Originally posted by robbie carrobie==========================================
I promise to get back to you on all these issues, at present i feel like the German army in Russia, fighting on all fronts, but for the meantime, how can you state that such is the case when quite clearly people who have died have paid the price of their sin, death is the ultimate price, not punishment! it does not state that the wages of sin is ete tures to suit a non existent prejudice or misconception, life's too short for that nonsence.!
how can you state that such is the case when quite clearly people who have died have paid the price of their sin, death is the ultimate price, not punishment!
===========================================
I think you need to rethink over a few passages. For example:
Hebrews 9:27 - "And inasmuch as it is reserved for men to die once, and after this [comes] judgment."
Notice here that the writer says that first "to die" comes. But that is not the end. Following - " after this [ death comes] judgment".
If your understanding was correct then judgment would simply only be death. As it is the writer speaks of them as two, death and then judgment.
And this is exactly what we see in the final judgment.
Revelation 20:11-12 - "And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose face earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
And I saw THE DEAD, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened, and another scroll was opened, which is [the book] of life.
And THE DEAD were judged by the things which were written in the scrolls, according to their works. ... And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (My emphasis)
If you were correct then those who were dead were already given the only and final judgment from God coming to them. That is clearly not the case here.
===========================================
it does not state that the wages of sin is eternal punishment, does it, it simply states that the wages, i.e, the effects of sin are punishment, no, but simply death.
========================================
I agree with you that it does not say that. And I would concede that this revelation of eternal retribution is not immediately made clear to us in Genesis.
However, we cannot ignore the above passages. But they make sense if we expand the definition of death to be seperation from God.
The lake of fire then is the ultimate seperation and the ultimate wage.
Where you should tranfer your attention is to what and how the redemption of Christ works to save man from such a terrible fate. Whoever's name was found written in the book of life has eternal life. The danger is to those whose names will not be found in the book of life. And it is called the Lamb's book of life (Rev. 13:8).
=======================================
and Samuel was simply an apparition, conjured by a spiritual medium, nothing more,
=====================================
You would have to convince me of this. The surprise of the medium suggests her shock that it was really Samuel's spirit which came up. I think that it was actually the disembdied spirit and soul of Samuel which she saw. God permitted that to happen in this case for His own sovereign purposes.
Elsewhere, this activity is strictly forbidden to attempt. The reason being that the mediums of "famiiar spirits" were contacting deceiving demons - Satanic spirits doing imitations of departed people.
But in this case God caused Samuel's spirit to actually come up.
That is the way I see it.
==============================
that the dead are clearly in a state of unconsciousness is not only biblical and based firmly on scripture but was alluded to by Christ when he resurrected Lazarus, what did he state, that Lazarus was, being tormented ?, in heaven ?, no none of these, that he was simply sleeping.
====================================
We hear nothing from Lazarus one way or another. The Scripture is silent as to his experience while dead. Right?
Secondly, Lazarus was most likely a disciple like Mary and Martha. So there is no reason to think that he would be in the tormenting section of Hades as the rich man was.
In addition, I do not see any of the dead believers in heaven one way or another. They too go to Abraham's bosom or Paradise. That is the comfortable section of Hades until the resurrection from the dead. And contrary to popular Christian belief that place is not heaven.
Fourth point - though Lazarus says not a work in Scripture about his experience while in death, we are told that Jesus died and announced the gospel to the departed spirits in that realm:
"For Christ ... on the one hand being put to death in the flesh, but on the other, made alive in the Spirit; in which also He went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, who foremerly disobedyed when the long suffering of God waited in teh days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared ..." ( 1 Peter 3:18,19)
Generally speaking this passage show Christ proclaiming to beings in the realm of death while He Himself was dead for three days.
And of course we see the dead beseeching God from "underneath the altar" (meaning underneath the earth, in Revelation. So they are aware of some things in that state as departed believers. See Revelation 6:9-11.
Finally, though we have not debated it in detail, I regard the teaching of Lazarus and the rich man as not entirely fictional. I think it is something that Jesus had witnessed.
Though it probably was a different Lazarus, the irony of the name being Lazarus is hard to ignore. In no other parable of strictly fictional content did Jesus give proper names to people.
