What's on your mind?

[SarahsKnight]

I’m not sure if you noticed, but how I read this part was that Jesus is placed at our level and can’t defeat death.

You misunderstood me, Sheena. I fully affirm that Jesus defeated death by rising again. Paul says somewhere in the Epistles that He is the first fruits among them who rise again from the dead, and that if Christ had never arose, then Paul's preaching would be in vain (and I can only logically believe this to mean our faith would be in vain as well, be wise if Christ never rose again to life, then neither can we). I mean, Christ HAD to rise again from death, otherwise no one would be able to after they died, believer or non-believer. But he did die on the cross in the first place. He was bruised, chastised, humiliated, and crushed for hours on end, and then died. So what I was trying to say was that if His sacrifice is substitutionary punishment in our place so that, if we believe in Him, we will not have to endure the same, then the conditionalist view of Gehenna makes a lot more sense than the traditional one of eternal conscious torment/separation from God. No, I am totally in agreement with you on that, that Jesus defeated death.

 

[SarahsKnight]

I’m not sure if you noticed, but how I read this part was that Jesus is placed at our level and can’t defeat death. I, myself, cannot imagine carrying the weight of sin of the world and then having Father turn away because the sin was so great and die like that… I can’t fathom that. Jesus, being the Son of God, defeated death by rising from the dead. The bible does not say where He was during those 3 days before being risen, so I do not want to make any theologies on that.

I do agree with you on the Romans 6:23 though.




I think you might be getting life and death mixed up as living in both cases, when it’s not. I think what God is showing us is that those who do not believe in Him are already dead in His eyes, unless there’s repentance and believing in Him: Ezekiel 37:1-14
Quite the revival!

Those who suffer eternal punishment are not living in God’s eyes, but are dead and eternally dead since the second death is final. Another way of looking at it is it’s the separation from wheat from the chafe at the harvest.

I hope this all makes some sense. I am sick with a cold and my thinking isn't the best right now, so please forgive me.

Well, no, my position affirms life and death as complete opposites. That's one of my problems with the traditional view, is that it says man's soul is immortal (and nowhere does the Bible say this in any sort of plain wording, and in fact indicates the very opposite with 1 Timothy 6:16) and therefore to the traditional view the "second death" in Gehenna is still a conscious eternal existence, just a conscious existence in torment. They just mean "death" as a separation from God, but a still living separation. So it is saying that man lives forever whether he goes to Heaven or Hell, and that makes no sense.

 

[leothelioness]

No problem. If Christ's death on the cross is anything to indicate what those who do not accept it shall suffer, then conditional immortality's view of hell makes all the more sense. Christ suffered a finite time and then died. He did not suffer infinitely, otherwise it only makes sense He Himself would be in hell right now still suffering the punishment in our place. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is "death", not "eternal conscious torment" or "spiritual death". We will die here on Earth, no doubt, but the second death we shall not be hurt of if we believe. Only in Christ can we have immortality, and it is indicated to be a gift to us via verses such as Romans 2:7 - there is nothing in the Bible that says we already have it in our souls such that death is only a conscious separation from God in which we still live forever in hell, just apart from God. Also, there is 1 Timothy 6:16, that says God alone hath immortality (or hath alone immortality? I think it has been translated as both), and so in any context, if man has anything about him that is inherently immortal, then this verse makes no sense to me. Also, Christ's descriptions of Gehenna still say nothing of the people who will go there, whether they will last forever in that "eternal fire" or not. He just ascribes the word "eternal" to the fire, not the person, so unless these verses in the gospels about Gehenna were the only verses that ever spoke of the fate of those who will not believe, there is no good reason for me to believe this means man will also be eternal in that fire. If he did last forever in it, instead of being destroyed by it, then we wouldn't have a number of verses everywhere throughout the Bible that say these very things will happen to the unbeliever himself - destroyed, perish, be no more, wither away, and so on. And, I have heard it said by many that "eternal punishment" as mentioned by Christ in the gospels has to be eternal conscious torment because it is no punishment at all if you just die and wither away as ash or something. But, contrary to what said people's personal view of God's justice should be, a death in which you can never return, where there is no hope of resurrection unto life again like we believers now have through Christ, is in fact a punishment and it is eternally lasting (if the term "eternal" in Matthew 25:46 is in fact referring to the length that it will last, rather than eternal as in the quality of the One who initiates that punishment). Death was the very punishment God said would occur as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge in the very beginning of the Bible, in fact. He said "in the day you eat of it, you will die", not "in the day you eat of it, you will surely one day go to live forever in a place of perpetual torment, apart from me".

