glorydaz
Well-known member
NOPE, just pointing out your flaws in case you think you have none.
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
NOPE, just pointing out your flaws in case you think you have none.
Derf
Well-known member
I'm not keeping up very well with the rapid pace of this thread, but I appreciate your attention.
[Rom 1:32 KJV] 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Maybe that doesn't include all those resurrected in the 2nd resurrection. I'm open to it, since maybe they DIDN'T know the judgment of God.
So, are you saying that the burning bodies of the transgressors have survived the renewing of the heavens and the earth, yet they burn up quickly when thrown into the lake of fire?? One way or another there seems to be some inconsistencies here.
I'm not unappreciative of the Is 66 passage. The language seems to indicate a great victory over an enemy, one that ends with the bodies being burned in heaps. And there's something about it that seems to remain, perhaps to give pause to those that might consider rebelling against God??
But Jesus doesn't seem to shy away from people that are wailing--"weeping and gnashing of teeth" is the phrase I'm familiar with. I don't claim that all of them are about the final judgment. In fact, I could see that these are folks that are left out of the kingdom here on earth, and maybe the outer darkness is what everybody that isn't in the kingdom is experiencing. Maybe there's a gulf that separates those in the kingdom from those outside the kingdom, and those outside can't get in. Is this a permanent condition? Seems like it. But then we are back to a state that is very reminiscent of the richman/Lazarus story. Or maybe they live crummy lives outside the kingdom, with no repentance possible, but that seems to fly in the face of the passage you quoted at the beginning of your post.
I think it makes more sense if the time when there's no repentance possible is after the first death, or maybe in the second death?
This is certainly a good question. I think my answer is that if a person won't repent in the first life, why would God expect repentance in the second. There could be exceptions, like those that never heard the gospel, I suppose. The richman/Lazarus story certainly speaks of the things done while living, even if we grant that the apparent location is fictional. Otherwise we would be saying that there's very little wisdom to gain from the story at all. The judgments in Matt 25 all seem to be final, and based only on the past actions rather than current remorse. I don't like the idea of putting God in a box of not allowing for repentance at any time, but there does seem to be a time in this life that God "gives up" on those that persist in wrongdoing.
[Rom 1:32 KJV] 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Maybe that doesn't include all those resurrected in the 2nd resurrection. I'm open to it, since maybe they DIDN'T know the judgment of God.
More like "forever dying people tormented in hell", maybe? It is called the "second death", after all.
So, are you saying that the burning bodies of the transgressors have survived the renewing of the heavens and the earth, yet they burn up quickly when thrown into the lake of fire?? One way or another there seems to be some inconsistencies here.
I'm not unappreciative of the Is 66 passage. The language seems to indicate a great victory over an enemy, one that ends with the bodies being burned in heaps. And there's something about it that seems to remain, perhaps to give pause to those that might consider rebelling against God??
But Jesus doesn't seem to shy away from people that are wailing--"weeping and gnashing of teeth" is the phrase I'm familiar with. I don't claim that all of them are about the final judgment. In fact, I could see that these are folks that are left out of the kingdom here on earth, and maybe the outer darkness is what everybody that isn't in the kingdom is experiencing. Maybe there's a gulf that separates those in the kingdom from those outside the kingdom, and those outside can't get in. Is this a permanent condition? Seems like it. But then we are back to a state that is very reminiscent of the richman/Lazarus story. Or maybe they live crummy lives outside the kingdom, with no repentance possible, but that seems to fly in the face of the passage you quoted at the beginning of your post.
I think it makes more sense if the time when there's no repentance possible is after the first death, or maybe in the second death?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Another stupid post. It was both good and evil that Jesus was put to death on the cross.
That's hardly being "double minded".....which is just another example of your misusing scripture for your own dark motives.
glorydaz
Well-known member
You are exactly like God's UNtruth.
I have never said I support sacrificing babies to devils, and call it a blessing. What kind of a fruit cake are you? Devils, and seances, and sacrificing babies.....are you an Adventist Witch in disguise, or only a regular old flea-bitten wolf in sheep's clothing?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Right, watch out for those "talking apparitions" when reading the Bible. :chuckle:
Lon
Well-known member
:doh:
Do you NOT see that you are reading 'into' the texts? Are you NOT honest enough to know when your OWN arguments are also not cut/dry??? So, you want me to capitulate in honesty, but you don't want to do so? How badly MUST YOU WIN this argument and why? Do you 'think' you have some stake in it whereby you must??
Solomon said 'the memory of them is forgotten.' For sure, he was talking about their physical presence. I may acquiesce it can as easily be talking about their non-existent lives, given your understanding of scriptures. Sadly, you never return the mile of walking in the other guy's shoes. You simply demand we 'go further' after the mile is up. Walking back a block or two isn't helpful. It would always be a one-sided conversation with you. Do you WANT to know why 600 million+ the past two centuries have believed ECT???
