Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Derf
    replied
    Hey, NWL. I'm not sure I'll be able to answer all of your points, just due to time and length, but I'll try to get as much as possible
    Originally posted by NWL View Post

    Notice what you just said, "Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man", now notice what scripture says "[Jesus] was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18). Your statement is almost identical with 1 Peter 3:18 the only difference being 1 Peter 3:18 communicates Jesus was raised as a "spirit" whereas you say he was raised "as a man", what you say goes contrary to scripture. The same can be said with your complete statement "This is good, since "man" is what Adam was--the very first one. And Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man" and 1 Cor 15:45, "So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.". What you claim and what you say goes contrary to what the scripture literally says, I cannot fathom how you overlook this.

    You bring out Romans 5:17 that mentions death reigned because of one man, namely Adam, and that it's through one man, Jesus, that we get life through. Nothing in the verse implies Jesus is still a man, it simply implies the fact that Jesus the man was the person who gave his life and thus it is through him a man that we live. For instance, imagine that Jesus was NEVER resurrected but remained dead or was to be resurrected 300 years after his death instead of 3 days, his sacrifice would still redeem mankind, the very same statement could still be said, "because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ", the scripture is referring to the ransom of Jesus as a man and isn't implying Jesus still lives as a man, such an idea is read into scripture.

    As I've said in regards to 1 Tim 2:5 before "The word ANTHRWPOS does not necessarily mean “man” but is a generic term for “individual” or “person” (cf. Moulton’s Lexicon). It can even refer to women! Angels are many times referred to as “men” (Lk.24:4 Ac.10:30; Ge 32:24). Any reference to the heavenly Jesus as a "man" must be an anthropological expression and not a man literally ( Acts 17:31).". Another example of this is that God is called "he" yet is neither male nor female since being male or female relates to gender distinction of the physical Gods physical creation, it would be folly for someone to claim God is a male and not a female as the bible mentions him as a "he", God is genderless.

    When we read the verse however it should be clear that Jesus was acting as a mediator when on earth and was being spoken about in the past tense, this is clear by the context, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:5,6). Jesus, as the greater Moses (Heb 3:3), acted as a meditator when on earth the same way Moses acted as a meditator when on earth "[the Law] it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator" (Gal 3:19).
    As you have to try to illustrate that "man" doesn't really mean "man", I'll consider my point proven here, too. What you haven't shown is how "raised by the spirit" and "became a life-giving spirit" are exclusive of also being a man.

    I'm pretty sure Paul would disagree with you about whether Christ could still be in the grave or wait for resurrection for 300 years, since he made such a big deal about the resurrection, and its necessary impact on our faith.


    (2 Corinthians 5:16) So from now on we know no man from a fleshly viewpoint. Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way.
    Well, how often did the people Paul was writing to see Jesus? It is true that we do not know Jesus according to the flesh. But it is not apparent that we now "know no man after the flesh" as the KJV puts it (the same word translated "according to") in your translation. (Which translation is that, btw? How convenient that you found one that translated the same word in two different ways 1. "from a fleshly viewpoint", and 2. "according to the flesh".)

    So you have to somehow justify how "not knowing Jesus after the flesh" means that He is not flesh, while "not knowing any man after the flesh" still applies to those in the flesh.

    Jesus has a body, it's simply a spirit body. Again, if angels were able to materialize temporary physical body then there is no reason why Jesus, if a spirit, was not able to do the same and appear to many people as he did. Again, I cannot fathom how you can take "we certainly no longer know him [Jesus according to the flesh] in that way" to mean anything other than it expressing Jesus is no longer in body of flesh.

    2 Corinthians 5:1 talks about a house or tent, referring to the body of a man, notice what it states, "For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be torn down, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens", notice how Paul speak about a house/body that is not physically made ("made with hands") this is only possible if ones who go to heaven, like Jesus, are in non-physical bodies. God, Jesus and the Angels prior to coming to earth were all spiritual beings, none of them were tangible, it's very weird to me that people have this idea that physical beings can enter into a non-physical realm, when scripture states "flesh and blood" cannot enter into heaven, it's so very clear to me that such a thing was only said as Paul was trying to make clear that only non-physical things are in heaven.

    Do you believe people who are resurrected to heaven will have spirit bodies like the angels or physical fleshly bodies?
    [1Jo 3:2 KJV] Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
    If it was apparent that we would have angelic bodies (whatever that looks like), Paul might have said so. "Physical fleshly bodies" is probably not accurate either. We "shall be changed", but into what is not provided.

    "Spirit bodies" is oxymoronic, as far as we know, and as far as you've admitted (since you say they take on physical bodies when they need a body). A body is physical. A spirit is not. I don't know what a spirit body is. Do you?