You ask what the point is of Christ's sacrifice if hell is not eternal conscious torment rather than a possible conscious punishment for a time and then annihilation/death, my dear Lioness, but to me the latter view matches what happened to Him on the cross a lot more closely, and I still honor Him for it. Let's say that universal reconciliation is the true view of hell, where God will eventually reconcile all to Him no matter what, and thus you chose to abandon your faith entirely and deny Christ (if that's even possible for a believer; I personally believe in the OSAS view, myself), because as a universalist you knew that your punishment in hell would last only for, say, as little as the number of years you lived on Earth (or substitute any amount of time that is not infinite, really), before you were reconciled to God by His ultimate will for you and all other humans who ever lived. Would you choose to become an unbeliever and live a life here for evil instead, knowing that, Lioness? Would the temporary, correctional punishment in hell be worth going through for you? ... I think your answer would be no; that you would still believe here and now on Earth, and be grateful for Christ's sacrifice saving you from even that temporary unpleasant fate. To me, fear of what will happen to us otherwise as a natural consequence should not be our motivation for believing and following Jesus Christ now.

Forgive me, Lioness. To me it seems my arguments for conditional immortality and rejecting eternal torment are often not very well written and I don't even get close to covering all I wanted to say, for some reason. But I should leave it at this for now despite this being the thread for random topics, out of respect for the others who may not want to hear about all this kind of stuff. I only meant to help Codyfaith possibly feel better about his questions before.

(But if you wish, Lioness, I would welcome speaking with you more through pm.)

I'll shoot you a PM since there's so much to respond to.

 

[Swan7]

Sorry, @SarahsKnight for the misunderstanding. I don't think I can explain it to you further, however. I would certainly ask God for understanding on the subject.

 

[SarahsKnight]

Sorry, @SarahsKnight for the misunderstanding.

It's cool. It may have been my fault, because, like I said before, I seem to have such a hard time explaining myself well in this kind of thing.

 

[leothelioness]

I'll just reply to this here since it's easier than cut/paste to PM. And somehow I managed to screw up the quote function, but whatever. Anyway...

"No problem. If Christ's death on the cross is anything to indicate what those who do not accept it shall suffer, then conditional immortality's view of hell makes all the more sense. Christ suffered a finite time and then died. He did not suffer infinitely, otherwise it only makes sense He Himself would be in hell right now still suffering the punishment in our place."

This makes no logical sense. Christ's atoning death was a physical act to bring about a non-physical result. The act of physical sacrifice for non-physical cleansing and spiritual renewal is something that goes back to the very beginning. Christ would not need to suffer infinitely -- nor could He if He was to be raised as the first fruit of the dead and sat at the right hand of the Father; otherwise there would be no spiritual life as there has to be resurrection in order to have eternal spiritual life -- to achieve a final spiritual result for us. If we take that logic, the animal sacrifices that were offered in the Old Testement would have needed to suffer infinitely as well to achieve spiritual cleansing. But the one time physical sacrifice was enough to the Lord to cover sins.

Christ died physically so we could be alive spiritually. Temporary act, permanent results.

"Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is "death", not "eternal conscious torment" or "spiritual death"'

Death in that passage refers to spiritual death indeed as physical death is a given. Other Scriptures written by Paul use this same language such as Ephesians 2:1, 5 which say, "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked," and "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ." These both indicate spiritual death as one cannot obviously be physically dead and commit trespasses and sins. Being brought to life in Christ recognizes that one is spiritually dead before salvation and that if one continues in this way his/her spiritual condition remains dead. It is after all the default condition for us as we are born into sin through our fallen nature which links directly to the Scripture in Genesis that you mentioned here: He said "in the day you eat of it, you will die."

Once again spiritual death is indicated here.

"Also, there is 1 Timothy 6:16, that says God alone hath immortality (or hath alone immortality? I think it has been translated as both), and so in any context, if man has anything about him that is inherently immortal, then this verse makes no sense to me."

I think Swan addressed this very well, so I'll leave this be for now.