I don't, but I have to take your word on this. The only ones I've ever seen dismissing books, are those who do so already and are cultists.
Nope, the same way I don't distrust my dash lights. However, I know when there is a false positive. I can tell when the engine is fine and I can listen to a mechanic tell me that a particular warning light is probably wrong or at least ignorable. I'm a guy. I'd rather check the fluids and listen to the engine.
:think:Ezekiel 1:4,13,27 Ezekiel 5:2,4 Ezekiel 8:2; 10:6,7; 15:4-7
Ezekiel 16:21; 19:12,14 Ezekiel 20 :31,47; 21:31,32
Ezekiel 22:20,21,31 Ezekiel 23:25 Ezekiel 24:10,12
Ezekiel 28:16,18 Ezekiel 30: 8,14,16 Ezekiel 38:22
Ezekiel 39:6
:think: I'll keep it in mind. Thanks.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Good for you and Lon. I'm not so sure it's quite as you imply concerning what you agree on.
That said, I do consider you my enemy. I have seen under that mask you wear so proudly, and I'm not buying it. You refuse to take the scripture as it's written, but insist on tweaking it instead of allowing it to find agreement with other verses. That's not good. You're from a cult of some sort....not sure yet which one, but your probation is over as far as I'm concerned.
Lon
Well-known member
True, if you are God. Not God? Not gonna happen. We can't make any kind of life.
Incorrect. Science is science. Psalm 19:1 Romans 1:20.
We aren't concerned with 'what God might do,' but what He has done, and what happens to man, specifically, your absurdity reduction not-with-standing.
:think Revelation 20:10 Do you see, at least, where it looks like a perspective from Earth in one and a view from Heaven in the other, and why we might think so on this side of the proverbial coin?
The law of cause and effect. Elohim is the cause of all that comes to pass. The scriptures are His revealed will and in them we* are given a glimpse of the reason for the effects we witness. In possession of such knowledge we are able to praise His justice and His wisdom.
we* The regenerate.
oatmeal
Well-known member
The wages of sin is death.
Romans 6:23
but the gift of God is eternal life.
Which option people receive is their choice.
If they choose life by choosing God, Romans 10:9, they receive eternal life.
All other "options" although it is actually only one option, result in death, eternal death, called the second death in Revelation
Romans 6:23
but the gift of God is eternal life.
Which option people receive is their choice.
If they choose life by choosing God, Romans 10:9, they receive eternal life.
All other "options" although it is actually only one option, result in death, eternal death, called the second death in Revelation
Derf
Well-known member
[MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION], @Lon, [MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION]
I was trying to figure out these verses:
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. [Rev 20:13 KJV]
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [Rev 20:14 KJV]
What is the purpose of the differentiation of the different "things" that are giving up their dead? The three are (with the english spelling of the greek words following):
the sea--->thalassa
death--->thanatos
hell--->hades
Having all three together makes for an interesting conundrum, in that hell/hades CAN'T mean a repository of souls, unless there are THREE repositories that are still unemptied until Rev 20:13 (Abraham's Bosom and Paradise don't seem to be included). In addition, only TWO of the three (death/thanatos and hell/hades) are thrown into the lake of fire. Why not "thalassa"? And what does it mean that death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire?
My thought on the three "things" are that they are representative of where the bodies of people ended up--thus they are "repositories of bodies".
"the sea" I can understand--bodies of those drowned, or that died and were buried at sea.
"hell" I can understand, possibly, as those that were buried
"death" is somewhat ambiguous, but I can imagine that it means those that were not buried, maybe burned
Another option:
"the sea" --same as above
"hell" --bodies that were burned
"death" --bodies that were buried
Repositories of bodies don't make much sense to us, since bodies, especially those that are burned or thrown into the sea, are likely scattered and moved around (like ashes that are washed into the sea, or bodies that are eaten by crabs and then caught and eaten by humans---ew!!!).
Let's go back to the repository of souls idea. What if all three were repositories? Then it seems to mean that the sea is a place where souls are kept, sans bodies, "Death" is another repository, and Hell/Hades a third, based on how/where they died. I say "how/where" because it doesn't seem to matter whether their occupants were good/evil or saved/not saved if there are 3 repositories. Remember that two of them were then thrown into the lake of fire, which could mean they are no longer possible means of death (though leaving out the sea seems to be a mistake if "means" is the deciding factor), or it could mean that those two were oppressive and were being punished in some way, which is a personification and doesn't really make sense. Or it could mean that while the sea is a feature of geography, it is also a place where people die and their souls remain in some way, but in the new heavens and new earth it will only have the former connotation, not the latter, while the other two are not needed at all.
