, Josephus saw the subjugation of Galilee and Judea. Subsequently freed, he adopted Vespasian's family name, Flavius. Accompanying another future emperor, Vespasian's son Titus, he witnessed Titus's siege of Jerusalem in 70. Thereafter, enjoying imperial patronage under Titus and his brother's successor, Domitian, Josephus lived until his death in Rome and devoted himself to his writing.

-circa 101), JewisThe Jewish War (in 7 books), which he wrote to dissuade his people and other nations from courting annihilation by further revolt against an all-powerful Rome; Jewish Antiquities (in 20 books), a history of the Jews from the creation to AD66 that eloquently demonstrates how his people had flourished under the law of God; an autobiography, Life; and Against Apion, a refutation of charges against the Jews made by the anti-Semitic Greek grammarian Apion (flourished 1st century) and other likeminded writers. The last named is invaluable, because Josephus recapitulates writings on Jewish history that are no longer extant.]

Did Josephus cite or do you have any PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC?

No, he did not! And that is just the one big problem here. Neither he, nor any of the rest of his fellow countrymen, the Jews, had any PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC, for the fallacious belief that anyone went to Abraham's bosom when they died or that any one else went to hades when they died. It was a lie! And you are trying to tell me that Jesus endorsed it.

 

[Dottie]

Just for kicks here is a link to the complete article on Eshchatology from the Jewish Encyclopedia. It is ten pages long, I posted about one page before. You blew it off because you have your 1-2 cut/pastes that you think prove your assumptions and presuppositions, and you quite evidently are not interested in the truth.

Please find me any reference, whatsoever, to "Abraham's Bosom," if this was Jewish teaching on the after life it would certainly be in this article. Hot flash lady, it ain't there. Neither is it anywhere in any Greek mythology! So I am still waiting for PROOF. Do you think I will ever get any? Nope, because it does not exist. This is false teaching straight from the pits of Satan. All you are doing is trying to tear down the Bible, based on one or two questionable references, while you ignore everything which contradicts, you and them.

And just what makes you think that the Jews who are anti-Christ, inasmuch as they reject Him as the true Messiah, are going to give up any of their little secrets like that? Here's a little more food for thought. Can you think how pleased they would be to see that some of their unscriptural rubbish had somehow made its way into the Christian's Bible?

Jewish Encyclopedia? Yeah, sure thing.

Please feel free to presume to lecture me on anything, anytime you feel lucky. You have your 1-2 little pieces of this and that and you think it proves something. You can do what you like, but I

NEVER say anything I can’t back up. And usually from more than one source, as in this case.

Then I guess you won't have any problem backing up your ridiculous statement that John Lightfoot wrote in the 19th century, will you?

This is probably about the best illustration of HYPOCRISY I have seen a a good long while. You blow off all my Jewish sources, "It makes no difference how the Jews interpreted the scriptures on sheol, gehinnom, and hades." And then you quote Josephus at me? Didn't you tell me he admitted he was a Pharisee, that makes him a Jew?

Just like every Christian Unorthodox Later Theology religion that ever came down the pike, if it agrees with your false doctrine then it is right, but if it doesn't then blow it off, ignore it.

I am still waiting for all that proof.

Quite frankly, sir, I don't think that you would know it was proof, if it hit you right smack dab between your eyes.

But let me try to enlighten you a little, anyway.

The fact that Josephus was a Pharisee shows that he was a Jew. The Pharisees were not a Greek or a Roman sect, you know. And have you read Josephus? Apparently not. Oh well, I'll let you get back to your Jewish Encyclopedia now. Good day to you.

~ Dottie ~

 

[gort]

Daneel, I'm not here to play games, these questions seem rather pointless imo.

I'm not here to play games either.

Proclaiming ones opinion over Gods word is certainly a game. That's what we do when we willfully ignore what God has said regarding the judgement of man.

A man who is taught that he will simply be anhilated on judgement day can simply say "whoopee!" to that, go out and sin to his hearts content, knowing that in the end, he merely ceases to exit. Whereas the teacher/proclaimer who speaks of eternal torment as the finality of all things, not only speaks Truth as to what God has clearly given us regarding the judgement, but to the man that hears that Truth may very well have something to think about.

<><

 

[Soul Searcher]

I'm not here to play games either.