"Also, Christ's descriptions of Gehenna still say nothing of the people who will go there, whether they will last forever in that "eternal fire" or not. He just ascribes the word "eternal" to the fire, not the person, so unless these verses in the gospels about Gehenna were the only verses that ever spoke of the fate of those who will not believe, there is no good reason for me to believe this means man will also be eternal in that fire. If he did last forever in it, instead of being destroyed by it, then we wouldn't have a number of verses everywhere throughout the Bible that say these very things will happen to the unbeliever himself - destroyed, perish, be no more, wither away, and so on. And, I have heard it said by many that "eternal punishment" as mentioned by Christ in the gospels has to be eternal conscious torment because it is no punishment at all if you just die and wither away as ash or something. But, contrary to what said people's personal view of God's justice should be, a death in which you can never return, where there is no hope of resurrection unto life again like we believers now have through Christ, is in fact a punishment and it is eternally lasting (if the term "eternal" in Matthew 25:46 is in fact referring to the length that it will last, rather than eternal as in the quality of the One who initiates that punishment)."

The passage you mention, Matthew 25:26 states, "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life," which answers your query. Jesus is saying that the souls of the wicked will go into eternal punishment while the souls of the righteous will have eternal life. It's pretty bluntly laid out there.


"Death was the very punishment God said would occur as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge in the very beginning of the Bible, in fact. He said "in the day you eat of it, you will die", not "in the day you eat of it, you will surely one day go to live forever in a place of perpetual torment, apart from me".

Again, this is indicating spiritual death. If physical death was the only punishment for sins there would have been no need for Christ's atoning work on the cross. It would have been pointless.

"You ask what the point is of Christ's sacrifice if hell is not eternal conscious torment rather than a possible conscious punishment for a time and then annihilation/death, my dear Lioness, but to me the latter view matches what happened to Him on the cross a lot more closely, and I still honor Him for it."

I'm curious to know how that works.

"Let's say that universal reconciliation is the true view of hell, where God will eventually reconcile all to Him no matter what, and thus you chose to abandon your faith entirely and deny Christ (if that's even possible for a believer; I personally believe in the OSAS view, myself), because as a universalist you knew that your punishment in hell would last only for, say, as little as the number of years you lived on Earth (or substitute any amount of time that is not infinite, really), before you were reconciled to God by His ultimate will for you and all other humans who ever lived. Would you choose to become an unbeliever and live a life here for evil instead, knowing that, Lioness? Would the temporary, correctional punishment in hell be worth going through for you? ... I think your answer would be no; that you would still believe here and now on Earth, and be grateful for Christ's sacrifice saving you from even that temporary unpleasant fate."

This is not a relevant argument as there is no reconciliation theology of hell, so the point you're trying to make is invalid right off the bat. I feel like you're just arguing in circles at this point. It seems like reaching to be quite honest.

"To me, fear of what will happen to us otherwise as a natural consequence should not be our motivation for believing and following Jesus Christ now. "

Sure it should be. Eternal separation should always be abhorrent enough of a thought -- not to mention the wrath of God and His consequences for sin the likes of which are very clearly detailed in the Old Testement judgments on Israel for their sin and disobedience -- that we should seek Christ and His salvation all the more. It should be the driving force behind our love and obedience to Him as we know what will happen if we are not obedient. That makes me personally so much more thankful for my salvation.

Despite all you said, you still haven't said why you believe in your stance. You say what you believe, but why do you believe it and does it truly stand against the Scriptures?

 

[CodyFaith]

Omm: Prophets/prophecy

Paul commanded all believers to desire the gift of prophecy. 1 Corinthians 14:1

I'd love to know prophets. I'd love to witness prophecy come true. How miraculous...

 

[James of Arc]

So has the United Nations taken over the internet yet?

Don't you think they should have to buy it since it is the People of the United States that paid for it and who gave the President permission to sell our stuff?

 

[Toro]

That moment when you have primed the joke.... you were ready to pull the trigger but turns out it escalated a long time ago and was not so quickly.........

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

So has the United Nations taken over the internet yet?

Don't you think they should have to buy it since it is the People of the United States that paid for it and who gave the President permission to sell our stuff?

I'm not sure, but after doing some more research, I'm starting to think more and more that this is just right winged propaganda.

Any means necessary to take down Obama, I guess.

 

[James of Arc]

I'm not sure, but after doing some more research, I'm starting to think more and more that this is just right winged propaganda.

Any means necessary to take down Obama, I guess.

I seen it over on a survivalist forum also but yet nothing on Yahoo, you would think they would be talking about it. It probable is just right wing paranoia stuff. Maybe California will have its earthquake and that will give everybody something to talk about.

