Why is Christ not dead / in Hell

[Landon Caeli]

Were Lazarus and the rich man in purgatory?

I don't know.

Purgatory is a place for souls with only venial, non-mortal sins, who will go to heaven.

Saints are already in heaven.

...and those who die unsaved, are in some place in upper hell that's worse than purgatory. When Jesus comes to judge, they will be cast away permanently and forgotten about forever.

...This is the mainstream Catholic perspective.

 

[EmSw]

What? Whatever you mean it's not what I think. That's apparently your own interpretation/translation of what I said.

Is human sacrifice an abomination to God? If you say yes, then God chose that which is an abomination to Him to save you.

 

[EmSw]

I don't know.

Purgatory is a place for souls with only venial, non-mortal sins, who will go to heaven.

Saints are already in heaven.

...and those who die unsaved, are in some place in upper hell that's worse than purgatory. When Jesus comes to judge, they will be cast away permanently and forgotten about forever.

...This is the mainstream Catholic perspective.

This would keep me from Catholicism. That's not a very good witnessing point. From where do you Catholics get there is a purgatory? I've heard this is what the Popery made up to extract money from its victims, er, I mean parishioners.

 

[EmSw]

Well then, why would you need to ask? (Rhetorical) I am beginning to think that these posts are more to try to frustrate individuals than to explore a subject. Like a battle of wits.

I would rather not suspect that, and would rather try to focus on what is good... (Not saying that you are bad btw. Just that this it isn't fruitful for me) so am bowing out of our communication.

Actually, I'm trying to find out what you believe. If I wanted to frustrate you, I would surely do it in a much different way.

I'm just seeing what you believe about the resurrection.

 

[EmSw]

Lazarus is comforted in the Promise to Abraham of the 'Promised Seed'.

I don't think that is what Jesus meant.

 

[Clint Edwards]

The ransom (Jesus cruel torture, humiliation, and murder) is the ransom payment. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the writer of Hebrew all describe the atonement sacrifice as a literal ransom payment and not "like" a ransom payment.
Satan does not deserve to be paid anything by God and would not change from being paid. Since God could just as easily and safely take anything satan has it would be wrong for God to pay satan.
God is not a criminal (kidnapper) and personally would have preferred Christ's blood to remain flowing through His veins. God is not hold the children from entering the Kingdom.
The most likely alternative is the criminal sinner himself who is holding back the child within himself (we can only enter the Kingdom as children). We appeal to the nonbelieving sinner to accept Christ and Him crucified (the ransom payment), to refuse such a huge sacrificial payment being made by God and Christ means hell for that person.
The value to the sinner who believes in Christ and him crucified is the opportunity to be crucified with Christ (this is fair/just discipline which provides all the benefits which come from being disciplined).

All correct. I was being rhetorical and asking a question of the poster who was concerned about the word price being used. What is paid in ransom is a price.

 

[Clint Edwards]

It is in the Bible. Look it up.

Wow, I was raised a Baptist ( Southern ), and never heard that. It is theologically wrong. The moment Christ said on the cross ¨ it is finished ´, all the sin of all who accept forgiveness was forgiven. He didn´t need to take it anywhere, a sin forgiven by God exists no more

 

[section9+1]

The OP is saying that the price Christ payed to satisfy God is not the same price that God will require of us to satisfy him. Why is that a problem? What are you appealing to? Your ideas of fairness? They don't apply. God is satisfied with what Christ did. If you aren't, that is your problem.

 

[fat wee robin]

Then he did not pay the price of Sin and people should not teach that he did...

You say you are Calvinist .

That sounds like the kind of thing that mafia muscle would say whilst cracking his knuckles...

Either the full price of sin is eternal death/torture or not.

If its, Jesus did not pay it. If it isn't, why do we pay it?

You are using an atheist argument, and atheists are missing the enlightenment by the Holy Spirit,meaning they cannot comprehend higher spiritual truths as you are doing .
No matter how many times they hear it , because of this lack ,they will not
comprehend . Jesus told us to wipe the dust from our shoes ,and move on, as we would be wasting our time .

 

[Inkfingers]

You say you are Calvinist

Yup.

You are using an atheist argument.

Nope. Nothing in what I said denies God. It points out the nature of punishment for sin. So kindly spare me such allegations.

 

[fat wee robin]

another option not listed: there's a flaw in the modern, western view of penal substitutionary atonement.

Yes , I agree with that .

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Were Lazarus and the rich man in purgatory?

Tradition of course says that, contrary to Scripture.

Scripture simply says when people die they are put in a grave.

 

[fat wee robin]

As I said, this is non-canonical.

But it is evident from this thread ,and many other questions which arise, that non -canonical may often contain Truth denied by those who are lacking full Truth .

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But it is evident from this thread ,and many other questions which arise, that non -canonical may often contain Truth denied by those who are lacking full Truth .

Yes, very clearly so.

Yahweh created all things simple. (and His Word is Simply TRUTH)

Man came up with many devices. (outside of Him, opposed to TRUTH)

Most all the world and internet around us is false. Take care in Christ and continue to test everything and to hold fast to Jesus' Name ! Keep up the GOOD TESTIMONY OF JESUS by which, with the BLOOD OF JESUS, we overcome the enemy ,

 

[fat wee robin]

Where does it say in scripture: "all the dead remained dead without hope of resurrection.", since God was God of those who were dead, meaning they still lived somewhere?

