glorydaz
Well-known member
Of course, because he was given eternal life when he believed.
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
Of course, because he was given eternal life when he believed.
Lon
Well-known member
Really quick: Grave, Hades, Paradise are all 'fluid' definitions depending 'when' in the Bible you are talking about such. You are correct: ECF's and importantly, after Christ, would have said that now, to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord as well.
Well, he was wrong of course and is there now. 2 Corinthians 5:8 Philippians 1:23
I'd have brought up those and a few other scriptures. :think:
By the way, I don't necessarily agree with everything Justin says, but when I read as he talks to the Jew, he is filled with earnest enthusiasm. His heart seems to be right. I couldn't understand what he was saying to the Greeks because when he switched into Greek culture mode it was very disorientating. Justin does say some things that sound strange like seemingly conflicting references of eternal fire (and Henry Constable had a very good item that finally made sense of that) but he does serve to evidence that at least at the time of 120 years after Christ's death, "going to heaven when you die" was an unorthodox minority, and that "immortal souls" as in "soul exists without the body" was considered the mistake of Greek philosophy and a denial of the resurrection. [/QUOTE] Understood. I disagree wholly that it was of Greek influence. Paul spoke much of being absent from the body. The thief on the cross was 'with' the Lord Jesus Christ in Paradise.
Rosenritter;5028951All of this said:
Lon
Well-known member
Remember we are just stacking information on each other's sheets and not likely to move.... For me, this is contrived. More specifically 'derivative' theology not expressly given by sound exegesis. The Lord Jesus Christ simply said "not...AS you see me (flesh and blood)."
Unrelated....
Rather, and as I've repeatedly said: They were/are in Hades/Paradise. Your mind forgets things or really doesn't read them, I think.
They were afraid of someone 'walking on water' at night. I would be too.
Rosenritter
New member
Hey Glordaz.
Glad to have you on board in this discussion. Would you do me a favor and look up the referenced passages as you go through this?
As for not seeing Jew and Gentile, when one character calls Abraham "father" and his five brothers have Moses and the prophets, he doesn't seem the least bit Jewish to you? Not even a little bit? John 8:39, Genesis 35:23, Luke 24:44. But even if you knew who this group of six brothers were, could "purple and fine linen" suggest anything as to who this mystery symbol might be? Symbols of royalty and kings? Genesis 49:9-12.
And when the other character is as the dogs that desire the scraps from the rich man's table, that doesn't sound at least a little bit familiar to you either? Matthew 15:24-27, Mark 7:26-28. That doesn't remind you of anything, say.... Gentile?
Abraham doesn't tell the rich man that his crime is ignoring Lazarus. He doesn't say that he's particular guilty of any sin at all, he says he is there because he received "good things" during his life time. Look it up and see. And why is Lazarus where he is? Not because of any virtue. But because he had formerly received "bad things" during his life.
Luke 16:25 KJV
(25) But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
But, I am so glad that someone finally mentioned sheep and goats. Because, you see, there's now a conflict between "Lazarus and the rich man" and "The parable of the sheep and the goats" in Matthew. By the way, I will also point out that just like the story of Lazarus and the rich man, "The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats" is not labeled as a parable. Except in this setting Jesus is referencing a real event that has been prophesied many times in scripture, the judgment of the dead that follows his triumphant return on earth. This, you see, actually does describe a real event and setting.
And what do we find here, but that the sheep and goats receiving denial and acceptance, each in total surprise.
Matthew 25:37-39 KJV
(37) Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
(38) When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
(39) Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
You would think that if the goats were being tormented for a couple thousand years, they would have had a clue something was up? That maybe they could just ask Old Father Abraham, the keeper of hell, for an explanation? And that if the sheep were being comforted in Paradise or Abraham's Bosom or whatever you want to call it, that they might have some clue that they would be received by Christ?
Matthew 25:44-45 KJV
(44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
(45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
This is describing a real event that will happen in the future. Obviously the sheep and goats are symbols... though if I wanted to imitate an inane argument I would yell "Not a parable" over and over again, "Jesus wouldn't trick us into thinking that animals had salvation" and the like. I'll allow that it is a parable, and that the sheep and goats are symbols.
But the setting is Christ's return, the resurrection from the dead, and which Christ will receive and which he rejects unto eternal punishment. Which by the way (and I will head this off) please note that this is an eternal punishment, and eternal punishment by fire is well known to result in death. When kings of the earth cast people into burning furnaces like they did Daniel's friends, it is a rare thing when they walk out alive, the exception that proves the rule.
You can't have it both ways though. If Lazarus and the rich man was meant to be the one and only surprise glimpse into the reality of the netherworld, never revealed before or after in scripture, then Jesus was plainly inaccurate in his description of the judgment in Matthew 25.