    We must remember the Bible uses anthropomorphic language, especially when we're talking about the first and second death, death simply refers to the non-existence of something that was in existence. I believe I now understand why you said what you said above, please correct me if I'm wrong, you understand such passages of "The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death" to mean that no one who is dead will remain dead since death itself will be destroyed. I differ on opinion with this, when 1 Cor 15:26 states "The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death" I understand this to be the same thing as described in Rev 20:14 when it states "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire", in Rev 20:14 death is hurled into the lake of fire which to me means eternal destruction this is where 1 Cor 15:26 is fulfilled, I hope we agree on this, but let me continue and explain further. This is why Rev 21:3,4, when speaking about the new heaven and new earth, states "[God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more", when it mentions of death being "brought to nothing" and "being no more" I do not take this to mean all those are dead 'have' to be alive by what is said,but rather, those who are alive will never be subjected to death again, that is what death being "brought to nothing" and "being no more" means. You need to remember "death" is never actually destroyed, God doesn't get death like its some type of entity or tangible object and destroy it, the scriptures are simply expressing that 'no one will die again', it's in that sense that 'death is destroyed', the bible is using anthropomorphic language to explain things on simple terms. Nothing in 1 Cor 15:26 expresses that ones who are subjected to eternal death have to stay dead since the "death being destroyed" is in relation to people not dying 'anymore' in the future.

    You asked "If the lake of fire is the second death, and the first death is thrown into the second death, then how can death be destroyed by death?", I believe my answer above should suffice but if it's not I would answer that death isn't literally destroyed by death since death isn't a real literal entity or thing, its simply an expression that something that did exist no longer exists, the bible using anthropomorphic language to explain that ones who are faithful to God will never be subjected to death again, expressing this by stating "death will be destroyed by being thrown into the lake of fire which means the second death", with the second death meaning eternal judgment and destruction.
    The other part of my assessment is that "death" and "hades" (and don't forget about "the sea") are emptied of their dead prior to death and hades being cast into the lake of fire.
    [Rev 20:12 KJV] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
    [Rev 20:13 KJV] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.


    If death/dying is no longer possible, what remains for those that aren't able to be with Jesus forever? How about a different kind of death? How about a death where you don't actually die? How about we call that "second death"? If the second death is the same as the first, there's little reason for it to be defined, but Rev 20 still has to define it. [Rev 20:14 KJV] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

    I'm not trying to play devil's advocate by saying this but I disagree with the idea that there is a place that exists for the soul/spirits of the dead. The term soul is simply an expression for a man, an individual. The teaching that man has a soul or the immortality of the soul is nowhere found in scripture, this is known by most if not all scholars, please note what these scholars (scholarly material) say about the bible usage of the word soul:
    ...
    Most of Christianity teach an immortal soul separate from the body but this is not found in the bible, if you Wikipedia "soul" and then Wikipedia "Soul in the bible" you will see a stark difference with what Christianity teaches about the soul and what the bible mentions of the soul.
    I tend to agree with you here, although I admit I'm lacking in evidence to disprove the immortal soul, except if I first assume what you say "soul" means. And I'm not beyond assuming that, for the reason you give.

    But that's why I stated early on in our discussion that I believe "annihilation" may occur with the first death, and it is reversed with the resurrection. What happens from that point on is where it gets interesting. If death is already defeated, and death is defined as "annihilation", then there's something else going on with "[Rev 20:15 KJV] ...whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

    You are correct, the bible never does put the word "everlasting" with "death", but common sense must also be used, if one receives the punishment of "eternal destruction" then destruction can only mean one thing if no other modifiers are in use, namely death.
    "Death" has already been defeated. "Death" is no more. If a person can no longer "die" (be annihilated), then what's left is eternal suffering, unending destruction, unless that person submits to the will of Jesus Christ. Common sense tells me that.


    If God appeared to you would you have fear in the sense of horror or fear in the sense of respect (God-fearing)?

    The original language word used in regards to the shepherd is in relation to that of godly fear, the word used for fear with the apostles was one relating to shock and horror, that's the point I was making.
    What did Isaiah experience? "undone because of unclean lips and seeing God's face". What did John experience? "like a dead man". These are not just "respectful" terms. Jesus even told John NOT to respect Him, if that's what it means.

    Myself? I don't know. We don't recognize the idea of "fall on my face in fear" in our culture, but I tend to think it would be something like that.



    In what sense is it a lie if Jesus rose as a spirit, recreated a body temporarily, and claimed he was Jesus when he was Jesus? Are you trying to say to you that if Jesus appeared in front of you right now in a flesh form and claimed he did in fact rise as a spirit but only temporarily made a body to his apostles as he was to you now, you would feel like Jesus was somehow lying?

    Did the person of Jesus stop being the person who he went from spirit to flesh when coming to earth? If your answer is no then why is it somehow deceitful for Jesus to claim he was Jesus if being raised as a spirit in a bodily form?
    "Being raised as a spirit in bodily form"?????




    Strongs 517 - aoratō
    Usage: unseen, invisible.
    517 aóratos (from
    1 /A "not" and 3708 /horáō, "see") – properly, not seen; invisible to the physical ("naked") eye

    You're getting the word "invisible" and claiming its speaking from a relative point of view of the writer. Things that are invisible are not relative in nature, they are objective or inherently true. Going off your understanding of "invisible" everything outside the room I'm sitting in is invisible as I can't see it, no one speaks or writes this way but of course, you're attempting to claim such an understanding "invisible" as the normal definition of invisible contradicts your belief. To show to you once and for all that when scripture states Jesus was "invisible" it meant what it clearly stated all I ask is that you read the following, 1 Timothy 6:16 "[Jesus] the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen." Notice, Timothy, speaking of the risen Jesus states, "whom no man has seen or can see", you claim Jesus was raised in the flesh and was seen in his body by hundreds, yet scripture states "no man has seen" Jesus. The reason why "no man has seen or can see" Jesus is because Jesus is a spirit and spirits are invisible in nature, when Jesus appeared to the apostles he appeared in bodies that were not his, that were not him, the bodies were only temporary, thus no man has seen the risen Jesus in his spirit body or can see him, as he is an invisible spirit.