In hell , except for the O.T. Saints .

 

[Landon Caeli]

This would keep me from Catholicism. That's not a very good witnessing point. From where do you Catholics get there is a purgatory? I've heard this is what the Popery made up to extract money from its victims, er, I mean parishioners.

Purgatory doesn't cost money. It's free of charge.

 

[fat wee robin]

So, the penalty is not just dying, but dying permanently?

Boy, those OT saints must have been a miserable lot.

Perhaps he meant those who died who were not Saints.

 

[Kaon]

But it is evident from this thread ,and many other questions which arise, that non -canonical may often contain Truth denied by those who are lacking full Truth .

That should be appalling, but I understand. The institution has used fear well - especially fear of the "other side." And, I don't mean magick; I mean knowing your enemy. The Redeemer told us to be wise as serpents (our "mortal enemy,") but gentle as doves (like the Spirit that came upon Him.)

That wise as serpents parts means we should be suspicious of an institutional campaign of men that determine what spiritual books are good for the lot of men - especially if the temperature of hell burns the same for all men. How are we supposed to (practice) discern(ment) if we never think for ourselves, and trust other men to give us what we should be seeking? God had the similar frustration with the Hebrews; why would you want a man-king like the other nations when the Most High God is your King?

Moreover, I have read several texts connecting to the Gospels; it seems many of the ridiculous questions posted on these forums seeming to attack Christianity can be answered very easily in a non-canonical text - some of which have been in some regions' canon or accepted texts at one point. What I have noticed by some of the credible non-canonical books about Christ is that everyone who is a skeptic has good reason - but the Redeemer answers those questions in detail.

I am not saying non-canonical sources are perfect in instruction, but that is for me to determine with the intellect my Father has given me, and the strength of His spirit to discern the Truth. How would we deal if we lost our memory, and were placed on a remote piece of land? God already answered it; He wrote the Law on our hearts so we don't have to ask our neighbor if they know God. Having seen the clarity for myself, again, I am suspicious of any entity that would seek to prevent me from coming to truth (or making the mistake of believing a falsehood.) I am a sovereign adult under the Most High God, and so is everyone else.


I would hope believers would take back their God-given spiritual sovereignty and seek the Most High God with all of their heart - not what an academic says, or even me. Every human soul is responsible for the trajectory of their own soul; I cannot say the Pope lead me astray, because the Most High God would say, "why didn't you see My signs and hear The Truth?" That may mean making the uncomfortable step of tearing down the weak institutional foundation of canonical and order, and exchange it for freedom.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I think that people are just over-complicating the matter though.

Sin has a price - the price that is paid by mankind, which is (depending on which interpretation you hold to) either eternal death or eternal torture. This is what awaits humanity for sin. This is its price.

We are told that Jesus paid the price of sin, TAKING OUR PUNISHMENT.

So that means eternally dead or eternally tortured (as that is OUR PUNISHMENT).

But Jesus is neither dead not tortured.

Meaning that either he did not take the punishment OR the punishment is going to be undone and everyone saved in the end (Universalism).

You have a systematic logic that makes your point interesting. I noticed that no one was directly addressing your line of logic, and I started following it just to see how long it would take you to quit the thread in exasperation.

I can only argue by analogy. Hell is a hole with no bottom (an abyss), because the punishment is endless. We are finite beings with a finite sum of dirt with which to fill that hole. It would take us forever. An infinite God could fill it in a moment, with his infinite supply. God could pay the same price in a moment that would take us forever to pay. If Christ were anything less than God, anything less than perfect, less than infinite, then he would have to burn in Hell forever, and our sins would not be paid until that eternity was completed.

It would take a poor man a very long time to pay an enormous debt, but a rich man could pay it in a day, because he has more to offer. Christ was that rich man. In other words, the punishment of Christ in a single day was worth more than the punishment of a sinner over the course of eternity.

The punishment is not undone, and he did take it.

 

[bcbsr]

Okay, this is one that vexes me.

If the price of sin is either eternal death, or eternal suffering in the lake of fire (depending on which interpretation you go with), and Jesus paid the full price of sin, why then is Jesus not either:

1) eternally dead

2) waiting to go into the lake of fire for all eternity

If the price of sin is either eternal death, or eternal suffering in the lake of fire (as I said, depending on which interpretation you go with), and Jesus paid the FULL price of sin, he should then be in one of those two conditions.



The only reason I can think that he would not be in one of those conditions is if:

a) he did not pay the full price of sin but was let off part of the bill (cue track playing opening chords of O Fortuna)

b) The Father chooses to end the sentence of sin prematurely (which opens the gates to a potential universalism as regards salvation - ie: all end up being saved in the end)

It CANNOT be that Jesus gets a reduced sentence on account of being sinless, as that would mean he does not pay the FULL price of sin.

Thoughts?

A different perspective on the atonement is that Jesus was not subjected to God's wrath (and therefore didn't suffer hell-fire which was meant as God's judicial punishment for the wicked), but rather was an innocent victim of unjustified suffering. As a matter of justice God compensates victims of unjustified suffering, and in the case of Jesus, he was compensated with an amount capable of paying for the sins of the world.

It still begs the fundamental question you're asking. Namely in what way was his atoning work on the cross sufficient. Another factor who he is. If he were mere mortal, his payment wouldn't have been sufficient. "No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him— the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough" Ps 49:7,8 But Jesus was more than mere mortal, and therefore his sacrifice counted for more.