But if Jesus was accurate in his depiction of the judgment, the dead that are raised don't have hundreds or thousands of years of torment or bliss in Abraham's arms to prepare them for what happens next. They are surprised. If Jesus is describing the judgment in Matthew 25, he plainly could not have been attempting to instruct people that they are dead and tormented before the judgment.
So, which one is spoken as if it is giving a prophecy? I'd say Matthew 25. Does the interpretation of the symbolic elements change the meaning? No, it doesn't. We know what sheep and goats represent, they are archetypes of people, are determined by the heart.
So which one is not a prophecy, and thus need not be fulfilled, and begun in story style like all the other parables with fictional content? "There was a certain man" is how many a parable of this sort begins. Which one has symbols which, perhaps coincidentally, but perhaps not... happen to line up to other symbols in the Bible? Do these symbols imply different meaning? Yes, they do.
If Lazarus is a parable, does its meaning agree with other parables in the Bible? Yes, now it does.
If the sheep and the goats is correct, and the dead know nothing, does this also agree with the rest of scripture? Yes, it does.
If Lazarus is not a parable, does it agree with other scripture? No, it says the dead are tormented, rest of scripture says they know nothing.
If the sheep and the goats is incorrect, then why are the sheep and the goats surprised in the judgment? 2000 years of torment, forgotten so easily?
I keep hearing people say that they would like to believe differently. Except Way 2 Go, he's never said that. How many internal contradictions does the Eternal Conscious Torment interpretation have to cause before it starts to trigger some red flags? Keep Lazarus as "not a parable" and Matthew 25 now loses its credibility.
Glorydaz, if you truly believed that being beneath an unknown "age of majority" made someone "go to heaven when they died" then there is more than one way to Salvation, and that other way is not Jesus Christ but simply being killed while young. If you really and truly believed that, then if you truly loved your neighbor you would support genocide, mass abortion both voluntary and forced, and would feel justified in serial kidnapping and murder of young children. Let them grow up, and who knows what might happen. Odds are most will be tormented without end. Kill them early, and guarantee them a ticket to heaven.
My point being is that the logical conclusion of what you just said you believed is intuitively wrong. This is an example where we must stop and reexamine our assumptions and premises. Likewise, if you truly believed Lazarus and the rich man was not a parable, you would be inflicting "bad things" on your neighbors as much as possible, so that they would avoid the place of torment and instead be comforted.
John 3:16 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
That's the route for eternal life. Not "receiving bad things in your lifetime" and not "dying before the age of accountability." If an infant of days perishes, he shall be raised in the last day. How does this happen, you ask? Well, I would say, Adam managed to talk and name the animals on his first day, I imagine God could do the same. Or perhaps the child would be raised by foster parents until he is old enough, as at the rate of even 1 minute per person that ever lived, that means the judgment takes a very long time indeed.
Regardless, we needn't rely on an invented "age of accountability" doctrine (that aren't given to us in scripture anyway) to try to apologize for God. People came up with that because they don't mind him torturing men and women, but kids are too cute. But he isn't a monster that tortures anyone while they are dead. Seriously, what would be the point of that anyway?
I can speculate the details of how God handles the details of judgment and resurrection, but the facts are that we are told that faith in Jesus is the only way to eternal life, not dying young or receiving bad things.
Anyway, I sincerely hope you don't believe in that Salvation of Age of Accountability thing. Because if you acted on it, bad things would happen.
Peace Glory. I don't say this to make you mad. It's because God's love is far greater and his justice much more pure than this "Eternal Conscious Torment" fable. Such is a terrible insult to God's character and need be confronted.
Luke 13:2-5 KJV
(2) And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
(3) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
(4) Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
(5) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Those who died weren't special in any way, not especially sinners, but we are told that those who do not repent would "perish" likewise. "Perish" means death. In the actual sense. Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't specifically say that those victims were not especially sinners. Unless you think that every single victim was destined for torment before judgment to soften them up for the punishment to follow?
What would be the point of punishing them, then taking them out of punishment, then try them, and then punish them all over again? Why not just leave them there?
Glad to have you on board in this discussion. Would you do me a favor and look up the referenced passages as you go through this?
That's the nature of parables, Glorydaz. It speaks on a level other than literal. When the story is surrounded by parables, what makes you think he would suddenly switch out of parable format without any warning?
As for not seeing Jew and Gentile, when one character calls Abraham "father" and his five brothers have Moses and the prophets, he doesn't seem the least bit Jewish to you? Not even a little bit? John 8:39, Genesis 35:23, Luke 24:44. But even if you knew who this group of six brothers were, could "purple and fine linen" suggest anything as to who this mystery symbol might be? Symbols of royalty and kings? Genesis 49:9-12.