    There can be nothing said that will change the meaning of Jesus being "the exact representation of [Gods] very being", Jesus is whatever the Father is, if the Father is an invisible spirit then Jesus is too, nothing you've shown has shown this to be untrue at present. .
    What you're really saying here is that there is nothing that will convince you that your interpretation is incorrect. That's a sad condition to be in, my friend, as you aren't open to correction in this area. But as long as that's the case, I guess it is pointless to discuss this particular point with you.



    That's exactly what we lose when we become heirs, our manhood. Those who go to heaven are changed, just as Jesus was into a spirit, like angels are spirits. "But in the future world no one who is worthy to rise from death will either marry or die. They will be like the angels and will be God's children, because they have been raised to life. (Luke 20:36 CEV), and also "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt 22:30). Resurrected ones will be spirits as Angels are spirits, they then become Christ brothers.
    The question Jesus was answering was how marriage fits into the resurrection. And His answer was that marriage fits with the resurrected the same way marriage fits with angels--it doesn't. That doesn't mean we become angels in all ways.


    A spirit body is still a body, how is it possible that mankind as "flesh and blood" will go to heaven when the verse states flesh and blood cannot enter into heaven? What else other than a spirit body can be in a spiritual place?

    Why does Paul state "it is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body" in relation to earthly man compared to when he goes to heaven, how can being "raised up a spiritual body" simply not mean what it clearly states, that such ones a raised up in a spiritual body and not a physical body?
    "It" is the word you are overlooking. "It" is sown" and "it" is raised. "It" is still "it". There is a change, for sure, but "it" existed before death ("sowing") and "it" exists after resurrection ("raising"). The body, "it", is still involved after the resurrection. So the same body can be a physical body before death and a spiritual body after resurrection. The same body.

    One more verse: [Rom 8:11 KJV] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

    Mortality isn't replaced by immortality, but the mortal must put on immortality.
    [1Co 15:53 KJV] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.

    Leave a comment:


  • NWL
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post

    I agree with all of that except your conclusion (and possibly the anthropomorphic language dodge, as we have little idea what a spirit being has or doesn't have in terms of parts). I reiterate: If it would kill someone to see God (whichever part of Him that would be), then something must be visible if there is ever a danger of anyone being killed because he saw God (whichever part of Him that would be). There is a danger of someone being killed by seeing God, as evidenced by the words of God Himself, therefore, "invisible" doesn't mean "impossible to be seen", but "hidden", or something similar.
    I would have to disagree with you as the thing that was seen was his glory, not God himself, remember Moses asked “Please show me your glory" and Jehovah clearly expressed that it was glory and not himself that he revealed to Moses, he stated, "When my glory is passing by". Our sun is the source of all life on earth, as provided by God, the sun is immensely powerfully, God has the power of infinity suns, his glory among other things of God are a reflection of God's ultimate power and goodness. So when Jehovah says "no one can see my face and live", referring to the fullness of his glory, this is obviously because his glory is so great no man could withstand it in its purest and full form.

    (1 Corinthians 15:41) "..The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, one star differs from another star in glory.."

    Again, invisible does mean invisible, there is no escaping this fact:

    aoratou (Strongs 517)
    517 aóratos (from
    1 /A "not" and 3708 /horáō, "see") – properly, not seen; invisible to the physical ("naked") eye

    We can't just change the definitions of words simply to support doctrine, if someone told you their dog turned invisible no one in a hundred years would think that their dog simply went out of view, you would understand such a claim meant their dog literally turned invisible. Likewise, if scripture states God is invisible and expresses Jesus is invisible, going so far to further define it by saying "whom no man has seen or can see" in regard to Jesus and his invisible nature, then we can rest assured invisible means invisible. Nowhere in the bible do we find the word aóratos (or variation) as meaning something that is hidden from view but is still invisible, therefore to keep claiming this is what invisible may mean is wrong.

    I'll await your response to my main previous post.
    Last edited by NWL; March 12, 2020, 06:07 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aimiel
    replied
    God is 'invisible' to us for our protection. Spirit is above, flesh is beneath. We are not like God, in that we are limited by our flesh. One day: we WILL be like Him, because we'll see Him as He is. He won't be changed; but we will. We'll be in glorified bodies, very similar to His, capable of travelling at the speed of thought and able to do His Will at all times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by NWL View Post

    Please do not rush, days or weeks I do not mind.

    That is a good question, let me respond to it now so you know where I stand with it.

    (Exodus 33:18-20) "..Then he [Moses] said: “Please show me your glory.” 19 But he [Jehovah] said: “I will make all my goodness pass before your face, and I will declare before you the name of Jehovah; and I will favor the one whom I favor, and I will show mercy to the one to whom I show mercy.” 20 But he added: “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live. 21 Jehovah said further: “Here is a place near me. Station yourself on the rock. 22 When my glory is passing by, I will place you in a crevice of the rock, and I will shield you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 After that I will take my hand away, and you will see my back. But my face may not be seen.”