Proclaiming ones opinion over Gods word is certainly a game. That's what we do when we willfully ignore what God has said regarding the judgement of man.

A man who is taught that he will simply be anhilated on judgement day can simply say "whoopee!" to that, go out and sin to his hearts content, knowing that in the end, he merely ceases to exit. Whereas the teacher/proclaimer who speaks of eternal torment as the finality of all things, not only speaks Truth as to what God has clearly given us regarding the judgement, but to the man that hears that Truth may very well have something to think about.

<><

Somehow I do not see searching it for the true message as ignoring it. I do however see a red flag when someone tells me they have all the answers.

 

[john14_20]

And all that did for me was to make me too afraid of God to love Him, or to believe that He loved me.

That is so true. This speaks of many people's experience. Many of these people reject the god that has been presented to them for they see the absurdity of it all. I am sure God claps His hands with delight to see people 'reject him' for they are only rejecting a false god. They are saying "I cannot believe in a god like that", and God I am sure replies, "Well done my child. Neither can I."

This comment is all that I have time for right now, Der Alter, but watch for more from me. I aint done with you yet.

This weeks most quotable quote

 

[john14_20]

Greetings Daneel

Proclaiming ones opinion over Gods word is certainly a game. That's what we do when we willfully ignore what God has said regarding the judgement of man.

No-one is proclaiming thier own opinion OVER God's word.

People here, Der Alter and yourself included, are stating thier own opinion OF WHAT God's word says.

A man who is taught that he will simply be anhilated on judgement day can simply say "whoopee!" to that, go out and sin to his hearts content, knowing that in the end, he merely ceases to exit. Whereas the teacher/proclaimer who speaks of eternal torment as the finality of all things, not only speaks Truth as to what God has clearly given us regarding the judgement, but to the man that hears that Truth may very well have something to think about.

<><

So, according to you, the reason we live good and moral lives is because we fear the consequences of not doing so?

Does not sound much like the life in abundance Jesus promised.

I thought we were supposed to treat people well because we are to love them, not because of fear of being toasted.

Sounds like a medieval method of controlling people, something the church at large has been doing for far too long.

Bless you, Pete

 

[Rev Wayne]

A man who is taught that he will simply be anhilated on judgement day can simply say "whoopee!" to that, go out and sin to his hearts content, knowing that in the end, he merely ceases to exit. Whereas the teacher/proclaimer who speaks of eternal torment as the finality of all things, not only speaks Truth as to what God has clearly given us regarding the judgement, but to the man that hears that Truth may very well have something to think about.

I've never quite managed to figure out the logic of this argument. Why would anyone considerable non-existence to be preferable to eternal torment? I should think either of these options would give one "something to think about."

 

[Rev Wayne]

Not one single verse about hell. In my more than 3 decades of preaching I have only preached one sermon on hell, "Lessons from Hell University." And I can't remember when I ever heard any other sermon which mentioned hell.

Well, I've only got 1 decade, so I guess I have 2 more decades left to pull one out. In fact, I can remember only one sermon that was harsh at all. The church I was at had several ongoing unforgiveness issues, so I preached the text, "If you from your heart do not forgive one another your trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses." I peeled off anything about the text that resembled grace, stuck it up on a pole stark as could be, and proclaimed emphatically, "Neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses, PERIOD!"
I found out afterward my aim was more than a little off. A sweet old lady came up and told me she would talk with me when I had a chance. When the chance came, she looked me square in the eye and said, "How can you forgive somebody who has abused you for 40 years?" When I was struck speechless, she continued, "I didn't think you'd have an answer." Turns out her husband was a truck driver who was away when their only son was born, a son they later discovered had severe mental problems. Because he was not home, the husband found it convenient to blame his wife, and did so for a long, long time.

The fact is, nobody needs to preach hell, people get enough of it here on earth to have their fill. I figure we all stand so deeply in need of grace, who am I not to offer it each week in the one house where people most expect to find it?