And when the other character is as the dogs that desire the scraps from the rich man's table, that doesn't sound at least a little bit familiar to you either? Matthew 15:24-27, Mark 7:26-28. That doesn't remind you of anything, say.... Gentile?
Spoiler
Abraham doesn't tell the rich man that his crime is ignoring Lazarus. He doesn't say that he's particular guilty of any sin at all, he says he is there because he received "good things" during his life time. Look it up and see. And why is Lazarus where he is? Not because of any virtue. But because he had formerly received "bad things" during his life.
Luke 16:25 KJV
(25) But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
But, I am so glad that someone finally mentioned sheep and goats. Because, you see, there's now a conflict between "Lazarus and the rich man" and "The parable of the sheep and the goats" in Matthew. By the way, I will also point out that just like the story of Lazarus and the rich man, "The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats" is not labeled as a parable. Except in this setting Jesus is referencing a real event that has been prophesied many times in scripture, the judgment of the dead that follows his triumphant return on earth. This, you see, actually does describe a real event and setting.
And what do we find here, but that the sheep and goats receiving denial and acceptance, each in total surprise.
Matthew 25:37-39 KJV
(37) Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
(38) When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
(39) Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
You would think that if the goats were being tormented for a couple thousand years, they would have had a clue something was up? That maybe they could just ask Old Father Abraham, the keeper of hell, for an explanation? And that if the sheep were being comforted in Paradise or Abraham's Bosom or whatever you want to call it, that they might have some clue that they would be received by Christ?
Matthew 25:44-45 KJV
(44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
(45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
This is describing a real event that will happen in the future. Obviously the sheep and goats are symbols... though if I wanted to imitate an inane argument I would yell "Not a parable" over and over again, "Jesus wouldn't trick us into thinking that animals had salvation" and the like. I'll allow that it is a parable, and that the sheep and goats are symbols.
But the setting is Christ's return, the resurrection from the dead, and which Christ will receive and which he rejects unto eternal punishment. Which by the way (and I will head this off) please note that this is an eternal punishment, and eternal punishment by fire is well known to result in death. When kings of the earth cast people into burning furnaces like they did Daniel's friends, it is a rare thing when they walk out alive, the exception that proves the rule.
You can't have it both ways though. If Lazarus and the rich man was meant to be the one and only surprise glimpse into the reality of the netherworld, never revealed before or after in scripture, then Jesus was plainly inaccurate in his description of the judgment in Matthew 25.
But if Jesus was accurate in his depiction of the judgment, the dead that are raised don't have hundreds or thousands of years of torment or bliss in Abraham's arms to prepare them for what happens next. They are surprised. If Jesus is describing the judgment in Matthew 25, he plainly could not have been attempting to instruct people that they are dead and tormented before the judgment.
So, which one is spoken as if it is giving a prophecy? I'd say Matthew 25. Does the interpretation of the symbolic elements change the meaning? No, it doesn't. We know what sheep and goats represent, they are archetypes of people, are determined by the heart.
So which one is not a prophecy, and thus need not be fulfilled, and begun in story style like all the other parables with fictional content? "There was a certain man" is how many a parable of this sort begins. Which one has symbols which, perhaps coincidentally, but perhaps not... happen to line up to other symbols in the Bible? Do these symbols imply different meaning? Yes, they do.
If Lazarus is a parable, does its meaning agree with other parables in the Bible? Yes, now it does.
If the sheep and the goats is correct, and the dead know nothing, does this also agree with the rest of scripture? Yes, it does.
If Lazarus is not a parable, does it agree with other scripture? No, it says the dead are tormented, rest of scripture says they know nothing.
If the sheep and the goats is incorrect, then why are the sheep and the goats surprised in the judgment? 2000 years of torment, forgotten so easily?
I keep hearing people say that they would like to believe differently. Except Way 2 Go, he's never said that. How many internal contradictions does the Eternal Conscious Torment interpretation have to cause before it starts to trigger some red flags? Keep Lazarus as "not a parable" and Matthew 25 now loses its credibility.
Glorydaz, if you truly believed that being beneath an unknown "age of majority" made someone "go to heaven when they died" then there is more than one way to Salvation, and that other way is not Jesus Christ but simply being killed while young. If you really and truly believed that, then if you truly loved your neighbor you would support genocide, mass abortion both voluntary and forced, and would feel justified in serial kidnapping and murder of young children. Let them grow up, and who knows what might happen. Odds are most will be tormented without end. Kill them early, and guarantee them a ticket to heaven.
My point being is that the logical conclusion of what you just said you believed is intuitively wrong. This is an example where we must stop and reexamine our assumptions and premises. Likewise, if you truly believed Lazarus and the rich man was not a parable, you would be inflicting "bad things" on your neighbors as much as possible, so that they would avoid the place of torment and instead be comforted.