 

[Swan7]

Yep... just because we are out of High School doesn't mean the behaviour changes, sadly.

 

[Toro]

I'm not sure, but after doing some more research, I'm starting to think more and more that this is just right winged propaganda.

Any means necessary to take down Obama, I guess.

That is all American politics are these days...... its the Dems fault.... its the Rep. fault.... anything rather than look at the real issue that the system as a whole is broken. I mean good Lord, "the best" both sides had to offer up are Hilary and Trump...... somehow meaning whoever wins is a worst case scenario.

Yet, people still bicker back and fourth over "who is our savior" rather than simply calling it as it is... they are BOTH cheaters and liars and will sell out this nation for a quarter. Anybody believing either of these jokers will defend or fight for the soul of America are at a level of naive that hasn't been seen since "duck and cover". The duck and cover era at least hadn't been given concrete proof over and over that the government cant be trusted.

 

[wbm-kgb33]

what is this I don't even....

 

[mojoboy31]

That is all American politics are these days...... its the Dems fault.... its the Rep. fault.... anything rather than look at the real issue that the system as a whole is broken. I mean good Lord, "the best" both sides had to offer up are Hilary and Trump...... somehow meaning whoever wins is a worst case scenario.

Yet, people still bicker back and fourth over "who is our savior" rather than simply calling it as it is... they are BOTH cheaters and liars and will sell out this nation for a quarter. Anybody believing either of these jokers will defend or fight for the soul of America are at a level of naive that hasn't been seen since "duck and cover". The duck and cover era at least hadn't been given concrete proof over and over that the government cant be trusted.

And the Libertarians nominated Gary Johnson, whom said religious freedom is a black hole, didn't know what Aleppo was in regard to talking about Syria, could not name a single foreign leader in a townhall with Chris Matthews, and who picked Weld as his VP- who said rifles are weapons of mass destruction amd pistols are worse...... This election everyone is throwing stones, yet all nominated bozos. We talk about how neither candidate is any good and how broken the system is until the cows come home- fact is- it will be Hillary or Trump- one or the other. That's it. It sucks, but that's how it is. We have a choice, one or the other.

 

[wbm-kgb33]

And the Libertarians nominated Gary Johnson, whom said religious freedom is a black hole, didn't know what Aleppo was in regard to talking about Syria, could not name a single foreign leader in a townhall with Chris Matthews, and who picked Weld as his VP- who said rifles are weapons of mass destruction amd pistols are worse...... This election everyone is throwing stones, yet all nominated bozos. We talk about how neither candidate is any good and how broken the system is until the cows come home- fact is- it will be Hillary or Trump- one or the other. That's it. It sucks, but that's how it is. We have a choice, one or the other.

And the choice has very heavy consequences,

 

[mojoboy31]

And the choice has very heavy consequences,

And "protest voting" third party is worthless, and not voting out of protest is also worthless.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

I've been paying attention to American politics since 2008 and I got to say, it's entertaining as heck. This election, however, is an absolute circus and I am convinced that whoever gets elected, there's going to be unrest over the results.

Plus I noticed the elections are on a Tuesday. This would be a perfect day to go to my favorite bar on wing night and watch the electoral vote process on my phone. Food, drinks and entertainment. That day is booked.

 

[MehGuy]

On My Mind: In 15 hours Obama will hand over control of the internet to the United Nations. There are fears brewing that this may be the end to freedom of speech on the internet. The internet will no longer be under the American constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of assembly but instead under the control of the United Nations and a global constitution.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...of-internet-administrator-icann-a6829466.html
http://phys.org/news/2016-09-internet.html

Some are predicting that heavy censorship and regulations are coming. If this is actually true and forums like this one get shut down, I'd just like to say that I love you guys and I wish I could have been part of this community for a much longer time.

This may simply be more right wing paranoia but the Bible Prophecy student in me is seeing this as another means for the Antichrist to gain control over the planet.

That is all.

Hopefully Trump can take it back. Lol.

Really, all I see is more of this bogus feminism crusades coming down. Where we have to protect the poor womens from online insults, and leave men in the dirt. Making fun of a fat woman will get your 5 months in jail, while making fun of short men is still fair game, lol.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

Making fun of a fat woman will get your 5 months in jail, while making fun of short men is still fair game, lol.

OK, just out of curiosity, what is your height? 'Cause lately I'm getting the mental image of you being Tyrion Lannister of the singles forums.