Are All Warnings Threats?

@BigDoggProblem

Warnings are threats when an intelligent being declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded.

I wrote of the arguably first warning from God to man. It does not seem to me to be about eternal punishment.

But this warning in the Old Testament is about God's intention to directly harm a certain case. But I will try to be concise.

God says that Amalek are a people with whom He will be at war with perpetually. He will fight against them in warfare forever. Why? Amalek represents "a hand against the throne" .

Exodus 17:14-16 -

"And Jehovah said to Moses, Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.

And Moses built an altar and called the name of it Jehovah - nissi.

For he said, For there is a hand against the throne of Jah! Jehovah will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

From The Life Study of Exodus by Witness Lee. [my bolding]

https://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchMinBooksDsp.cfm?id=295CC3C9D6

A. A Hand against the Throne of Jehovah

In Exodus 17:16 we see that Amalek is a hand against the throne of Jehovah. In the eyes of God, Amalek was considered a hand against God's throne. This indicates that Amalek tried to overthrow God's throne, just as Satan once tried to do. Exodus 17:16 says that because there is such a hand against the throne of Jehovah, God will have war with Amalek from generation to generation (Heb.). By this we see that Amalek is versus God's authority.

In the Old Testament Amalek (the first to attack Israel as she came into the Good Land) represents war with the authority of God. Amalek represents war against the kingdom of God and the government of God.

In reaction God will always be in warfare against Amalek.

The name Amalek means warlike. To be brief Amalek represents a jealousy that is warlike and perpetually against the authority of the one and only true God. God intends to war with the one at war with Him over His rightful authority.

The hand against the throne of God will suffer harm.
This implies a warning that a sin against morality is not as serious as a sin against the throne and eternal government of God.

@sonship said
@BigDoggProblem
I agree. All warnings of impending harm are not threats.

Warnings are threats when an intelligent being declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded.

Your subscribing to the interpretation of the bible which says that Jesus will literally be in Hell overseeing the eternal torture of billions of non Christians is apocalyptic hogwash.

Claiming that there will be aliens on other planets who will be warned and deterred, presumably during their natural lives, by being able to somehow observe this medieval debasement is further hogwash of a cartoon nature.

By the way, you saying to BDP that you “agree it’s him” and then misrepresenting what he he actually said is typical of your casual dishonesty in this forum sonship.

@divegeester

All warnings are not threats.

Jesus will burn you alive for eternity if you don’t believe in him.... is a warning and a threat; it is not credible, it is not real, but it is nefarious nevertheless.

In the thread Death Does Not Mean Non-existence I gave anyone ample opportunity to prove that death in the Bible is taught as non-existence.

I don't recall you making a good argument that it does.
Rather you repeat old claims that God will keep people alive to punish them.

You can have another opinion about the eternal punishment from what I have given in my limited interpretation of the passages.

But you didn't prove to this poster that God keeps people alive for eternal punishment. And you didn't prove to me that physical death puts the unreconciled beyond the reach of God's dealing with him.

When thinking of "billions" of people, I like to think about the unnumbered multitude of probably billions or more saved from every people, tribe, nation, and tongue. So your complaints about the exclusivity of salvation don't have that effect on my contemplation of final things.

After these things I saw, and behold, there was a great multitude which no one could number, out of every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes ... etc.

And they cry with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb." (See Rev. 7:9,10)

I think about this gargantuan multitude of those saved and brought into the new heaven and new earth for the blessings of eternal life.

I am impressed more with God drawing them from EVERY culture. So while you work hard to condemn me, a Christian, for exclusivity you make some presuppositions that I might not share.

And the scope of His mercy here is my stronger consideration.

Divegeesters says that I said I agreed with BigDogProblem in a deceitful way, putting words in his mouth.

No I didn't.

The question: Are All warnings Threats?

BDP's response:

Nope.

My agreement:

I agree. All warnings of impending harm are not threats.

I agreed with his "Nope". And I don't think me adding "All warnings of impending harm are not threats" was dishonestly putting words into his mouth.

The answer "Nope" is very brief. I thought a bit of expansion helped the exchange.

His second point was accepted by me basically. I tried to show where God did warn of His intention to harm by being at war from generation to generation with Amakek who depicted an assault against the authority of God's throne and eternal kingship.

There was nothing dishonest there.

@sonship said
Divegeesters says that I said I agreed with BigDogProblem in a deceitful way, putting words in his mouth.

No I didn't.

I'm pretty sure that BigDoggProblem believes your supserstitious fearmongering amounts to threats. If you agree with him, in an honest way, then that's good.

@FMF

I am pretty sure that he said all warnings are not threats.

I am pretty sure then all warnings to him do not constitute fear mongering.

He said "Nope" to that particular question.
And I think I understood the second comment he made.

You sound like you'd like to manipulate him to be in all respects a clone of your warped way of thinking about warnings.

BDP,

Elaborate yourself on anything additional you'd like me to know.

@sonship said
@FMF

I am pretty sure that he said all warnings are not threats.

I am pretty sure then all warnings to him do not constitute fear mongering.

He said "Nope" to that particular question.
And I think I understood the second comment he made.