    I know I've said it a lot but this is another example of the Bible using anthropomorphic language to explain the deep things of God. As we can see by the verse above in v20 it has Jehovah a few moments after Moses request to see his glory saying “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live. When my glory is passing by...I will shield you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 After that I will take my hand away, and you will see my back. But my face may not be seen". We must take note, Moses asked to see 'Gods glory', he did not ask to see any form or God himself, God, speaking in an anthropomorphic undertone likens to seeing the full force of his glory to seeing 'his face', and expresses seeing his face -or all his glory- would kill a man. We see this further expressed in anthropomorphic language when God said to Moses that when his "glory is passing by" he would protect him from the force of this passing glory and that he would only see the afterglow or "back" as described in the verse, of Gods glory. The Bible simply uses anthropomorphic language comparing God's full glory to his face, and the afterglow of God's glory as his back. So to answer your question, it's not seeing a manifestation of God's face that kills you, but rather, seeing his glory in full is what will kill you, as the face of God is akin to his fullness of glory.

    Scripture must be consistent, 1 John 4:12 states "No one has seen God at any time", therefore if 1 John 4:12 is correct, Moses seeing God's glory was not him seeing God himself, but rather, it must mean that him seeing God was in a figurative sense by means of seeing his glory, this is what Moses himself requested and what God stated. This is why scripture states "By faith he [Moses] left Egypt, but not fearing the anger of the king, for he continued steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:27), Moses saw the one who is invisible, such a statement seems like an oxymoron but it's not, as the "seeing" was in relation to the seeing of his glory and not a physical form.

    We see a similar thing with the nation of Israel, in regards to them it states "Jehovah spoke face-to-face with you [the nation of Israel] in the mountain, out of the fire" (Deut 5:4), regarding that same account Moses stated "And Jehovah began to speak to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but you saw no form—there was only a voice" (Deut 4:12). The nation of Israel saw God "face-to-face", this does not mean that they saw God himself or his face literally, this is clear anthropomorphic language, we know this because despite seeing God "face-to-face" they "saw no form, only a voice" when seeing God face-to-face, why, because God is invisible. "Seeing" simply relates to seeing some sort of manifestation of God, this does not mean that the manifestation is God himself, this is clear as "No one has seen God at any time".
    I agree with all of that except your conclusion (and possibly the anthropomorphic language dodge, as we have little idea what a spirit being has or doesn't have in terms of parts). I reiterate: If it would kill someone to see God (whichever part of Him that would be), then something must be visible if there is ever a danger of anyone being killed because he saw God (whichever part of Him that would be). There is a danger of someone being killed by seeing God, as evidenced by the words of God Himself, therefore, "invisible" doesn't mean "impossible to be seen", but "hidden", or something similar.

    Leave a comment:


  • NWL
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post

    Hi NWL. Thanks for your patience. I'll try to get to your post as soon as possible. But how could anyone EVER die from seeing God's face, if God is invisible????
    [Exo 33:20 KJV] And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
    Notice that God doesn't tell Moses, "You can't see my face, because it is invisible."
    Please do not rush, days or weeks I do not mind.

    That is a good question, let me respond to it now so you know where I stand with it.

    (Exodus 33:18-20) "..Then he [Moses] said: “Please show me your glory.” 19 But he [Jehovah] said: “I will make all my goodness pass before your face, and I will declare before you the name of Jehovah; and I will favor the one whom I favor, and I will show mercy to the one to whom I show mercy.” 20 But he added: “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live. 21 Jehovah said further: “Here is a place near me. Station yourself on the rock. 22 When my glory is passing by, I will place you in a crevice of the rock, and I will shield you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 After that I will take my hand away, and you will see my back. But my face may not be seen.”

    I know I've said it a lot but this is another example of the Bible using anthropomorphic language to explain the deep things of God. As we can see by the verse above in v20 it has Jehovah a few moments after Moses request to see his glory saying “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live. When my glory is passing by...I will shield you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 After that I will take my hand away, and you will see my back. But my face may not be seen". We must take note, Moses asked to see 'Gods glory', he did not ask to see any form or God himself, God, speaking in an anthropomorphic undertone likens to seeing the full force of his glory to seeing 'his face', and expresses seeing his face -or all his glory- would kill a man. We see this further expressed in anthropomorphic language when God said to Moses that when his "glory is passing by" he would protect him from the force of this passing glory and that he would only see the afterglow or "back" as described in the verse, of Gods glory. The Bible simply uses anthropomorphic language comparing God's full glory to his face, and the afterglow of God's glory as his back. So to answer your question, it's not seeing a manifestation of God's face that kills you, but rather, seeing his glory in full is what will kill you, as the face of God is akin to his fullness of glory.

    Scripture must be consistent, 1 John 4:12 states "No one has seen God at any time", therefore if 1 John 4:12 is correct, Moses seeing God's glory was not him seeing God himself, but rather, it must mean that him seeing God was in a figurative sense by means of seeing his glory, this is what Moses himself requested and what God stated. This is why scripture states "By faith he [Moses] left Egypt, but not fearing the anger of the king, for he continued steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:27), Moses saw the one who is invisible, such a statement seems like an oxymoron but it's not, as the "seeing" was in relation to the seeing of his glory and not a physical form.