This sounds odd, but let's go a step further with the personification idea. The words Thalassa, Hades, and Thanatos all seem to have 2 meanings, one of which in each case is the name of a god in Greek mythology! Thalassa was a primordial goddess of the sea, Hades the ruler of the underworld (brother of Zeus and Poseidon), and Thanatos was the god of death (one reference said "peaceful death") [whose twin brother, ironically, was Hypnos (god of sleep)].
What if, then, those personifications are real, and that Thanatos and Hades are actual beings thrown into the lake of fire for the oppression that they visited on the souls in their possession, but Thalassa was not oppressive to "her" souls? Maybe those two were fallen angels, or "the devil's angels", as in whom the lake of fire was prepared for (Matt 25:24), and Thalassa was not. And maybe all three still maintained their assignments from prior to the Devil's fall, though it has some consequences that aren't very clear in a pre-fall/no-death world. It wouldn't be without precedent that some of the Devil's angels were named--Abaddon/Apollyon was named in Rev 9:11.
Yes, this is an odd line of thought. No, I don't think it has a lot of merit. But the verses quoted at the beginning are certainly odd already. I don't believe I've read too many commentaries dealing with them in any detailed manner that explains why the three aren't treated the same.
I was trying to figure out these verses:
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. [Rev 20:13 KJV]
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [Rev 20:14 KJV]
What is the purpose of the differentiation of the different "things" that are giving up their dead? The three are (with the english spelling of the greek words following):
the sea--->thalassa
death--->thanatos
hell--->hades
Having all three together makes for an interesting conundrum, in that hell/hades CAN'T mean a repository of souls, unless there are THREE repositories that are still unemptied until Rev 20:13 (Abraham's Bosom and Paradise don't seem to be included). In addition, only TWO of the three (death/thanatos and hell/hades) are thrown into the lake of fire. Why not "thalassa"? And what does it mean that death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire?
My thought on the three "things" are that they are representative of where the bodies of people ended up--thus they are "repositories of bodies".
"the sea" I can understand--bodies of those drowned, or that died and were buried at sea.
"hell" I can understand, possibly, as those that were buried
"death" is somewhat ambiguous, but I can imagine that it means those that were not buried, maybe burned
Another option:
"the sea" --same as above
"hell" --bodies that were burned
"death" --bodies that were buried
Repositories of bodies don't make much sense to us, since bodies, especially those that are burned or thrown into the sea, are likely scattered and moved around (like ashes that are washed into the sea, or bodies that are eaten by crabs and then caught and eaten by humans---ew!!!).
Let's go back to the repository of souls idea. What if all three were repositories? Then it seems to mean that the sea is a place where souls are kept, sans bodies, "Death" is another repository, and Hell/Hades a third, based on how/where they died. I say "how/where" because it doesn't seem to matter whether their occupants were good/evil or saved/not saved if there are 3 repositories. Remember that two of them were then thrown into the lake of fire, which could mean they are no longer possible means of death (though leaving out the sea seems to be a mistake if "means" is the deciding factor), or it could mean that those two were oppressive and were being punished in some way, which is a personification and doesn't really make sense. Or it could mean that while the sea is a feature of geography, it is also a place where people die and their souls remain in some way, but in the new heavens and new earth it will only have the former connotation, not the latter, while the other two are not needed at all.
This sounds odd, but let's go a step further with the personification idea. The words Thalassa, Hades, and Thanatos all seem to have 2 meanings, one of which in each case is the name of a god in Greek mythology! Thalassa was a primordial goddess of the sea, Hades the ruler of the underworld (brother of Zeus and Poseidon), and Thanatos was the god of death (one reference said "peaceful death") [whose twin brother, ironically, was Hypnos (god of sleep)].
What if, then, those personifications are real, and that Thanatos and Hades are actual beings thrown into the lake of fire for the oppression that they visited on the souls in their possession, but Thalassa was not oppressive to "her" souls? Maybe those two were fallen angels, or "the devil's angels", as in whom the lake of fire was prepared for (Matt 25:24), and Thalassa was not. And maybe all three still maintained their assignments from prior to the Devil's fall, though it has some consequences that aren't very clear in a pre-fall/no-death world. It wouldn't be without precedent that some of the Devil's angels were named--Abaddon/Apollyon was named in Rev 9:11.
Yes, this is an odd line of thought. No, I don't think it has a lot of merit. But the verses quoted at the beginning are certainly odd already. I don't believe I've read too many commentaries dealing with them in any detailed manner that explains why the three aren't treated the same.