John 3:16 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
That's the route for eternal life. Not "receiving bad things in your lifetime" and not "dying before the age of accountability." If an infant of days perishes, he shall be raised in the last day. How does this happen, you ask? Well, I would say, Adam managed to talk and name the animals on his first day, I imagine God could do the same. Or perhaps the child would be raised by foster parents until he is old enough, as at the rate of even 1 minute per person that ever lived, that means the judgment takes a very long time indeed.
Regardless, we needn't rely on an invented "age of accountability" doctrine (that aren't given to us in scripture anyway) to try to apologize for God. People came up with that because they don't mind him torturing men and women, but kids are too cute. But he isn't a monster that tortures anyone while they are dead. Seriously, what would be the point of that anyway?
I can speculate the details of how God handles the details of judgment and resurrection, but the facts are that we are told that faith in Jesus is the only way to eternal life, not dying young or receiving bad things.
Anyway, I sincerely hope you don't believe in that Salvation of Age of Accountability thing. Because if you acted on it, bad things would happen.
Peace Glory. I don't say this to make you mad. It's because God's love is far greater and his justice much more pure than this "Eternal Conscious Torment" fable. Such is a terrible insult to God's character and need be confronted.
Luke 13:2-5 KJV
(2) And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
(3) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
(4) Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
(5) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Those who died weren't special in any way, not especially sinners, but we are told that those who do not repent would "perish" likewise. "Perish" means death. In the actual sense. Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't specifically say that those victims were not especially sinners. Unless you think that every single victim was destined for torment before judgment to soften them up for the punishment to follow?
What would be the point of punishing them, then taking them out of punishment, then try them, and then punish them all over again? Why not just leave them there?
Rosenritter
New member
This is not unrelated Lon. It seems that your entire "The Pharisees believed dead men were conscious immediately upon death" is based upon one passage, and taking the word "spirits" in that passage to mean "dead men who turn to ghosts" rather than "created spirits."
So giving you example of how the Bible uses "spirits" in context is relevant. ENTIRELY relevant. This is one of those foundation building blocks that you've used for your assumptions of ECT, and it seems to be a bit contrived.
Paul was a Pharisee, taught as a Pharisee, and he said the difference was the resurrection of the dead. Angels and spirits are simply that, angels and spirits. The bible talks of angels and spirits. It does not tell us that we are conscious when we are dead. I haven't yet seen anything that would show that even one Pharisee believed that.
I have, however, heard that argument before, and suspected it that your belief was based on substituting "spirits of dead people are conscious" for "spirits" in that passage. I didn't want to put words or arguments in your mouth, so I needed to hear it from you.
So giving you example of how the Bible uses "spirits" in context is relevant. ENTIRELY relevant. This is one of those foundation building blocks that you've used for your assumptions of ECT, and it seems to be a bit contrived.
Paul was a Pharisee, taught as a Pharisee, and he said the difference was the resurrection of the dead. Angels and spirits are simply that, angels and spirits. The bible talks of angels and spirits. It does not tell us that we are conscious when we are dead. I haven't yet seen anything that would show that even one Pharisee believed that.
I have, however, heard that argument before, and suspected it that your belief was based on substituting "spirits of dead people are conscious" for "spirits" in that passage. I didn't want to put words or arguments in your mouth, so I needed to hear it from you.
Remember we are just stacking information on each other's sheets and not likely to move.... For me, this is contrived. More specifically 'derivative' theology not expressly given by sound exegesis. The Lord Jesus Christ simply said "not...AS you see me (flesh and blood)."
Unrelated....
Rather, and as I've repeatedly said: They were/are in Hades/Paradise. Your mind forgets things or really doesn't read them, I think.
They were afraid of someone 'walking on water' at night. I would be too.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Perhaps.......if I can tolerate your condescending attitude long enough to do so.
Besides which, these posts are too darn long, as I've already pointed out. One wrong stroke of the key and I lose everything.
I understand the nature of parables just fine. :doh:
The parables were the lead up to the warning we see about the after life.
Yes, he does seem to be "the least bit Jewish" to me. :doh:
It's the Gentile, I don't see. One man was rich and another was a beggar, but they were both Jews.
Well, if I reached really really hard I could turn this Lazarus into a Gentile, but I hate reaching way off in left field that way. :chuckle:
Spoiler
Oh, so you'll make Lazarus into a Gentile because he would have been satisfied with the crumbs of the rich man's table? So there were no beggar Jews, is that your claim? And what of the sores that were left to fester. Is there something there that points to the Gentiles?
No, the wealthy Jew had no mercy for his fellow man. Jesus is not saying his wealth was a sin, but his lack of mercy was a sin. It's a fact that those who love money are comfortable in this life while those who are not greedy are poor. You're reaching off into outer space now.