    We see a similar thing with the nation of Israel, in regards to them it states "Jehovah spoke face-to-face with you [the nation of Israel] in the mountain, out of the fire" (Deut 5:4), regarding that same account Moses stated "And Jehovah began to speak to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but you saw no form—there was only a voice" (Deut 4:12). The nation of Israel saw God "face-to-face", this does not mean that they saw God himself or his face literally, this is clear anthropomorphic language, we know this because despite seeing God "face-to-face" they "saw no form, only a voice" when seeing God face-to-face, why, because God is invisible. "Seeing" simply relates to seeing some sort of manifestation of God, this does not mean that the manifestation is God himself, this is clear as "No one has seen God at any time".
    Last edited by NWL; March 11, 2020, 08:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by NWL View Post
    Derf

    In regard to my last post to you (post 8760), I assume you have not given a reply due to life commitments. All I ask is if and when you answer to do so with an honest heart, none of this, "invisible means not visible to the observer" or "Jesus was unrecognizable because his face was disfigured", which is speculation and denial of basic language to try and make sense of your personal beliefs, let us rather use scripture to interpret scripture.
    Hi NWL. Thanks for your patience. I'll try to get to your post as soon as possible. But how could anyone EVER die from seeing God's face, if God is invisible????
    [Exo 33:20 KJV] And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
    Notice that God doesn't tell Moses, "You can't see my face, because it is invisible."

    Leave a comment:


  • NWL
    replied
    Derf

    In regard to my last post to you (post 8760), I assume you have not given a reply due to life commitments. All I ask is if and when you answer to do so with an honest heart, none of this, "invisible means not visible to the observer" or "Jesus was unrecognizable because his face was disfigured", which is speculation and denial of basic language to try and make sense of your personal beliefs, let us rather use scripture to interpret scripture.
    Last edited by NWL; March 8, 2020, 05:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NWL
    replied
    ...
    Last edited by NWL; March 8, 2020, 03:40 AM. Reason: Posted in error

    Leave a comment:


  • Aimiel
    replied
    Originally posted by NWL View Post
    A spirit body is still a body, how is it possible that mankind as "flesh and blood" will go to heaven when the verse states flesh and blood cannot enter into heaven? What else other than a spirit body can be in a spiritual place?

    Why does Paul state "it is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body" in relation to earthly man compared to when he goes to heaven, how can being "raised up a spiritual body" simply not mean what it clearly states, that such ones a raised up in a spiritual body?[/COLOR]
    Jesus actually ate fish with the disciples and He also appeared in a room which had been locked before He entered it. Obviously: He can be Spirit AND Flesh, as He wills. He is, after all: God, in The Flesh. He is NOT corruptible, either in Spirit form or Flesh form.

    Leave a comment:


  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post

    I always think he's talking about me
    Nopers, not you. Others for sure, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by way 2 go View Post

    that is this thread in a nutshell for some people ,
    some of the memorable ones displaying the Dunning-Kruger effect in this thread
    clefty , timotheos, rosenritter
    I always think he's talking about me

    Leave a comment:


  • way 2 go
    replied
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post

    The problem is the same as always, as depicted by Dunning-Kruger. Those who are the most ignorant and the most convinced of the accuracy of their perceptions are the least correct and most uncorrectable.
    that is this thread in a nutshell for some people ,
    some of the memorable ones displaying the Dunning-Kruger effect in this thread
    clefty , timotheos, rosenritter

    Leave a comment:


  • NWL
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    You seem to make a distinction between a "man" and a "spirit person". This is good, since "man" is what Adam was--the very first one. And Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man:
    [Rom 5:17 ESV] For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
    [1Ti 2:5 ESV] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

    Neither of the foregoing verses give any other option than that Jesus is still a man.
    Notice what you just said, "Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man", now notice what scripture says "[Jesus] was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18). Your statement is almost identical with 1 Peter 3:18 the only difference being 1 Peter 3:18 communicates Jesus was raised as a "spirit" whereas you say he was raised "as a man", what you say goes contrary to scripture. The same can be said with your complete statement "This is good, since "man" is what Adam was--the very first one. And Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man" and 1 Cor 15:45, "So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.". What you claim and what you say goes contrary to what the scripture literally says, I cannot fathom how you overlook this.

    You bring out Romans 5:17 that mentions death reigned because of one man, namely Adam, and that it's through one man, Jesus, that we get life through. Nothing in the verse implies Jesus is still a man, it simply implies the fact that Jesus the man was the person who gave his life and thus it is through him a man that we live. For instance, imagine that Jesus was NEVER resurrected but remained dead or was to be resurrected 300 years after his death instead of 3 days, his sacrifice would still redeem mankind, the very same statement could still be said, "because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ", the scripture is referring to the ransom of Jesus as a man and isn't implying Jesus still lives as a man, such an idea is read into scripture.

    As I've said in regards to 1 Tim 2:5 before "The word ANTHRWPOS does not necessarily mean “man” but is a generic term for “individual” or “person” (cf. Moulton’s Lexicon). It can even refer to women! Angels are many times referred to as “men” (Lk.24:4 Ac.10:30; Ge 32:24). Any reference to the heavenly Jesus as a "man" must be an anthropological expression and not a man literally ( Acts 17:31).". Another example of this is that God is called "he" yet is neither male nor female since being male or female relates to gender distinction of the physical Gods physical creation, it would be folly for someone to claim God is a male and not a female as the bible mentions him as a "he", God is genderless.