Derf
Well-known member
Pardon my jumping in here, Rosenritter.
Ez 28:9 is pretty clear that God is putting the prince of Tyre in his place--as a mere man, and not a god--so it can't be Satan. If there is a transition to talking about the devil (in vs 11 and 12, for instance), then there could easily be a transition back that is hard to detect, say at 28:18. That would explain why the reference to "your sanctuaries". What could it mean for Satan to defile his own sanctuaries? And if indeed the transition back to talking about the leader of Tyre or city of Tyre has occurred, then the "fire from the midst of thee" could easily have an interpretation of something that started inside the city, or inside the royal family. But what does a fire from the midst of Satan mean? The lake of fire referenced in Rev 20 is certainly not from the midst of Satan, is it, since the beast and false prophet were thrown in when Satan was banished to the pit.
I'd have to say that the connection between Ez 28 and Rev 20 is a pretty big stretch.
Ez 28:9 is pretty clear that God is putting the prince of Tyre in his place--as a mere man, and not a god--so it can't be Satan. If there is a transition to talking about the devil (in vs 11 and 12, for instance), then there could easily be a transition back that is hard to detect, say at 28:18. That would explain why the reference to "your sanctuaries". What could it mean for Satan to defile his own sanctuaries? And if indeed the transition back to talking about the leader of Tyre or city of Tyre has occurred, then the "fire from the midst of thee" could easily have an interpretation of something that started inside the city, or inside the royal family. But what does a fire from the midst of Satan mean? The lake of fire referenced in Rev 20 is certainly not from the midst of Satan, is it, since the beast and false prophet were thrown in when Satan was banished to the pit.
I'd have to say that the connection between Ez 28 and Rev 20 is a pretty big stretch.
Derf,
You are being enormously respectful of the actual wording in the staunch flow of Revelation by doing this. Obviously the Greek understanding points to the actual biblical understanding. I'm not sure what reaction you will get, but stick to your guns... this is the only way to rightly divide the verses as they naturally flow.
The key is finding those words in scripture that the similarity is bound to. Sea isn't a carnal reference... in the matter of things... it's a typified reference that leviathan in Job gives some light to.
If you miss the typification in Ezekiel... you'll be running practically blind through the links.
- EE
Lon
Well-known member
My understanding, (not speaking for an orthodox position because I don't know specifically): People who died on the earth, in the sea and the rest of those who had already died in Hades. -Lon
Rosenritter
New member
I am quite aware that God could create purple flying unicorns if he wished, but that still doesn't mean that we speak that such things actually exist. God could have created seventy spirit virgins awaiting martyrs who will ascend to heaven, but we don't say those exist just because it could be technically possible for God to have done it, in some other reality. This isn't about science, or the power of God, it's about honest clarity in communication.
In that same fashion, we don't speak of someone still existing after they have been reduced to their component elements of carbon, water vapor, and a few minerals. We don't speak of them still existing when they lack the capacity to see, hear, think, feel, or even know that they are dead. It's the same principle. You could argue that God could have made people automatically immortal, as spirits who can perceive and think without dust, but what he does tell us is that we are no more than that dust.
Ezekiel isn't the only prophecy that we were given prior to Revelation. We also have Isaiah 14, which dovetails very neatly with the Ezekiel account as well. The devil is laid before kings, who marvel that Lucifer is made as weak as them. His generation is cut off, and destroyed.
Revelation isn't a book made to be read in a vacuum. If God has given us detailed prophecy about the judgement and destruction of the devil in the day of Judgment when the dead are raised, then I think that Revelation should be read in light of that prophecy, not interpreted separate based on other ideas, and then the prior books adjusted to conform (or even set aside.)
Is Revelation from the perspective of a different realm? I contend not. I'll share some reasoning:
1) The dead that are raised in the judgment are raised to physical life, not immortality. They are raised upon the earth, not in heaven. The judgment is on earth, not in heaven. God's kingdom has been established on the earth during the past 1000 years. The world is ruled by God and belongs to God, and it has been this way for as long as any present mortal who lived unto this day can remember. There is no need to seek another venue.
Isaiah and Ezekiel both agree that this judgment of the devil is something that is witnessed by all. The men that are raised are corruptible for they have not received eternal life, heaven is not their proper element. And the lake of fire itself is on earth, it's the same location where the beast and false prophet were thrown that fought against Christ 1000 years earlier. This is where the devil is thrown, on the earth, in the sight of men.
Shall we suppose that there is a sight "from heaven" that is somehow different? My question would be, why should we suppose that? I cannot see where it gives any indication of such. And why would you simply make a physical show of destroying the devil, but preserve something that putrid and evil? For the entertainment of the saints?