=============================
the whole argument that somehow something survives death, a soul, call it whatever you like is satanic,
====================================
Then you would be saying that much of the teaching of Jesus is satanic. You would be saying that there are satanic teachings in the New Testament. I reject this.
=========================================
what did Satan state when addressing Eve, 'you positively will not die', in other words you will live on forever, what actually happened ?, they died and went where?, to eternal punishment, no! to the dust from which they were created, its quite clear and easy to grasp.
===========================================
The revelation of eternal retribution is not unveiled to us in Genesis. I don't think that you should go to Genesis to find information on that subject.
A better place to look for the wheres and why of eternal punishment would be Matthew 25. There we are told that the eternal fire was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41):
"Then He will say also to those on the left, Go away from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Damnation was originally prepared not for humans but for the devil and his angels. I cannot tell you when it was prepared. But apparently somewhere along the line it was decided by God that those who would not repent from following the Devil and his rebellion would co join the Devil in his eternal damnation.
How this played out in Genesis chapter 3,4 is not to clear too to me.
It certainly is our concern on this side of the coming of Jesus and the preaching of the NT Gospel.
Originally posted by jaywillnow there is far too much to discuss, therefore i am going to limit the number of texts that i am prepared to discuss at one time. Now to the question of whether it was Christ or Satan who instituted the idea of the eternal soul, something that lives on after death, that you state can be tormented consider this,
[b]==========================================
how can you state that such is the case when quite clearly people who have died have paid the price of their sin, death is the ultimate price, not punishment!
===========================================
I think you need to rethink over a few passages. For example:
Hebrews 9:27 - "And inas on this side of the coming of Jesus and the preaching of the NT Gospel.
The inspired word of god states at Genesis and i use the King James version for your benefit
Genesis 3
1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
notice the phrase in verse four, you shall not die, implying what? that they would live on eternaly. Was Christ the source of this lie, no clearly it was Satanic and the reality is that they died, what did god state would be their punishment? GENESIS chapter 2 clearly states form verse
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Now there is no mention of eternal punishment is there, despite the fact that they both died, unrepentant sinners for there is no evidence that they ever repented, their punishment as GOD STATES WAS DEATH. how anyone can dispute this is unreasonable, really.
IF you can prove from these references that the idea that something survives death is not Satanic in other words that Eve would live on eternally after sinning and that the punishment for their iniquity was eternal torment then i will be astonished.
the reason that you cannot find it here nor anywhere is that it does not exist, it never has, it never was Gods purpose to punish people eternally, nor will it ever be.
this is further enhanced by the physical location of the garden of eden, where was the original paradise, that's right on earth, it was physical earthly and meant to expand throughout the entire earth, this was Gods original purpose , which still has not changed despite the rebellion. Humans never have been, nor ever will be designed to live anywhere else, further putting into doubt the Satanic lie that a tormented soul survives death and lives on eternally somewhere else.
''That is the comfortable section of Hades until the resurrection from the dead'', man id like to see a Biblical reference for this, its absurd.
please you come down here, we have the penthouse waiting for you, 'but whats all that noise outside', oh don't worry its just the tormented souls, we shall torture them some more so that they will quieten down a bit, don't you worry.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie=======================================
now there is far too much to discuss, therefore i am going to limit the number of texts that i am prepared to discuss at one time. Now to the question of whether it was Christ or Satan who instituted the idea of the eternal soul, something that lives on after death, that you state can be tormented consider this,
The inspired word of god states at ubt the Satanic lie that a tormented soul survives death and lives on eternally somewhere else.
now there is far too much to discuss, therefore i am going to limit the number of texts that i am prepared to discuss at one time.
=========================================
That tends to happen when the evidence is so abundant. That was only a fraction of it.
===========================================
Now to the question of whether it was Christ or Satan who instituted the idea of the eternal soul, something that lives on after death, that you state can be tormented consider this,
===========================================
First of all, do not phrase the question so as to confuse the matter for a more favorable outcome. You did not hear me say that there was a doctrine of an eternal soul.