I will address the rest of this "far reaching" post of yours on my next response.
Lon
Well-known member
Realize, again, that I said the Lord Jesus Christ corrected the Pharisees as well: "God of the living." So rather, it is of more importance to me, that the Lord Jesus Christ said it, whether the Pharisees agreed, or believed, or not.
I don't see it. :idunno:
I yet find it irrelevant, but on this, I need to correct and clarify: I don't believe in ghosts visible on the earth persay, if that is what you are saying. The disciples were afraid and assumed, not me. Rather, I then told you what the text did and did not say. Scripture did not contradict any spirits exist, but that they are not seen. Anything else, and you are going to have to ask. See Matthew 27:50-54 Matthew 17:1-13 etc. I believe these passages and believe they 'saw' beings.
glorydaz
Well-known member
You're a nut....that must be why I like you so much.
Nope, when Christians get executed they go to be with the Lord.
When a sinner is executed, he waits in hades until the Judgment.
Rosenritter
New member
No Lon, Justin wasn't wrong there. And if you believed as I do that the scripture is correct when it talks about death, the state of death, and the resurrection, you would also understand that there is no conflict with either 2 Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:23 as well. I'll walk us through this, from angles and you'll see. But first, the full context:
2 Corinthians 5:1-10 KJV
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
(2) For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
(3) If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
(4) For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
(5) Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
(6) Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(7) (For we walk by faith, not by sight
(8) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
(9) Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
(10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
I see this passage and I immediately know that Paul is speaking of the resurrection body that he has previously spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15, for he even invokes the same words, "mortality might be swallowed up of life" 1 Cor 15:54. We know that our house is from heaven, because it is from God, and God is returning from heaven to earth when he will raise the dead. Paul also tell us at this time, at Christ's return, at this time we receive our heavenly body and are changed, from mortality to immortality. Paul tells us that while we are in this mortal body, we are not yet with the Lord. This is common sense. Those that perish become absent, and if you believe his previous gospel in 1 Corithians 15, you know that their next instant is being changed at that resurrection of the dead.
Read it carefully, please, because you also misquoted the passage. You substituted "absent from the body is present with the Lord" when that's not what it says. You spoke as if it was saying they were opposite sides of a coin. Read the text as its written, and rather it's a sequence of events. Which if one believes what the rest of the Bible says about the state of death, it is perfectly consistent.
First absent from the body (dead) and then present with the lord (alive) at the resurrection of the dead. Just like he spent the whole chapter preaching in 1 Corinthians 15.
He also previously specifically says that we shall not be found unclothed. Yet this clothing of immortality that he speaks of is only given to us at the resurrection. So one moment clothed in mortality (absent from the Lord today), the next clothed in immortality (with the Lord at his return.)
But if we use your assumption that the dead are lounging in Abraham's Bosom, they are unclothed because they have not yet been clothed upon with immortality. Why? Because Paul says this is only received at the resurrection, and until then we are flesh and blood! Flesh and blood, I might add, which he says does not inherit the kingdom of God.
My interpretation doesn't require 2 Corinthians 5 to contradict itself within a few verses, or to contradict Paul's earlier sermon in 1 Corinthians 15. Nor does it stand at odds with the previous description of the meaning and effect of death in the rest of holy scripture. Those are problems that only occur when "Absent from the body ispresent with the Lord" is substituted, a phrase, I might add, that doesn't occur in any Bible translation, anywhere.
And I'll add that I've a friend that has checked every single bible translation available to him looking for that phrase, just in case some rogue bible did translate it like that, and it hasn't been found. If you know of one, please show me. Otherwise, please use the actual text.
Philippians 1:23-24 KJV
(23) For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
(24) Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.
If one believes that death is the lack of experience (and the Bible does speak clearly and directly when it says this, not in parable) then one moment one perishes and the next he is raised with Christ at the final trump. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN.
Just like Martin Luther said. Martin also believed those same scriptures. And why not? He translated the entire bible start to finish! He got to read the whole thing the way it was supposed to be read!
"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord."
@Lon, why would you imply that this somehow supported your position, and opposed mine?
glorydaz
Well-known member
That's because neither are parables. They are both true life events.
"Old Father Abraham" was not the "keeper of hell". You can't really be that clueless, can you?
Abraham was in the upper chamber of Hades (Paradise) until the Lord rose from the dead. He was no gate keeper of hell, and I have to think you are ignoring everything that's been said to you on that subject. :nono:
The sheep who were in comfort undoubtedly thought they had been far from perfect in their lives, and only knew they were waiting. They didn't realize their every act of kindness had been recorded. And those who had been suffering torment were surprised that all their failures to show mercy were actually being done to the Lord. I see nothing strange about it.