The prophesies of old tell us that the devil will stand and be judged before all of creation, that they shall see him and marvel how one so mighty has been brought so low. All of creation is an awful lot of people. I tried doing the math the other night at how long that would be if each and every person got five minutes of time... and I tossed out the number.
Being cast down to the earth in front of those you worked to destroy, seeing them enter into life or your best work destroyed, that will happen. He will be tormented, not without reason, not without cause, not without purpose, he still has a part to play in this war that he started. He doesn't avoid that, but he will also be destroyed, and he doesn't escape that either. He will be tormented by judgment in that fire for ever, the last of his existence consists of that torment. Until there is no longer anyone left to judge, and then he shall be completely destroyed, and then he shall be no more.
"A view from heaven" that differs from this reality? That's an interesting idea, but I'd want to see something like that spelled out. If the plain reading of scripture makes common sense, there's no need to seek another sense.
In that same fashion, we don't speak of someone still existing after they have been reduced to their component elements of carbon, water vapor, and a few minerals. We don't speak of them still existing when they lack the capacity to see, hear, think, feel, or even know that they are dead. It's the same principle. You could argue that God could have made people automatically immortal, as spirits who can perceive and think without dust, but what he does tell us is that we are no more than that dust.
Ezekiel isn't the only prophecy that we were given prior to Revelation. We also have Isaiah 14, which dovetails very neatly with the Ezekiel account as well. The devil is laid before kings, who marvel that Lucifer is made as weak as them. His generation is cut off, and destroyed.
Spoiler
Revelation isn't a book made to be read in a vacuum. If God has given us detailed prophecy about the judgement and destruction of the devil in the day of Judgment when the dead are raised, then I think that Revelation should be read in light of that prophecy, not interpreted separate based on other ideas, and then the prior books adjusted to conform (or even set aside.)
Is Revelation from the perspective of a different realm? I contend not. I'll share some reasoning:
1) The dead that are raised in the judgment are raised to physical life, not immortality. They are raised upon the earth, not in heaven. The judgment is on earth, not in heaven. God's kingdom has been established on the earth during the past 1000 years. The world is ruled by God and belongs to God, and it has been this way for as long as any present mortal who lived unto this day can remember. There is no need to seek another venue.
Isaiah and Ezekiel both agree that this judgment of the devil is something that is witnessed by all. The men that are raised are corruptible for they have not received eternal life, heaven is not their proper element. And the lake of fire itself is on earth, it's the same location where the beast and false prophet were thrown that fought against Christ 1000 years earlier. This is where the devil is thrown, on the earth, in the sight of men.
Shall we suppose that there is a sight "from heaven" that is somehow different? My question would be, why should we suppose that? I cannot see where it gives any indication of such. And why would you simply make a physical show of destroying the devil, but preserve something that putrid and evil? For the entertainment of the saints?
The prophesies of old tell us that the devil will stand and be judged before all of creation, that they shall see him and marvel how one so mighty has been brought so low. All of creation is an awful lot of people. I tried doing the math the other night at how long that would be if each and every person got five minutes of time... and I tossed out the number.
Being cast down to the earth in front of those you worked to destroy, seeing them enter into life or your best work destroyed, that will happen. He will be tormented, not without reason, not without cause, not without purpose, he still has a part to play in this war that he started. He doesn't avoid that, but he will also be destroyed, and he doesn't escape that either. He will be tormented by judgment in that fire for ever, the last of his existence consists of that torment. Until there is no longer anyone left to judge, and then he shall be completely destroyed, and then he shall be no more.
"A view from heaven" that differs from this reality? That's an interesting idea, but I'd want to see something like that spelled out. If the plain reading of scripture makes common sense, there's no need to seek another sense.
Rosenritter
New member
Lon, yes, I have not yet seen anyone who claims that "souls are still alive after death" that has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation of how Jesus proved the resurrection of the dead before a hostile audience that would have been quick to point out an inconsistent or dishonest argument.
If Jesus believed that the dead were still alive, but made an argument as if they were not, then he is pretending that they are not for the purpose of his argument. I am sure at least one Sadducee would have pointed out the discrepancy. "But you believe that Abraham is currently alive whether he is resurrected or not, that doesn't prove the resurrection at all." Yet it tells us that the Sadducees were put completely to silence.
You yourself have said why it is that a supposed "600 million" may believe one way. It's because it's the way they were told, and they think (somehow) that they were told that because someone else has an answer. Most people don't read the Bible, they trust their tradition. And in this case the tradition same tradition that gave us Popes and purgatory and prayers to the dead and indulgences. In a church of sixty how many have basic understanding? Past basic understanding, how many have enough understanding to teach others? Past some basic teaching, how many have understanding to be able to adeptly defend against hostile attack, and past that, how many have understanding to actually win hearts and minds with the gospel? Granted, it's difficult to win anyone's heart with a gospel of "eternal conscious torment."
