Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe only reprobate here is you.
I agree one again your thread is being reduced to a farcical state by these ill mannered and ill willed reprobates.
You and your organization have changed the sacred text
to suit your own ends and for a long time you have been
wrong. Your organization was wrong about 1914.
They are wrong too about 1935. They were wrong to
try and make a deal with Hitler in order to continue in
existence in Berlin and Magdeburg. They were wrong
in changing the sacred text too.
Jehovah does not appear in any of the passages in my King
James Bible that you mentioned.
The names Lord, YAH and I AM appear.
Why would you make up a name and insert it where it does not belong?
1 edit
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyyawn😴
The only reprobate here is you.
You and your organization have changed the sacred text
to suit your own ends and for a long time you have been
wrong. Your organization was wrong about 1914.
They are wrong too about 1935. They were wrong to
try and make a deal with Hitler in order to continue in
existence in Berlin and Magdeburg. They we ...[text shortened]... rd, YAH and I AM appear.
Why would you make up a name and insert it where it does not belong?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's right. You go to sleep and don't bother to answer the pertinent
yawn😴
questions. Because they just might show you up.
You and your apostate organization.
You'll be singing Johnny Cash at the end of the world.
"I fell into a burning lake of fire and I am no more......the lake of fire........
4 edits
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyyawn, usual lies, so your King James version is a duffer, so you like to make up lies, so you make assertions that you cannot substantiate, so you ignore every reference which proves that you are wrong, so what? You know what Johnny your posts are more a reflection of you than they are of me or my organisation, you see, we are used to these types of lies, we get them all the time, its an everyday occurrence for us and its simply a waste of time to kick every dog that barks at us,
That's right. You go to sleep and don't bother to answer the pertinent
questions. Because they just might show you up.
You and your apostate organization.
You'll be singing Johnny Cash at the end of the world.
"I fell into a burning lake of fire and I am no more......the lake of fire........
caravan trundles on Johnny, you can howl into the night, but the caravan trundles on.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI saw that Robbie and thanks. I am more interested in why the church waited over a thousand years before deciding that bad boys don't just get a good telling off but have to suffer eternal torment. It seems decidedly odd if the bible hadn't changed materially in that time.
I agree once again your thread is being reduced to a farcical state by these ill mannered and ill willed reprobates. I did mention some reasons why the doctrine of eternal torment might have been formed on the basis of scripture but it has largely been ignored.
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyI don't give a tuppenny damn what name appears in your book or his. The true name of god is Bob, end of debate. I am now choosing suitably silly hats for my enthronment as pope of the church of Bob.
In the passages he mentions, the name Jehovah does not appear.
My King James Bible does not have the name Jehovah in any of
the verses he mentioned.
1 edit
Originally posted by KeplerMy understanding is that a kind of compromise took place in order to accommodate and incorporate into Christianity pagan beliefs around the second century. It is also my understanding though that even the pagans did not have as merciless a tone to their vision as it did when it became incorporated into Christianity. Yes we have ancient Greeks being chained to rocks and having the ravens peck out their entrails, only for the same scenario to happen day after day, but this was reserved for the worst criminals, not those who simply lacked belief.
I saw that Robbie and thanks. I am more interested in why the church waited over a thousand years before deciding that bad boys don't just get a good telling off but have to suffer eternal torment. It seems decidedly odd if the bible hadn't changed materially in that time.
Originally posted by Keplerread this Kepler, its really interesting,
I saw that Robbie and thanks. I am more interested in why the church waited over a thousand years before deciding that bad boys don't just get a good telling off but have to suffer eternal torment. It seems decidedly odd if the bible hadn't changed materially in that time.
“During the first five centuries of Christianity, there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”
http://www.godsplanforall.com/paganoriginofhell
Originally posted by robbie carrobieVery interesting, thanks. According to that the adoption of the doctrine of eternal torment in 1215 was redundant because it was already catholic doctrine.
read this Kepler, its really interesting,
“During the first five centuries of Christianity, there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”
http://www.godsplanforall.com/paganoriginofhell
1 edit
The parable of the Rich man an Lazarus is one, never of course meant to be taken literally, its an attempt to impose an exegesis on scripture where none was intended by the author. Does the author really think that a literal drop of water on the tip of ones finger will quench the thirst of someone undergoing torment in a fiery hell? Hardly, its purely allegorical.
In this teaching of Luke 16:19-31 Christ mentions a person's name - Lazarus.
In what parable told by Jesus was a proper name of a person ever used ?
If a tormenting of a lost sinner after death is not a truth then Jesus would be unrighteous to make a parable teaching that.
And if eternal suffering is not the truth then God would be unrighteous to so warn or threaten man with it.
Originally posted by sonshipI still question just why it took 1200 years for the church to find this information. Why do you think they only adopted this as doctrine in 1215?