So you're trying to imply that when the Lord is referred to as a Lamb, it's a parable? That's just plain silly. A little common sense will go a long way here.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Of course I can't have it both ways. That burning bush just burnt right up into piles of ash in nothing flat.
And I've never claimed this was the one and only glimpse into the nether world because that's far from the case. It's been referenced throughout the OT. I would go so far as to say the knowledge of such has been created in us...just as the knowledge of the Godhead has been. It's why the Bible uses terms like "he was gathered to his people".
Genesis 25:8 Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.
It is a time of judgement....not instruction.
:chuckle:
Nope, both are true for the time they were written. After the cross, Paradise (Abraham's bosom) moved up to the third heaven to await the redemption of our bodies.
Rosenritter
New member
Lon, this is very important that we get past this. It seems that there's a wall or such here obstructing things.
God is the God of the Living because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be raised in the resurrection. This is what Jesus said. Jesus did not say He was the God of the Living because Abraham existed in another realm. He did say that "AS TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION" and "THAT THEY RISE" that because God said he was their God, and still their God, this was proof that they would rise. Please tell me, why did Jesus say this was to prove the resurrection if it was really to disprove the resurrection? Because if the dead are in Paradise and aware, then God is the God of a Living Abraham without need of a future resurrection! And Christ has destroyed his own argument!
Your forced interpretation is making literal nonsense of Christ's words. You've taken part of a passage and formed a doctrine around it, ignoring context. I say "you" but as previously evidenced, that argument has been around since Sir Thomas More. It was challenged by the Reformers and to my knowledge, never answered.
Please answer directly then: source text again,
Acts 23:6-9 KJV
(6) But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
(7) And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
(8) For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
(9) And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
1. What are the two things that the Pharisees confessed? What is the first thing, and what is the second thing? Does it say three things? or two?
2. If you chose "angel or spirit" as the second item, are these terms used as synonyms in verse 9? Or at least items of similar nature?
3. What is "an angel" and what is "a spirit" with this context? Because it seemed that your entire allegation that the Pharisees believed that the dead were conscious rested upon the word "spirit" meaning "dead people who are conscious" rather than a created spirit being.
Psalms 104:4 KJV
(4) Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Hebrews 1:6-7 KJV
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
The Pharisees believed that God created thees spirits called angels (and devils) where the Sadducee denied such. The Pharisee believed in the resurrection of the dead, where the Sadducee denied such. Nothing is said at all about "believing the dead were conscious" and why would it? Unlike the Sadducee which rejected all of scripture except the books of Moses, the Pharisees acknowledged the whole scripture, including the books that told us that death is the absence of feeling, awareness, emotion, love, hatred, envy, or the ability to even know you are dead!
* * *
Matthew 27:50 KJV
(50) Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
OK.... he yielded up the ghost. You realize that's not the same as a person being conscious while dead, right? When someone "gives up the ghost" they die because the spirit which belongs to God that grants life returns to him. That same breath that God breathed into Adam and Eve.
Job 33:4 KJV
(4) The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Job 34:14-15 KJV
(14) If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
(15) All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.
That "spirit" of life in man isn't the man, it's what is on loan from God. That's what returns to God when one dies, and it doesn't matter if that person was good or evil.
Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 KJV
(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?
God will restore life in the resurrection, but that spirit isn't spoken of as if it is a person, it is one spirit that belongs to God. "His spirit" it says, not "their spirits."
Yes, they certainly saw something. Jesus said they saw a vision.
Matthew 17:9 KJV
(9) And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
So let's consider these possibilities:
1) The apostles saw a reality. In this case, why were they told it was a vision?
2) The apostles saw a vision, and it was in their minds. Mental illusion. No additional actors were necessary.
3) The apostles saw a vision, but anyone who was in the vicinity would have seen it. Physical illusion. No additional actors were necessary.
4) God raised Moses and Elijah out of some ethereal realm where they were previously conscious to partake of this vision. They played themselves.
5) God pulled Moses and Elijah from the dead to partake of this vision. They played themselves.
6) God used two angels to play the parts of Moses and Elijah.
It seems as if you are gravitating towards numbers 1 and 4. Can you explain why this is a preferable interpretation to the others? Because 2, 3, 5 and 6 all seem like valid options, and none of those run afoul of the Old Testament that tells us the dead are dead without ability to praise God, none of these would necessitate contradiction. It seems to me that a contradictory interpretation should be last on our list, not first.
By the way, as a side question, I have never seen what Moses or Elijah looked like. They Hebrews weren't big on making images. Why do you suppose they thought it was Moses and Elijah?
God is the God of the Living because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be raised in the resurrection. This is what Jesus said. Jesus did not say He was the God of the Living because Abraham existed in another realm. He did say that "AS TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION" and "THAT THEY RISE" that because God said he was their God, and still their God, this was proof that they would rise. Please tell me, why did Jesus say this was to prove the resurrection if it was really to disprove the resurrection? Because if the dead are in Paradise and aware, then God is the God of a Living Abraham without need of a future resurrection! And Christ has destroyed his own argument!