That six hundred million you cited (even if it were accurate) dwindles down pretty fast if it is reduced to Christians who know the scriptures to the point that they no longer rely the protection of "tradition" instead of pure scripture. And to illustrate this example, we have Martin Luther and William Tyndale in agreement on the state of the dead. They set aside the assumptions of tradition and started translating the Bible from its source. Do they need introduction? Martin Luther was the fulfillment of a prophecy and produced the scriptures for the German people. William Tyndale's dying prayer was answered and England no longer burned bibles, but in time even produced them for the world. That's a pretty sound testimony.
Which would be like saying that my computer is no different from a rock. In a sense, yes. It's basic minerals in a different rearrangement.
Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 KJV
(18) I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
(19) For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
(20) All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
(21) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Yet if I reduce my computer to its component elements, if I destroy it utterly, then it's just the same as if I ground that rock to powder. It doesn't continue to "live on" even if I had previously formed that computer into an artificial intelligence.
Yes to agreeing with your statements, and no to answer your question, because of technicality. Man is dust, man has physical existence and no other, yet he is animated by God's spirit of life, his mind can work with God's spirit, his very freedom of will is a testament that he has non-physical components. Yet upon death we are told the spirit returns to God who gave it, we are told that there is no perception of love, hatred, envy, or knowledge, trouble, or pains in death. This spirit is life from God. It gives us consciousness, it is not our consciousness itself. We do have non physical components, but without our dust, we don't function at all.
Judgment will either destroy us utterly (as in reduced to ashes) or change us in a fashion that is no longer corruptible, in the same fashion as the body of Christ was changed upon resurrection. Then we would be correctly called spirit, and not dust. Then even if we were to manifest in physical form, as Christ manifested after his resurrection, our nature would be spirit, and not dust.
Didn't see anything from Derf. No pause because I have no idea what you think his point was or whether it had any merit. I somehow suspect you may be confusing the English concept of "shall" with "will" and thus inferring a contradiction of some sort. Because all of your build-up statements were correct, and then you stopped... as if somehow something was supposed to go "Boom".... but nothing happened.
Perhaps in a philosophical sense, but the Bible wasn't written in that philosophical sense, and that isn't the way God talks to us. God says that fire is an excellent tool for destruction.
Deuteronomy 9:3 KJV
(3) Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.
He says that fire and flame burns, devours, and destroys.
Deuteronomy 7:5 KJV
(5) But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
Isaiah 10:17 KJV
(17) And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day;
Ezekiel 28:16-18 KJV
(16) By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
(17) Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
(18) Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
Bible concordances are an excellent way to attempt to redefine scripture with one's own theological opinion. Sola scriptures, Lon.
Peter also wanted to buy bread (because of the leaven of the Pharisees) and to sell his coat to purchase more swords. Did Jesus rebuke Peter or just tell him "two swords are plenty?" Did Jesus rebuke Peter on the mount or just tell him "Don't tell people about this vision until after I rise from the dead?" Peter was zealous, but sometimes he didn't understand what had happened until a little later.
What is there to explain Lon? I'm not sure I understand why you think this is particularly significant. Peter didn't understand what he saw, but he wanted to commemorate the vision because it seemed important. His heart was in the right place, he wasn't trying to be idolatrous.
If Jesus believed that the dead were still alive, but made an argument as if they were not, then he is pretending that they are not for the purpose of his argument. I am sure at least one Sadducee would have pointed out the discrepancy. "But you believe that Abraham is currently alive whether he is resurrected or not, that doesn't prove the resurrection at all." Yet it tells us that the Sadducees were put completely to silence.
You yourself have said why it is that a supposed "600 million" may believe one way. It's because it's the way they were told, and they think (somehow) that they were told that because someone else has an answer. Most people don't read the Bible, they trust their tradition. And in this case the tradition same tradition that gave us Popes and purgatory and prayers to the dead and indulgences. In a church of sixty how many have basic understanding? Past basic understanding, how many have enough understanding to teach others? Past some basic teaching, how many have understanding to be able to adeptly defend against hostile attack, and past that, how many have understanding to actually win hearts and minds with the gospel? Granted, it's difficult to win anyone's heart with a gospel of "eternal conscious torment."
That six hundred million you cited (even if it were accurate) dwindles down pretty fast if it is reduced to Christians who know the scriptures to the point that they no longer rely the protection of "tradition" instead of pure scripture. And to illustrate this example, we have Martin Luther and William Tyndale in agreement on the state of the dead. They set aside the assumptions of tradition and started translating the Bible from its source. Do they need introduction? Martin Luther was the fulfillment of a prophecy and produced the scriptures for the German people. William Tyndale's dying prayer was answered and England no longer burned bibles, but in time even produced them for the world. That's a pretty sound testimony.