    When we read the verse however it should be clear that Jesus was acting as a mediator when on earth and was being spoken about in the past tense, this is clear by the context, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:5,6). Jesus, as the greater Moses (Heb 3:3), acted as a meditator when on earth the same way Moses acted as a meditator when on earth "[the Law] it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator" (Gal 3:19).


    Again, you make a great distinction between being a man in the flesh and being a spirit. You seem to recognize, rightly, that Jesus was NOT a man before He took on flesh. But we are assured that Jesus remains a man after He died. Thus, He is NOT without a body. His disciples saw Him in His bodily form, after His resurrection, rising up to heaven. It wasn't just a spirit that was rising up to heaven, just as it wasn't just a spirit Elisha saw rising up to heaven when Elijah went up. There wasn't a separation of spirit from body for Elijah anymore than there was for Jesus. Neither will we, if we remain alive until His coming, be just spirits rising up to heaven:
    [1Th 4:17 KJV] Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
    Because, as you conveniently left out below:
    [1Co 15:51 KJV] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
    (2 Corinthians 5:16) So from now on we know no man from a fleshly viewpoint. Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way.

    Jesus has a body, it's simply a spirit body. Again, if angels were able to materialize temporary physical body then there is no reason why Jesus, if a spirit, was not able to do the same and appear to many people as he did. Again, I cannot fathom how you can take "we certainly no longer know him [Jesus according to the flesh] in that way" to mean anything other than it expressing Jesus is no longer in body of flesh.

    2 Corinthians 5:1 talks about a house or tent, referring to the body of a man, notice what it states, "For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be torn down, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens", notice how Paul speak about a house/body that is not physically made ("made with hands") this is only possible if ones who go to heaven, like Jesus, are in non-physical bodies. God, Jesus and the Angels prior to coming to earth were all spiritual beings, none of them were tangible, it's very weird to me that people have this idea that physical beings can enter into a non-physical realm, when scripture states "flesh and blood" cannot enter into heaven, it's so very clear to me that such a thing was only said as Paul was trying to make clear that only non-physical things are in heaven.

    Do you believe people who are resurrected to heaven will have spirit bodies like the angels or physical fleshly bodies?

    You are then admitting that "Death" is NOT swallowed up in victory, nor is "Death" thrown into the Lake of Fire, by which it can never have power over anyone again. Nor is the last enemy to be defeated "Death", since "Death" will then be a permanent victor:
    [1Co 15:26 KJV] The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.

    If the lake of fire is the second death, and the first death is thrown into the second death, then how can death be destroyed by death?
    We must remember the Bible uses anthropomorphic language, especially when we're talking about the first and second death, death simply refers to the non-existence of something that was in existence. I believe I now understand why you said what you said above, please correct me if I'm wrong, you understand such passages of "The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death" to mean that no one who is dead will remain dead since death itself will be destroyed. I differ on opinion with this, when 1 Cor 15:26 states "The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death" I understand this to be the same thing as described in Rev 20:14 when it states "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire", in Rev 20:14 death is hurled into the lake of fire which to me means eternal destruction this is where 1 Cor 15:26 is fulfilled, I hope we agree on this, but let me continue and explain further. This is why Rev 21:3,4, when speaking about the new heaven and new earth, states "[God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more", when it mentions of death being "brought to nothing" and "being no more" I do not take this to mean all those are dead 'have' to be alive by what is said,but rather, those who are alive will never be subjected to death again, that is what death being "brought to nothing" and "being no more" means. You need to remember "death" is never actually destroyed, God doesn't get death like its some type of entity or tangible object and destroy it, the scriptures are simply expressing that 'no one will die again', it's in that sense that 'death is destroyed', the bible is using anthropomorphic language to explain things on simple terms. Nothing in 1 Cor 15:26 expresses that ones who are subjected to eternal death have to stay dead since the "death being destroyed" is in relation to people not dying 'anymore' in the future.

    You asked "If the lake of fire is the second death, and the first death is thrown into the second death, then how can death be destroyed by death?", I believe my answer above should suffice but if it's not I would answer that death isn't literally destroyed by death since death isn't a real literal entity or thing, its simply an expression that something that did exist no longer exists, the bible using anthropomorphic language to explain that ones who are faithful to God will never be subjected to death again, expressing this by stating "death will be destroyed by being thrown into the lake of fire which means the second death", with the second death meaning eternal judgment and destruction.

    I'm still thinking through what the first death actually is, but my proposition is that it is a state of unconsciousness, as you seem to think, too. What is that unconsciousness like? Well, the body decays and goes away, so the unconsciousness doesn't apply to the body, which no longer exists (and in fact, our bodies may contain molecules of other people's bodies). What's left? An unconscious soul or spirit? I guess that's possible, but does God have some storage place for unconscious spirits? Rev mentions something like this: [Rev 6:9 KJV] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:...[Rev 6:11 KJV] And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.
    I'm not trying to play devil's advocate by saying this but I disagree with the idea that there is a place that exists for the soul/spirits of the dead. The term soul is simply an expression for a man, an individual. The teaching that man has a soul or the immortality of the soul is nowhere found in scripture, this is known by most if not all scholars, please note what these scholars (scholarly material) say about the bible usage of the word soul:

    “There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [neʹphesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy·kheʹ] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

    "Indeed, the salvation of the 'immortal soul' has sometimes been a commonplace in preaching, but it is fundamentally unbiblical. Biblical anthropology is not dualistic but monistic: human being consists in the integrated wholeness of body and soul, and
    the Bible never contemplates the disembodied existence of the soul in bliss.", Myers (ed.), "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary", p. 518 (1987).