Your forced interpretation is making literal nonsense of Christ's words. You've taken part of a passage and formed a doctrine around it, ignoring context. I say "you" but as previously evidenced, that argument has been around since Sir Thomas More. It was challenged by the Reformers and to my knowledge, never answered.
Please answer directly then: source text again,
Acts 23:6-9 KJV
(6) But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
(7) And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
(8) For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
(9) And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
1. What are the two things that the Pharisees confessed? What is the first thing, and what is the second thing? Does it say three things? or two?
2. If you chose "angel or spirit" as the second item, are these terms used as synonyms in verse 9? Or at least items of similar nature?
3. What is "an angel" and what is "a spirit" with this context? Because it seemed that your entire allegation that the Pharisees believed that the dead were conscious rested upon the word "spirit" meaning "dead people who are conscious" rather than a created spirit being.
Psalms 104:4 KJV
(4) Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Hebrews 1:6-7 KJV
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
The Pharisees believed that God created thees spirits called angels (and devils) where the Sadducee denied such. The Pharisee believed in the resurrection of the dead, where the Sadducee denied such. Nothing is said at all about "believing the dead were conscious" and why would it? Unlike the Sadducee which rejected all of scripture except the books of Moses, the Pharisees acknowledged the whole scripture, including the books that told us that death is the absence of feeling, awareness, emotion, love, hatred, envy, or the ability to even know you are dead!
* * *
Matthew 27:50 KJV
(50) Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
OK.... he yielded up the ghost. You realize that's not the same as a person being conscious while dead, right? When someone "gives up the ghost" they die because the spirit which belongs to God that grants life returns to him. That same breath that God breathed into Adam and Eve.
Job 33:4 KJV
(4) The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Job 34:14-15 KJV
(14) If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
(15) All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.
That "spirit" of life in man isn't the man, it's what is on loan from God. That's what returns to God when one dies, and it doesn't matter if that person was good or evil.
Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 KJV
(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?
God will restore life in the resurrection, but that spirit isn't spoken of as if it is a person, it is one spirit that belongs to God. "His spirit" it says, not "their spirits."
Yes, they certainly saw something. Jesus said they saw a vision.
Matthew 17:9 KJV
(9) And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
So let's consider these possibilities:
1) The apostles saw a reality. In this case, why were they told it was a vision?
2) The apostles saw a vision, and it was in their minds. Mental illusion. No additional actors were necessary.
3) The apostles saw a vision, but anyone who was in the vicinity would have seen it. Physical illusion. No additional actors were necessary.
4) God raised Moses and Elijah out of some ethereal realm where they were previously conscious to partake of this vision. They played themselves.
5) God pulled Moses and Elijah from the dead to partake of this vision. They played themselves.
6) God used two angels to play the parts of Moses and Elijah.
It seems as if you are gravitating towards numbers 1 and 4. Can you explain why this is a preferable interpretation to the others? Because 2, 3, 5 and 6 all seem like valid options, and none of those run afoul of the Old Testament that tells us the dead are dead without ability to praise God, none of these would necessitate contradiction. It seems to me that a contradictory interpretation should be last on our list, not first.
By the way, as a side question, I have never seen what Moses or Elijah looked like. They Hebrews weren't big on making images. Why do you suppose they thought it was Moses and Elijah?
Rosenritter
New member
... and that is writ where?
Rosenritter
New member
... but the goats thought there was nothing unusual or foreboding about being tormented in flame for a couple thousand years?
Of course not, they just thought it was natural. No big deal, you get used to it after a while, right?
Of course not, they just thought it was natural. No big deal, you get used to it after a while, right?
Rosenritter
New member
Glorydaz, the bible is very good about being its own legend for symbols, even down to specific word phrases. If you find a word or phrase in one place, and look where it occurs elsewhere, it very often chains together.
Yes, Lazarus is associated with dogs, and even specifically from the recorded gospel, it records Jesus using and recognizing that exact same phrase "dog" and even that phrase "crumbs from the rich man's table" for the Gentile. Specifically, the Gentile who were not of the house of Israel. Why would those details even be in the account? Because that has a specific meaning and association. "Dog" was Jewish slang for "Gentile."
Mark 12:6-9 KJV
(6) Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
(7) But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
(8) And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
(9) What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
This is also consistent with other parables,
Luke 20:14-16 KJV
(14) But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
(15) So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
(16) He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
.... and later Paul himself explains that the Gentile has been grafted in where Israel used to be. Where the Jew rejected their savior, those that they had looked down upon were moved in. Since then the Jewish has had no more prophets, no more temple, and have wandered the earth. The Gentile peoples accepted Christ and were moved into their place. That which was before unclean has been declared clean.