Which would be like saying that my computer is no different from a rock. In a sense, yes. It's basic minerals in a different rearrangement.
Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 KJV
(18) I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
(19) For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
(20) All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
(21) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Yet if I reduce my computer to its component elements, if I destroy it utterly, then it's just the same as if I ground that rock to powder. It doesn't continue to "live on" even if I had previously formed that computer into an artificial intelligence.
Yes to agreeing with your statements, and no to answer your question, because of technicality. Man is dust, man has physical existence and no other, yet he is animated by God's spirit of life, his mind can work with God's spirit, his very freedom of will is a testament that he has non-physical components. Yet upon death we are told the spirit returns to God who gave it, we are told that there is no perception of love, hatred, envy, or knowledge, trouble, or pains in death. This spirit is life from God. It gives us consciousness, it is not our consciousness itself. We do have non physical components, but without our dust, we don't function at all.
Judgment will either destroy us utterly (as in reduced to ashes) or change us in a fashion that is no longer corruptible, in the same fashion as the body of Christ was changed upon resurrection. Then we would be correctly called spirit, and not dust. Then even if we were to manifest in physical form, as Christ manifested after his resurrection, our nature would be spirit, and not dust.
Didn't see anything from Derf. No pause because I have no idea what you think his point was or whether it had any merit. I somehow suspect you may be confusing the English concept of "shall" with "will" and thus inferring a contradiction of some sort. Because all of your build-up statements were correct, and then you stopped... as if somehow something was supposed to go "Boom".... but nothing happened.
Perhaps in a philosophical sense, but the Bible wasn't written in that philosophical sense, and that isn't the way God talks to us. God says that fire is an excellent tool for destruction.
Deuteronomy 9:3 KJV
(3) Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.
He says that fire and flame burns, devours, and destroys.
Deuteronomy 7:5 KJV
(5) But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
Isaiah 10:17 KJV
(17) And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day;
Ezekiel 28:16-18 KJV
(16) By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
(17) Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
(18) Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
Bible concordances are an excellent way to attempt to redefine scripture with one's own theological opinion. Sola scriptures, Lon.
Peter also wanted to buy bread (because of the leaven of the Pharisees) and to sell his coat to purchase more swords. Did Jesus rebuke Peter or just tell him "two swords are plenty?" Did Jesus rebuke Peter on the mount or just tell him "Don't tell people about this vision until after I rise from the dead?" Peter was zealous, but sometimes he didn't understand what had happened until a little later.
What is there to explain Lon? I'm not sure I understand why you think this is particularly significant. Peter didn't understand what he saw, but he wanted to commemorate the vision because it seemed important. His heart was in the right place, he wasn't trying to be idolatrous.
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: You gave me a dictionary, dictionary definition. At least, a Bible concordance would give you the actual word being used.
Sorry, I'm correct on this one.
Peter wanted to 'build tents' for each of them..... Think on this more. I don't think you are quite getting the implication.
Rosenritter
New member
Yes, you do destroy a log in fire. Unless you ate logs for breakfast this morning and are typing this on logs, yes, logs are destroyed in fire.
We are not simply animals, but the difference between man and animals is not in our ingredients. It is in how we are formed with those ingredients. Spirits are made of spirit, man and animals are made of flesh. Different types of flesh to be sure, but they are all formed out of the dust.
Imagine that I thought really highly of you. I mean, I think that Lon is THE Most awesome ping-pong player that ever lived. So make a statue to after you. Do I make this statue like Stonehenge? No, I make it look like Lon. With that orange tint on the skin and big eyebrows and everything, just like I see in your picture. I have now made a statue in your image. Is it because it is made of the same material? No, it is because of what is done with the material.
You mentioned emotions and drives. Do animals have emotions and drives? Yes, they do. Even a case in point of a friend who kept a large snake, showed emotion of anger and vengeance against a rat that hurt it, exacted slow painful death against it, but quickly killed the next one. Even reptiles, which seem so alien to us, do have emotions and drives.
You said soul. Do animals have souls? Yes, they do. Or rather, animals are living souls, just as you and I are. That's the language the bible uses, at least. That's how God talks.
Numbers 31:28 KJV
(28) And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the *****, and of the sheep:
Same Hebrew word used for the souls of men and animals in scripture. Soul is the whole, it is the whole of your being. It's not something that never dies. Souls die. Ezekiel 13:19, "to slay the souls that should not die, and to save souls alive that should not live..." and
Joshua 10:35 KJV
(35) And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish.