But that doesn't mean I deny what I see to be a clear biblical doctrine. Jesus talks about it enough times and in clear enough terms that it's hard to see how there could be any doubt on the subject. He tells about an impassable gulf being firmly fixed for those who leave this life, so that no one can go from one place to the other, nor return here (Jesus being the lone exception). He addresses a "brood of vipers" about "fleeing the wrath to come." I'd say that idea about fixed, uncrossable boundaries is the most definite statement He made on eternal punishment. He spoke often about His eventual return, generally with the accompanying admonition to "be ready." In one such context He spoke of "wise" and "foolish" virgins. The foolish virgins were not ready and got left behind. If hell is not a reality, as some claim, then why would He call these virgins "foolish?"
In the context of such warnings also, Jesus made ominous remarks like "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Now in English, very often that statement gets understood in the sense of some expletive uses of "there," as in "There will be bad weather tomorrow." But in the Greek rendering of this statement, the English "there" translates the word ekeinos in the Greek. The word is an adverb of location, more specifically translated as "in that place," as in our English "over there." So as worded, the clear indication is that He was speaking of hell as an actual place or location.

More could be said, but then, a lot has been said already.

 

[gort]

SS quote:

Somehow I do not see searching it for the true message as ignoring it.

One can ignore simply by closing eyes and ears to what we don't want to hear. And only open them when we hear what we want to hear. It's part of human nature.

I do however see a red flag when someone tells me they have all the answers.

There's an interesting aspect to the story of Lazarus and the rich man. I wonder how many people would believe a man who actually was granted to come back and tell his story, of the reality of hell and the eternality of it?

<><

 

[gort]

Dottie quote:

No, he did not! And that is just the one big problem here. Neither he, nor any of the rest of his fellow countrymen, the Jews, had any PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC, for the fallacious belief that anyone went to Abraham's bosom when they died or that any one else went to hades when they died. It was a lie! And you are trying to tell me that Jesus endorsed it.

Where had Samuel been?

1Sa 28:13 And the king said to her, Do not be afraid. For what did you see? And the woman said to Saul, I saw gods coming up out of the earth.
1Sa 28:14 And he said to her, What is his form? And she said, An old man comes up, and he is covered with a cloak. And Saul saw that it was Samuel, and he bowed his face to the ground, and prostrated himself.
1Sa 28:15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am grievously distressed, for the Philistines are warring against me. And God has left me and does not answer me any more, neither by prophets nor by dreams. And I have called you so that you may make known to me what I should do.

<><

 

[gort]

John quote:

No-one is proclaiming thier own opinion OVER God's word.

People here, Der Alter and yourself included, are stating thier own opinion OF WHAT God's word says.

Hello,

What Jesus had to say about the judgement is pretty clear to me. If one has gotten to the point of seeing it often, and walking right by it enough, and still ignore and interpret something else, they yes, one proclaims something else the Lord did not.

What's interesting is that even the devil advertises. Las Vegas, sin city, where what you do stays here......and some people can't see it for what it is.

So, according to you, the reason we live good and moral lives is because we fear the consequences of not doing so?

Does not sound much like the life in abundance Jesus promised.

I thought we were supposed to treat people well because we are to love them, not because of fear of being toasted.

Sounds like a medieval method of controlling people, something the church at large has been doing for far too long.

Me thinks you assume too much in your statements.



<><

 

[gort]

Rev Wayne quote:

I've never quite managed to figure out the logic of this argument. Why would anyone considerable non-existence to be preferable to eternal torment? I should think either of these options would give one "something to think about."

And old atheist friend used to say, "Life is hard, and then you go."

anyhoo, who really thinks about it, much less ponders it, or even regards such things when one is a "natural man"?

<><

 

[Soul Searcher]

One can ignore simply by closing eyes and ears to what we don't want to hear. And only open them when we hear what we want to hear. It's part of human nature.

Yes it is human nature and we all do it from time to time. Consider this though, The bible tells us prove all things, hold fast that which is good. The word good in this case is;

kalos

Thayer Definition:

1) beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable
1a) beautiful to look at, shapely, magnificent
1b) good, excellent in its nature and characteristics, and therefore well adapted to its ends
1b1) genuine, approved
1b2) precious
1b3) joined to names of men designated by their office, competent, able, such as one ought to be
1b4) praiseworthy, noble
1c) beautiful by reason of purity of heart and life, and hence praiseworthy
1c1) morally good, noble
1d) honourable, conferring honour
1e) affecting the mind agreeably, comforting and confirming

Ask yourself does the doctorine of hell fit with any form of the word?