You sound like you'd like to manipulate him to be in all respects a clone of your warped way of thinking about warnings.

Separating the word "nope" from the content of his answer, and seizing on that and ignoring what he said, serves your rhetorical purpose but one couldn't characterize it as honest discourse on your part.

@sonship said
BDP,

Elaborate yourself on anything additional you'd like me to know.

Why not just read what he said?

@sonship said
You sound like you'd like to manipulate him to be in all respects a clone of your warped way of thinking about warnings.

You are so obliviously self-centred that you don't even realize, after 14 years, that BigDoggProblem is not a poster who can be "manipulated" simply by engaging what he said and engaging you about what you said.

@FMF

If I had said "No (nope)" is ALL he wrote, that would be misrepresentative. I didn't.

You're saying his No was not No to that question.
If he meant to say YES, he could have said "Yep."

At any rate, I'll wait to hear from BDP. Since you boast that he doesn't need you, then demonstrate your confidence and butt out.

@sonship said
@FMF

If I had said "No (nope)" is ALL he wrote, that would be misrepresentative. I didn't.

You're saying his No was not No to that question.
If he meant to say YES, he could have said "Yep."

At any rate, I'll wait to hear from BDP. Since you boast that he doesn't need you, then demonstrate your confidence and butt out.

You should try to exhibit more integrity.

@FMF

You're spouting empty rhetoric.

To the question BDP said "Nope".

I agreed.

Then he wrote this.

Warnings are threats when an intelligent being declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded.

I proceeded to give him an example of what he said about "warnings are threats when ... declares intent to cause harm if the warning isn't heeded."

Insert "God" in "...".

Your only ground for a complaint is that my example was not good or not right. To tell the truth I have not been looking too carefully at your responses, as I have been interested to so what other than my usual responders might say.

And it all means nothing to you anyway.
And you "lack belief" in God and all that.

All integrity from this side is up front. The example from Exodus 17, some might argue, isn't quite a warning.

It is more clearly God visiting with intended harm the adversary and that perpetually in principle.

I would have to review the whole context of the Amalekites.

The Old Testament contains many pictures. The New Testament is like the caption underneath the pictures.

The principle of God having perpetual warfare is seen, to me probably the first time, in His declaring He will always be at war with Amalek.

The warflike enemy of God and His people indicated "a hand against the throne". Amalek represents a rebellion against the authority of God to BE God and to govern His creation. The rebellion stems from jealousy.

Now in the New Testament Christ says that the eternal fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. And in Matthew 25 there is a prophecy that some living human beings who refuse to be disassociated with the opposition party to Christ and His brothers down to the least of them go to co-join the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:41

"Then He will say to those on the left, Go away from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (v.41)

My point here is that these humans are sentenced to go into what was NOT originally intended for them. But because of their unreconciled revolt against conscience they JOIN the devil and his angels in that place prepared for them.

It seems that by this time the devil and his angels have not YET been sent there. For it has been "prepared for the devil and his angels".

These poor deceived humans must go into the second death before the devil and his angels.

Verse 46 indicates that the "eternal punishment" means "the eternal fire".

And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

I think it is not impossible that God regulate exactly what each lost person experiences in this second death. But I do not know for sure.

God regulated the furnace heat to the Hebrew boys in the book of Daniel. Not even their cloths were burnt when they finally came out of the flames. This was miraculous. And to me this indicates that God has control over how much harm He wants to inflict on the lost.

This is though harm. And this is warning. And you might say that it is threat OF that harm. Implicit - "Don't be like these people."

The backround of this prophecy like teaching is that at the end times some rebellious followers of the Antichrist will throw the Jews and Christians aside a public nuisances in favor of following the intolerant government of a man who proclaims himself as God.

You must read Revelation 14:6-13 to get the proper background events to the prophecy of Matthew 25:31-46.

Years ago I debated this. I think, with either RJHinds or Rajk999 (or maybe Robbie Carrobie).

It surprises me sometimes the things I have explained on this Forum that some people DON'T seem to remember. Yet other things thing never forget.

In years past, maybe not frequently, but on occasion I explained -

Some who live forever will not be born again.

These usually invites strenuous objection from some fellow Christians. But I am convinced by careful examination of the Bible.

In the eternal age of the new heaven and new earth there are the sons of God who constitute the New Jerusalem, being indwelt with God and brothers of Christ.

And then around them are nations of those who walk in the light of the "city" New Jerusalem. They are healed, restored, and shepherded by the sons of God.

The logic runs basically like this - If the sons of God are to reign forever and ever, there must be some over whom they reign. It should not mean that they reign over one another.

So in the book of life, I believe, will be the names of those over whom the sons of God reign. Their names are recorded for everlasting life but they are not indwelt by the life of God.

I debated this in years past, I think, with either RJHInds or Rajk999 or one of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the past like Robbie or Galveston. Possibly someone else questioned me about this.

I was not fast to embrace this understanding. Some post Brethren teachers convinced me that this was what we should expect in eternity. I found out about their teachings through messages by Witness Lee on the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Revelation. To me, very persuasive teaching, and edifying spiritually.

No one should hope in this as an excuse to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior with deliberateness.