Yes, Lazarus is associated with dogs, and even specifically from the recorded gospel, it records Jesus using and recognizing that exact same phrase "dog" and even that phrase "crumbs from the rich man's table" for the Gentile. Specifically, the Gentile who were not of the house of Israel. Why would those details even be in the account? Because that has a specific meaning and association. "Dog" was Jewish slang for "Gentile."
Mark 12:6-9 KJV
(6) Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
(7) But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
(8) And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
(9) What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
This is also consistent with other parables,
Luke 20:14-16 KJV
(14) But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
(15) So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
(16) He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
.... and later Paul himself explains that the Gentile has been grafted in where Israel used to be. Where the Jew rejected their savior, those that they had looked down upon were moved in. Since then the Jewish has had no more prophets, no more temple, and have wandered the earth. The Gentile peoples accepted Christ and were moved into their place. That which was before unclean has been declared clean.
Spoiler
Rosenritter
New member
How do you get more "Jewish" than Judah himself? This begs the question, did all these details just happen to line up by accident?
Rosenritter
New member
A beheading by men is not an eternal punishment. Men don't have that power. I'm in agreement with Way 2 Go this time.
Lon
Well-known member
Okay, from your perspective, I see your consistency, now mine:
2 Corinthians 5:1-10 KJV
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Our flesh.
(2) For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: Different body, not affect/infected by sin and death
(3) If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. "Inbetween, alive without a body - naked.
(4) For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Thus a longing to depart this life and be with God, clothed in Him. 1 John 3:2
(5) Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. So, we believers have His Spirit in/with us as well. Can God die? Sleep? :nono: Be removed? :nono:
(6) Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: Thus, away from our body conversely, then 'with' the Lord. There is no reason for this to be brought up otherwise. To be absent from the body IS to be present with the Lord. It is incredibly clear as far as I and the rest of the church read this.
(7) (For we walk by faith, not by sight
Yep, who else but a believer, with this belief, exactly as I have stated, 'would' want to 'be with the Lord" which means dying and exiting this particular life? Just us. We walk by faith. Sight is for flesh dwellers.(8) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Boom and proved imho.
(9) Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. Because whether we live or die, we are the Lord's Romans 14:8
(10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
For the whole church and I, very clear as well as consistent. My hope being, regardless of your disagreement, you'll see and note the consistency of your opposition in the church.
Understood to here.
:nono: It 'USED' to be that. You have to understand that places are 'fluid' as the Bible progresses. Paradise, as I've told you, was next to/part of Hades. Not any longer. Today, to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord specifically for believers. This promise, in our view, is ONLY for believers. The rest still go to Hades, that which is thrown into the Lake of Fire. Small mistakes like this will never have you understanding our view entirely. You have to remember the fluidity of before and after the Lord Jesus Christ's death burial and resurrection.
:think: 2Co 5:8 θαρροῦμεν δὲ καὶ εὐδοκοῦμεν μᾶλλον ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν Κύριον.
Emboldened, Moreover, and would rather moreso that [we]be out of the body and be home with the Lord.
-seems clear enough, what were you looking for?
Meh, I can read Greek a bit, had a year of Hebrew.
As we continue, we read our views into texts and they interesting line up, no? I have to likely remind you, there are two passages that disallow me from being an annihilationist. Unless there is a clear scripture, and there hasn't been one given for 2000+ years, the church will not acquiesce. As I also said, I think your position, if you are wrong, will be a lie to unbelievers as well. You can call it a 'mistake' but after you've told them they are to be annihilated, and they live forever, they will also hate you for it much more, forever. My view? They won't even know I was wrong a second later, and happier I was wrong. -Lon
glorydaz
Well-known member
I do believe that, and Jesus is the way, for He tells us theirs is the kingdom of heaven. What, you don't believe Him? You think the wicked will just die off but the innocent won't be saved? :chew:
Another foolish thing to say. In fact, it's something that should not even be spoken of it's so evil. It just so happens that I do not consider myself to be a god, as you seem to suggest I should, but trust fully in the One True God to do His work. I don't support.....you know what? I can't even stand to speak of the horrors you blatantly suggest I should "support".
And another thing to stir you up......I do believe that this horrible abortion epidemic that has come into this evil world of sin is actually a blessing for those poor little souls who would be raised by drug addicts and child abusers. I advise against it only for the sake of the woman. I believe it's God's mercy in these last days. Suffer the little children to come unto Him. And, I don't give a rip what you think about it.
No, your "point" is evil human conjecture to prove a point you can't prove without accusing others of being ignorant and calling the Lord Jesus Christ a teller of fables and fairy tails. You should be ashamed of yourself.