You simply heard me say that eternal punishment is a biblical teaching. And I further pointed out that Jesus warned His disciples to fear the one who could do something to you after you physically die.
Please do not try to morph this into "Let's see if there is a doctrine of the eternal human soul."
I will not go into the Genesis discussion with you now. I think that nothing in Genesis will nullify the other verses I submitted.
And I think you are subtly (not necessarily deviously) but subtly changing the debate to be about the nature of the human soul. That is really not the point.
The point is whether or not there is a teaching of eternal retribution in the Bible. I maintain that there is. Why don't you deal with the passages that I have submitted to explain WHY this is so ? Show me what is wrong with my interpretation of those passages.
In short robbie, Genesis 3 cannot trump Revelation 20 or Matthew 25 or Luke 12.
And with such a teaching as clear as it is in the New Testament I get suspicious when someone goes deep mining back into the Old Testament to try to nullify such explicit New Testament teaching.
Originally posted by jaywillfunny that you will not discuss anything more in the genesis account, its does seem to nullify everything that you were stating, not surprising really, and there is no confusion about an eternal soul and eternal punishment, you cannot have one without the other can you ?, but i thought that was obvious and you have still not told us more about this 'more comfortable', bit of Hades, i laughed for ages at that. even so if you will not discuss anything in Genesis, which incontrovertibly shows that the punishment for sin is death, then i will be happy to discuss any of the other texts that you mentioned, ill even let you choose.
In short robbie, Genesis 3 cannot trump Revelation 20 or Matthew 25 or Luke 12.
And with such a teaching as clear as it is in the New Testament I get suspicious when someone goes deep mining back into the Old Testament to try to nullify such explicit New Testament teaching.
oh and for the reference, you cannot take passages out of context, they must be vied within their immediate context and in the context of the Bible as a whole. i do not accept that there is a distinction doctrinally or otherwise from the teaching of the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek, it was the same God who inspired both, and i would appreciate that in the course of discussion that i have recourse to the Bible and its entirety.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie======================================
funny that you will not discuss anything more in the genesis account, its does seem to nullify everything that you were stating, not surprising really, and there is no confusion about an eternal soul and eternal punishment, you cannot have one without the other can you, but i thought that it was obvious.
funny that you will not discuss anything more in the genesis account, its does seem to nullify everything that you were stating, not surprising really, and there is no confusion about an eternal soul and eternal punishment, you cannot have one without the other can you, but i thought that it was obvious.
========================================
Do you think I am being unfair to you ?
I don't mind talking about Genesis. But would it not be more direct to take the New Testament passages on the subject and show what is wrong with my analysis of them ?
Originally posted by jaywillplease see revision, i will re print it for your convenience.
[b]======================================
funny that you will not discuss anything more in the genesis account, its does seem to nullify everything that you were stating, not surprising really, and there is no confusion about an eternal soul and eternal punishment, you cannot have one without the other can you, but i thought that it was obvious.
====== ake the New Testament passages on the subject and show what is wrong with my analysis of them ?
oh and for the reference, you cannot take passages out of context, they must be viewed within their immediate context and in the context of the Bible as a whole. i do not accept that there is a distinction doctrinally or otherwise from the teaching of the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek, it was the same God who inspired both, and its internal harmony for me is evidence of its inspiration, and i would appreciate that in the course of discussion that i have recourse to the Bible and its entirety, because some of the principles established elsewhere have a direct bearing on others, the eternal soul with eternal damnation for example. I think that even you must admit that it would be devastating to the idea of eternal torment if one could prove that there is no eternal soul, just by way of example.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOkay. I will discuss it in the spirit of trying to help you.
please see revision, i will re print it for your convenience.
oh and for the reference, you cannot take passages out of context, they must be viewed within their immediate context and in the context of the Bible as a whole. i do not accept that there is a distinction doctrinally or otherwise from the teaching of the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek ...[text shortened]... appreciate that in the course of discussion that i have recourse to the Bible and its entirety.
But what I said stands. The teaching is so clear in the NT. And God's revelation is progressive. You do not have all things made as clear in Genesis as you do in the latter progression.
Obviously, if Genesis was all that was needed then the Bible would have ended at Genesis. No?