    The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

    When scripture such as 1 Peter 3:20 state in regards to souls "while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water" the usage of soul is simply expressing eight 'persons' were carried. When Gen 2:7 states "And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul" Adam becoming a living soul simply means he was a 'person/human'. There is nothing in the bible that suggest man has a soul that is separate from his body or survives death. When Rev 6: 9 states "When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given" it's not expressing man has a soul that lives in a person, but rather simply refers to resurrected faithful 'individuals' of Jesus. The original-language for “soul” in Hebrew (ne´phesh) and Greek (psy·khe´), both ne´phesh and psykhe´ are ALSO used to mean the 'life as a creature', human or animal. Because servants of God have the hope of a resurrection in the event of death, they have the hope of living again as “souls,” or living creatures. That is why Jesus said that “whoever loses his soul [his life as a creature] for the sake of me and the good news will save it. Really, of what benefit is it for a man to gain the whole world and to forfeit his soul? What, really, would a man give in exchange for his soul?”. So the soul either refers to a person or the life of a living person.

    Most of Christianity teach an immortal soul separate from the body but this is not found in the bible, if you Wikipedia "soul" and then Wikipedia "Soul in the bible" you will see a stark difference with what Christianity teaches about the soul and what the bible mentions of the soul.

    For one thing, I don't believe the bible ever puts the word "everlasting" with "death", despite the numerous associations between "everlasting" and "life". "Destruction", yes, but not "death". As explained before, the second death is not described in the same terms as the first death, as the first death is never termed a "lake of fire" or any other kind of "fire", is it?

    And if death is the penalty for sin, then can God be just when people have to die 2 deaths? There must be something else going on after the first death is reversed: Christ can claim victory for the resurrection, even if unto judgment. Beyond that, the problem is what to do with people who have died once and even after the resurrection are not willing to follow the commands of God in God's Kingdom. What punishment remains when the stated punishment is already been fulfilled, but God's will is still not being done on earth as it is in heaven, at least as it relates to those people?

    Kings on earth have a similar problem. There are only three potential solutions for someone who won't obey. Imprisonment, Banishment, and Death. The Death option no longer exists, so you have imprisonment and banishment. Banishment, for a King has all authority in heaven and earth and under the earth, is an impossibility--there's nowhere to send them. Imprisonment is all that's left, I think. And imprisonment in a place that doesn't receive any of the good things God gives to His people, those of His kingdom. If God is the source of all good, and these people are refusing any good from God, the only thing left is evil for them. They get what they choose.
    You are correct, the bible never does put the word "everlasting" with "death", but common sense must also be used, if one receives the punishment of "eternal destruction" then destruction can only mean one thing if no other modifiers are in use, namely death. (2 Thessalonians 1:9) These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength", the everlasting destruction can only refer to death, and the death -if everlasting- has to be everlasting to be described that way or else scripture contradicts itself.

    You said "And if death is the penalty for sin, then can God be just when people have to die 2 deaths? There must be something else going on after the first death is reversed". I did allude to this earlier and gave my stance on the matter, Rev 21 states there will be a "resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous", the righteous ones will have a resurrection of life whereas the unrighteous will have a resurrection of judgment. It is my believe the unrighteous ones will be resurrected again where the earth is filled with the knowledge of God, they will be given another chance, based on their actions they will be judged according to their deeds, if judged unrighteous by their newly resurrected deeds they will be forever cast into the lake of fire meaning they are eternally dead.

    (Rev20:12-14) 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. The dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. 15 Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.

    I don't think you've proved anything here. You're welcome to try again.
    If God appeared to you would you have fear in the sense of horror or fear in the sense of respect (God-fearing)?

    The original language word used in regards to the shepherd is in relation to that of godly fear, the word used for fear with the apostles was one relating to shock and horror, that's the point I was making.

    How about if car maker were to replicate Elvis's car in every detail, and show it to people as if it were the car the Elvis drove? Pick something else. How about we replicate in every detail one of Michelangelo's paintings or sculptures, and say "this is the very painting/sculpture created by Michelangelo"? What would you say about that? Would you think you had been lied to?
    In what sense is it a lie if Jesus rose as a spirit, recreated a body temporarily, and claimed he was Jesus when he was Jesus? Are you trying to say to you that if Jesus appeared in front of you right now in a flesh form and claimed he did in fact rise as a spirit but only temporarily made a body to his apostles as he was to you now, you would feel like Jesus was somehow lying?

    Did the person of Jesus stop being the person who he went from spirit to flesh when coming to earth? If your answer is no then why is it somehow deceitful for Jesus to claim he was Jesus if being raised as a spirit in a bodily form?