[quote] The parable of the Rich man an Lazarus is one, never of course meant to be taken literally, its an attempt to impose an exegesis on scripture where none was intended by the author. Does the author really think that a literal drop of water on the tip of ones finger will quench the thirst of someone undergoing torment in a fiery hell? Hardly, its purel ...[text shortened]... al suffering is not the truth then God would be unrighteous to so warn or threaten man with it.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipLazarus was simply a common name at the time, like John, or Jack is at present. Attempting to hinge any significance to this is clutching at straws. Are you also prepared to state that there is a giant Abraham in heaven who waits for the dead so that they can take rest on his bosom? Or that a drop of water would quench someone's anguish while they were somehow being kept alive so that God can torture them?
[quote] The parable of the Rich man an Lazarus is one, never of course meant to be taken literally, its an attempt to impose an exegesis on scripture where none was intended by the author. Does the author really think that a literal drop of water on the tip of ones finger will quench the thirst of someone undergoing torment in a fiery hell? Hardly, its purel al suffering is not the truth then God would be unrighteous to so warn or threaten man with it.
No one is saying that its not true, we are saying that its not meant to be taken literally, but is allegorical. Christ uses allegory throughout the entire passage.
We don't believe God does warn or threaten anyone with it. We believe based upon the scriptural and historical evidence that its of pagan origin and is extra Biblical.
Originally posted by KeplerKepler, it is often the case that people want to argue over church history and councils when it is simply not necessary.
I still question just why it took 1200 years for the church to find this information. Why do you think they only adopted this as doctrine in 1215?
Adoption of this or that doctrine in some official ecclesiastical way in some religious organization is not terribly relevant to the point.
Ask me about the Scripture itself. What happened in 1215 not that important.
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lazarus was simply a common name at the time, like John, or Jack is at present. Attempting to hinge any significance to this is clutching at straws. Are you also prepared to state that there is a giant Abraham in heaven who waits for the dead so that they can take rest on his bosom? Or that a drop of water would quench someone's anguish while they ed upon the scriptural and historical evidence that its of pagan origin and is extra Biblical.
Lazarus was simply a common name at the time, like John, or Jack is at present.
How common or uncommon the names Lazarus or Abraham were is not the point. I asked you for an example of telling in which Jesus used proper names.
In Luke 16:19-31 Christ mentions the proper names Lazarus and Abraham. Where did Jesus use proper names in the telling of an allegorical parable ?
If you cannot produce one it argues in favor of many scholars' belief that this passage was not a parable. It was a record of something Jesus knew had happened. It could have happened around that time.
Attempting to hinge any significance to this is clutching at straws.
No it is not. And you should admit that you find no parable containing any proper names of persons among all the parables told by Jesus.
It may not prove it is not a parable. I think it argues for the fact pretty strongly.
Are you also prepared to state that there is a giant Abraham in heaven
No, because HEAVEN is not involved in the record of what Jesus had known. You make the assumption that "Abraham's bosom" must be in heaven. I did not make that assumption.
God has many places and Abraham's bosom does not HAVE to be Heaven. Try again.
who waits for the dead so that they can take rest on his bosom? Or that a drop of water would quench someone's anguish while they were somehow being kept alive so that God can torture them?
Okay. You want to argue about these details.
Well, in the book of Daniel three men were thrown into a burning furnace of fire. Then the king saw them with one like a Son of God walking with them. They walked in the flame as if they were in an air conditioned room. Not a hair on their heads was scotched. However the guards who threw them into the furnace were incinerated upon coming close to the opening.
When the three Hebrew men came out of the furnace it was evident that God Almighty had supernaturally preserved them from burning up.
If God can do that then He can do the reverse also. God can correspondingly keep someone IN a fire in ANY condition He CHOOSES to. He can do this by His great power to control all things.
So any appeal to the impossibility of the physics or science of the record fails because of the testimony of God's ability (See Daniel 3:1-30).
No one is saying that its not true,
I think you ARE saying that it is not true. It should not be taken literally is what you wrote.
we are saying that its not meant to be taken literally, but is allegorical. Christ uses allegory throughout the entire passage.
I don't think so. Even if He did mean it as a fictional allegory the import of the teaching would be unrighteous and misleading if there were not essential corresponding truth behind it.
Your failure to supply a parable akin to Luke 16:19-31 weakens the argument that it is a parable.
We don't believe God does warn or threaten anyone with it. We believe based upon the scriptural and historical evidence that its of pagan origin and is extra Biblical.
From verse 19 it should be quite obvious that the teaching is a warning to the rich.
"Now there was a certain rich man, and he clothed himself in purple and fine linen, making merry very day in splendor."
His riches caused him to not listen to the Moses and the prophets (v.31)
It is not clear WHEN this matter happened. But "Moses and the prophets" pointed to Christ Himself.
" Behold we are going to Jesusalem, and all things which have been written through the prophets will be accomplished." (18:31)
The climax of the teaching may be in these words - "For I have five brothers - so that he may solemnly testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment." (v.28)
This is not a frivolous testimony requested. "SOLEMNLY TESTIFY" of what awaits the unreconciled sinner after he dies. You are missing the words about Lazarus needed to "solemnly testify". Solemnly testify WHAT ?
That such a fate is possible. And the teaching is that those who would not listen to the prophets probably will not receive the testimony of the Son of God who died and rose from the dead.
I don't when this event happened. Maybe it happened while Jesus was preaching and He had not yet died and rose. That I do not know. But the import of the teaching is hard to miss.