I'll take a look at your logic.
Originally posted by jaywillso what portion do you want to discuss? and as i said, one cannot make a distinction between what you state as old and new, testaments, they are infact just different covenants made by God and equally valid wherever they apper in the inspired record, after all, 'ALL scripture is inspired of god and beneficial for teaching, setting things strait, disciplining in righteousness etc etc', " 2 Tim 3:16,17.
Okay. I will discuss it in the spirit of trying to help you.
But what I said stands. The teaching is so clear in the NT. And God's revelation is progressive. You do not have all things made as clear in Genesis as you do in the latter progression.
Obviously, if Genesis was all that was needed then the Bible would have ended at Genesis. No?
I'll take a look at your logic.
Robbie,
============================================
notice the phrase in verse four, you shall not die, implying what? that they would live on eternaly.
==========================================
That is right. They would have had an everlasting life. But in the future I will point out to you that this everlasting life is not the same as the eternal life through regeneration in Christ, though both, length wise, are forever.
But leave that for now.
======================================
Was Christ the source of this lie,
no clearly it was Satanic and the reality is that they died, what did god state would be their punishment? GENESIS chapter 2 clearly states form verse
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Now there is no mention of eternal punishment is there, despite the fact that they both died,
========================================
There is silence about eternal retribution. And not every single verse in the Old Testament or New has to mention eternal punishment along with the mentioning of death.
I think this is a very round about logic to make null and void the NT references.
I don't even think that eternal punishment is the only frame of reference through which ANY part of the Bible must be understood. There is SILENCE concerning the matter.
I just take it as silence and do not over infer too much there one way or the other.
You are exploiting the silence and demanding that I figure into the account the details of something not yet elaborated upon until the New Testament for the most part.
I think your argument would be stronger if you directly dealt with the passages of the NT which are so very clear on the matter.
======================================
unrepentant sinners for there is no evidence that they ever repented,
========================================
Now here's something I think do have indication of. They passed on to their sons what God probably instructed them to do when worshipping. That is to offer the blood of the cattle.
Abel obeyed and Cain invented his own religion. A few things I think are indicated here:
1.) They passed on to their children the symbolism of Christ's redemption to come. Therefore the did believe in the gospel.
2.) The fact that Adam called his wife "living" Eve when they were expecting to die, suggests that they believed in some promise of salvation to come. Otherwise they having died would be the end of mankind.
3.) What they passed on to thier children Cain and Abel suggests that they realized some form of propitiatory substitution. They witnessed the cattle being slain in their place. And the covering of the cattle became thier covering before God - their clothing.
In all this there is the unmistakable hint to the redemption of Christ to come in typology. I think they believed.
And IF eternal damnation WAS an issue (to which we have only silence) and IF they BELIEVED in the God ordained typology, then they probably would have no fear of eternal retribution.
All this would suggest that they did repent.
But I cannot over emphasize that at this point in the Bible, in Genesis, there is SILENCE concerning eternal destinies.
=================================
their punishment as GOD STATES WAS DEATH. how anyone can dispute this is unreasonable, really.
===================================
You should show a similar concern for the fact that the revelation of their eternal destiny is not developed yet.
=======================================
IF you can prove from these references that the idea that something survives death is not Satanic in other words that Eve would live on eternally after sinning and that the punishment for their iniquity was eternal torment then i will be astonished.
=========================================
I would be surprised also. But since there is silence on the matter I feel no obligation to HAVE to prove to you any of that.
I will say this. The New Testament tells us that the full revelation of things concerning Christ was not made known to the sons of men in previous generations to the Apostles:
" ... the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in spirit." (Ephesian 3:4b-5)
So Adam and Eve did not have the depth of revelation which was latter revealed to the apostles and prophets.
At any rate, much could be said. But none of it calls for this -
"Because eternal punishment is not mentioned in Genesis chapter 3, THEREFORE it follows that Revelation 20:10 - 15 cannot be talking about eternal punishment."
Listen to the New Testament:
"And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimestone, where also the beast and the false prophet were; and they shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Rev. 20:10)
Do you honestly think your round about reference to Genesis 3 makes this passage go away?