    Well, if all you're looking at is the impression, then there is indeed an invisible ring--you don't see it, so it's invisible. (The method of becoming invisible is not under discussion.) But if Jesus is still "the man Jesus Christ", then He is NOT God who is only spirit. Now, Jesus might be invisible at this time, but that's because when He went up into heaven, the disciples lost sight of Him. It doesn't mean He became a body-less spirit.
    You saying "Well, if all you're looking at is the impression, then there is indeed an invisible ring--you don't see it, so it's invisible" is a very poor argument, in my opinion. I have a signet ring at home, are you trying to say that if I push the print into hot wax, throw the ring out the window so I can't see it that the ring itself is invisible? No, the ring is still visible it's simply not in my line of vision. Nobody would say a coffin buried under the ground is invisible, or the sun when its sets is invisible as we can't see it. Language only defines things as "invisible" that are inherently invisible, and not to things that are simply not visible to the observer. I understand why you're using this argument as you need to somehow detangle the fact that Jesus is called "invisible", so result in claiming he's invisible in the sense we can't currently see him, I think you need to be honest with yourself as its clear invisible means invisible.

    Strongs 517 - aoratō
    Usage: unseen, invisible.
    517 aóratos (from
    1 /A "not" and 3708 /horáō, "see") – properly, not seen; invisible to the physical ("naked") eye

    You're getting the word "invisible" and claiming its speaking from a relative point of view of the writer. Things that are invisible are not relative in nature, they are objective or inherently true. Going off your understanding of "invisible" everything outside the room I'm sitting in is invisible as I can't see it, no one speaks or writes this way but of course, you're attempting to claim such an understanding "invisible" as the normal definition of invisible contradicts your belief. To show to you once and for all that when scripture states Jesus was "invisible" it meant what it clearly stated all I ask is that you read the following, 1 Timothy 6:16 "[Jesus] the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen." Notice, Timothy, speaking of the risen Jesus states, "whom no man has seen or can see", you claim Jesus was raised in the flesh and was seen in his body by hundreds, yet scripture states "no man has seen" Jesus. The reason why "no man has seen or can see" Jesus is because Jesus is a spirit and spirits are invisible in nature, when Jesus appeared to the apostles he appeared in bodies that were not his, that were not him, the bodies were only temporary, thus no man has seen the risen Jesus in his spirit body or can see him, as he is an invisible spirit.

    There can be nothing said that will change the meaning of Jesus being "the exact representation of [Gods] very being", Jesus is whatever the Father is, if the Father is an invisible spirit then Jesus is too, nothing you've shown has shown this to be untrue at present. .

    Not really. If Jesus existed prior to coming to earth as a man, and then He went back to being the same as He was before--not a man--how can we be brothers of His, fellow-heirs, without losing our manhood. You're treading on some shaky ground here.
    That's exactly what we lose when we become heirs, our manhood. Those who go to heaven are changed, just as Jesus was into a spirit, like angels are spirits. "But in the future world no one who is worthy to rise from death will either marry or die. They will be like the angels and will be God's children, because they have been raised to life. (Luke 20:36 CEV), and also "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt 22:30). Resurrected ones will be spirits as Angels are spirits, they then become Christ brothers.

    Or with a body that will last forever, possibly like those in the lake of fire???
    The point of Paul's passage is that the body is changed--I don't deny that--but that it is still a body. He's dealing with the body both before and after: "with what sort of body are they coming?"
    A spirit body is still a body, how is it possible that mankind as "flesh and blood" will go to heaven when the verse states flesh and blood cannot enter into heaven? What else other than a spirit body can be in a spiritual place?

    Why does Paul state "it is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body" in relation to earthly man compared to when he goes to heaven, how can being "raised up a spiritual body" simply not mean what it clearly states, that such ones a raised up in a spiritual body and not a physical body?

    I saw no reasoning againist my position with Acts 13:34 compared to 1 Cor 15:35,40,42,50 where is states "And the fact that He [God] resurrected him [Jesus] from the dead never again to return to corruption". The verse states Jesus was to never return to corruption again, Paul makes it clear that when he talks about corruption he's talking about a human body (read 1 Cor 15:35,40,42,50), so how do you rectify that Jesus was never to return to corruption when you claim he did?

    I'll consider my point proven.
    Are you sure this isn't a sneaky way of getting out of answering my question. My question was would the sacrifice be valid if the person offering the sacrifice kept it for themselves by taking back the meat and the blood? Would the sacrifice be valid?

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If Jesus was raised in the same body but was unrecognizable from his facial injuries when he appeared to them when they were fishing then why was he recognized by the apostles the day he was raised? John 20:16 and Luke 24:21:


    (John 20:16) Jesus said to her: “Mary!” On turning around, she said to him in Hebrew: “Rab·boʹni!” (which means “Teacher!”)
    (Luke 24:31) At that their eyes were fully opened and they recognized him; but he disappeared from them.
    Last edited by NWL; March 9, 2020, 08:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post

    The problem is the same as always, as depicted by Dunning-Kruger. Those who are the most ignorant and the most convinced of the accuracy of their perceptions are the least correct and most uncorrectable.
    I read this on my handheld, which displays the TOL logo at the top very differently than my laptop does - it's a large view of a small arc of the world as viewed from space, and it occurred to me that my own little little part of that world - the part I know intimately and well, is a flyspeck of the greater world. And that the more I learn about that part I know "well", the more I realize how little I actually know.

    So I got some hot chocolate

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

    Except, why isn't there absolute clarity? Why is there any disagreement on the subject at all? It's not like it's a trifling detail or something not that important, you're talking about the eternal suffering of people here.
    Maybe there is absolute clarity, and maybe there are a lot of hard-headed people that aren't willing to take it as it was given, but want to make it into something they like better. Like the husbandman and his wife.

    Maybe you're one of those hard-headed people. Maybe I am.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X