 

[Dottie]

Yes it is human nature and we all do it from time to time. Consider this though, The bible tells us prove all things, hold fast that which is good. The word good in this case is;

kalos

Thayer Definition:

1) beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable
1a) beautiful to look at, shapely, magnificent
1b) good, excellent in its nature and characteristics, and therefore well adapted to its ends
1b1) genuine, approved
1b2) precious
1b3) joined to names of men designated by their office, competent, able, such as one ought to be
1b4) praiseworthy, noble
1c) beautiful by reason of purity of heart and life, and hence praiseworthy
1c1) morally good, noble
1d) honourable, conferring honour
1e) affecting the mind agreeably, comforting and confirming

Ask yourself does the doctorine of hell fit with any form of the word?

Excellent point!

Blessings.
~ Dottie ~

 

[gort]

Yes it is human nature and we all do it from time to time. Consider this though, The bible tells us prove all things, hold fast that which is good. The word good in this case is;

kalos

Thayer Definition:

1) beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable
1a) beautiful to look at, shapely, magnificent
1b) good, excellent in its nature and characteristics, and therefore well adapted to its ends
1b1) genuine, approved
1b2) precious
1b3) joined to names of men designated by their office, competent, able, such as one ought to be
1b4) praiseworthy, noble
1c) beautiful by reason of purity of heart and life, and hence praiseworthy
1c1) morally good, noble
1d) honourable, conferring honour
1e) affecting the mind agreeably, comforting and confirming

Ask yourself does the doctorine of hell fit with any form of the word?

That Scripture, "prove all things" pertains to those who would teach and proclaim the things of God. I would, as did the Bereans, prove these things by comparing what they say to the written word of God.

Therefore, I'll discard that which does'nt and hold fast to that which is good, found in the written word of God.

As to the doctrine of hell, I'll simply say that I understand my sins, their value, and understand what they mean not from my perception of the things I value, but from God's perception and what He values.

<><

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Since John Lightfoot was born in 1602 and died in 1675, I highly doubt that he could have been a 19th Century writer.[/SIZE]

BISHOP LIGHTFOOT Bible Attacker
LIGHTFOOT, JOSEPH BARBER (1828—1889), English theologian and bishop of Durham, was born at Liverpool on the 13th of April 1828. . . . .

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/bishop_lightfoot.htm​

Keep on lady, you might get something right sooner or later, but I doubt it. Next time be more specific. As I said I NEVER say anything I can't back up. But keep on keepin' on, I am not the one making myself look like a fool.

[SIZE=-1]As to what primary historical Jewish sources he cites; This man probably knew as much about Jewish traditions and beliefs as the Jews who lived at the same time he dido. An that was quite an accomplishment way back then, since he did not have the advantage of your online Jewish Encyclopedia, but rather went straight to the pre Christian era writings of the Jews themselves.

Jewish Encyclpedia indeed. LOL! LOL![/SIZE]

If anybody is going to write about any historical event that occurred before his lifetime he must, there is no way he can write factually without, consulting primary sources from the target time period.

So you have your 1-2 "sources" which say exactly what you want to hear, just tickles your assumptions and presuppsitions, and when someone presents a standard Jewish Biblical reference work, prepared by groups of Hebrew scholars, referring to dozens of historical resources, you don't even read it, just blow it off with LOL!

As I said you are not interested in the truth you just find enough hoohah to make it appear you are proving your false assumptions and presuppositions. E.g. see comments on Kalos, later.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Yes it is human nature and we all do it from time to time. Consider this though, The bible tells us prove all things, hold fast that which is good. The word good in this case is;

kalos

Thayer Definition:

1) beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable
1a) beautiful to look at, shapely, magnificent
1b) good, excellent in its nature and characteristics, and therefore well adapted to its ends
1b1) genuine, approved
1b2) precious
1b3) joined to names of men designated by their office, competent, able, such as one ought to be
1b4) praiseworthy, noble
1c) beautiful by reason of purity of heart and life, and hence praiseworthy
1c1) morally good, noble
1d) honourable, conferring honour
1e) affecting the mind agreeably, comforting and confirming

Ask yourself does the doctorine of hell fit with any form of the word?[/SIZE]

Show me where in this definition we are told to ignore scripture because it talks about things we have decided are "NOT" good? Things such as eternal punishment, a "place" of torment that the person there cannot leave, gehenna where the fire is never quenched, etc..

Throw out the Bible because we have the one word "Kalos."