The beast and the false prophet were tossed into the lake of fire 1,000 years earlier. (See Rev. 19:20)
Now chapter 20 says that the Devil joins these two human beings. And the other two are still there AFTER one thousand years ! Other wise it would not say that "THEY WILL BE TORMENTED day and night FOREVER and EVER."
"They" is plural. The other two, the two humans were NOT made to pass out of existence. "THEY ... will be tormented forever and ever. "[/b] And all this agrees of course with Matthew 25:41 about the eternal fire being the final destiny of SOME people along with the Devil and his angels.
=======================================
the reason that you cannot find it here nor anywhere is that it does not exist, it never has, it never was Gods purpose to punish people eternally, nor will it ever be.
=======================================
It may not be His central purpose. But it will happen nonetheless. And up to now I see not one argument from you which holds much weight that that is not the case.
Originally posted by jaywillexcuse me, i have had enough, i am going back to the chess only forum, its not that i cannot give reasonable arguments, its just the futility of the thing, the citations that you mention are clearly and readily understandable and are easily explicable, but i have neither the energy nor the appetite, i have had enough, i knew it was a mistake to come here in the first place, its a minefield of misconception and preconception and debates about words and trivialities, sorry but i can take no more, - regards to all Robert.
Robbie,
[b]============================================
notice the phrase in verse four, you shall not die, implying what? that they would live on eternaly.
==========================================
That is right. They would have had an everlasting life. But in the future I will point out to you that this everlasting life is not the same as th ...[text shortened]... ee not one argument from you which holds much weight that that is not the case.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobie======================================
excuse me, i have had enough, i am going back to the chess only forum, its not that i cannot give reasonable arguments, its just the futility of the thing, the citations that you mention are clearly and readily understandable and are easily explicable, but i have neither the energy nor the appetite, i have had enough, i knew it was a mistake to come ...[text shortened]... nd debates about words and trivialities, sorry but i can take no more, - regards to all Robert.
excuse me, i have had enough, i am going back to the chess only forum, its not that i cannot give reasonable arguments, its just the futility of the thing, the citations that you mention are clearly and readily understandable and are easily explicable, but i have neither the energy nor the appetite, i have had enough, i knew it was a mistake to come here in the first place, its a minefield of misconception and preconception and debates about words and trivialities, sorry but i can take no more, - regards to all Robert.
======================================
I know the feeling.
Let me simply close by saying that there are misconceptions, IMO, about the subject.
So do not take my defense of the subject as a wholesale endorsement of every interpretation you have ever heard affirming eternal retribution. Some passages which traditionally have been applied to the subject I am convinced do not apply.
Thanks for you thoughtful research and input.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don’t know if you’ll even read this, Robbie. Perhaps you will (I depart for respite from these forums on a rather regular basis—I always seem to return!)
excuse me, i have had enough, i am going back to the chess only forum, its not that i cannot give reasonable arguments, its just the futility of the thing, the citations that you mention are clearly and readily understandable and are easily explicable, but i have neither the energy nor the appetite, i have had enough, i knew it was a mistake to come ...[text shortened]... nd debates about words and trivialities, sorry but i can take no more, - regards to all Robert.
When I first posted in these forums, I was roundly—and rightly—lambasted for making assertions that I could not defend with reasoned argument. You are, I think, capable of such reasoned argument—though, from my experience, it takes work.
Jaywill could tell you that he and I have hardly ever agreed. It has been nice when we have—but I have always learned from him, even in disagreement. Even if the terms of the debate were occasionally harsh (my fault, often). And, for example, even in disagreement, my understanding of Christian soteriology has been permanently influenced by his emphasis on a “soteriolgy of transformation”. His soteriology is still more juridical than my view—I trust you are reading this, jaywill!—but I have had to revise my own view in light of his work on here. And that is my gain!
When someone takes the time—and makes the effort—to argue with you, they are paying you a compliment. Never forget that. Even if the form of their argument is such that you see it as insulting (which jaywill has not done here, so far as I can see)—it still means that you are seen as someone worth engaging, and perhaps learning from; otherwise, you would simply be dismissed in silence.
In any case, be well.