Joshua 11:11 KJV
(11) And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire.
Animals also have minds. They may have their limits, but they make conscious choices whether to obey or not. I have kept animals and I have seen this happen. They can be clever, they can test your limits to see what they can get away with, they can be obedient in heart and obey what they know you want, they can guard another person or animal on a train tracks for multiple days to see that their friend survives. And when their friends die, they mourn. No, the presence of "mind" isn't what decides the difference, because animals also have minds and some aspect of will.
Strength? I suppose we all have strength. That could be physical, but also refer to other types.
In all, remember, it is not the material that determines whether we are made in God's image, it is what is done with it. Monkeys are not made in God's image, horses are not made in God's image, bacteria are not made in God's image. Men and angels are creatures made in God's image. Different ingredients, one is dust and the other spirit, but we are given a capacity of choice and understanding that is not in the rest of creation.
If you wanted to say that "God is immortal, we are made in God's image, therefore we must be immortal" then why pick immortal? Why not pick "invisible" or "all knowing" or "almighty" or some other attribute? What about "without beginning or end of days?" Besides, it tells us immortality is a gift to be received.
And then there's this, probably the most important. If the "image of God" to you is simply "spirit" then the devil himself is the image of God. The devil is spirit and always has been spirit. "Image of God" cannot be referring to our material and ingredients, regardless of the physical to spiritual aspect thereof.
Rosenritter
New member
Except that we have two different translations, with two different meanings. Something changed.
Where does it say that unjust thrown into the lake of fire are not consumed? I know the devil isn't immediately consumed, but Ezekiel says he eventually will. Last I checked, men weren't more fireproof than Satan.
If a fire does not consume, neither does it harm. Do you have a passage saying the burning bush suffered harm? Here's what the scripture tells us about fire when it does not consume.
Daniel 3:25-27 KJV
(25) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
(26) Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.
(27) And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.
Do you know what the word "consume" means?
When a fire "consumes" something it burns it up. When something or someone is "burnt up" what they were is destroyed, it no longer remains what it was, they are gone. No more. That's the language scripture uses. The nature of a fire is that it consumes fuel. When something is consumed, it is used up. If it wasn't used up, it wouldn't be consumed, would it?
It is a very strange thing when a word like "consume" is turned inside out to where it must mean "preserved."
P.S. By the way, I've never commented about refiner's fire, let alone "scoffed" at refiner's fire.
Rosenritter
New member
Ezekiel 28:9 is speaking to a human. It's pretty clear from the literal text. I wasn't referencing Ezekiel 28:9
Ezekiel 28:8-10 KJV
(8) They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.
(9) Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.
(10) Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.
Notice how this man is slain by uncircumcised? He isn't slain by God, but he dies the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas. This Prince of Tyre (verse 2) is an entirely different entity than that addressed in the prophecy to follow.
I would agree that there is a different prophecy unto him who is now addressed as the King of Tyre in verse 11. And unlike the former prince (no pun intended) that is slain by uncircumcised in the midst of the sea, here's what we are told about the King of Tyre:
1) He is a created being that was in Eden the garden of God (verse 3)
2) He is an anointed cherub, he was on the holy mountain of God, and has walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire (verse 4)
3) He was perfect in his ways from the day he was created (that's twice it said created now) until iniquity was found in him
I don't think we can get any more detailed than that. If we were playing Clue the mystery would be solved.
We have the story of Eden, and there's only a few players. God, Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and an angel with a flaming sword afterwards. We know that Adam, Eve, and the angels are created beings. And out of these players, it is specified that he is an angel, specifically a cherub. So out of these angels, is it the Serpent or the guy with the sword guarding the gate afterwards? We are told that he sinned. See Isaiah 14, his name is Lucifer, whom we also know as Satan, the devil.
What does it mean for Lucifer to defile his sanctuaries? If he was given a charge of things to keep holy, and he defiled them, these are among his sins. Lucifer wasn't created for the intent of being evil, he was created perfect, and he chose evil.
What does a fire brought forth from the midst of Satan mean? It means throw Satan into the location, and regardless if you started a fire previously there or not, a fire is brought forth from his midst as the carcasses of his seed (those that are his children spiritually, who reject mercy and receive the wages of sin) fuel the biggest funeral pyre this planet has ever seen.
Yes, the beast and false prophet were destroyed by fire previously. It doesn't mean the fire was still burning the entire time, as it references the location of that lake of fire, but regardless, "from the midst" literally means location. If Satan is in the middle of that fire, the fire is brought forth from his midst as it is fueled. Fires need fuel or they burn out. Whether or not there was a pilot light in the meantime is irrelevant.