Paul Was Wrong

Originally posted by Suzianne
You really should pay a little more attention to what passes in front of your face when you come in here looking for Christians to maul. Sonship and I have already discussed (and argued about) the relevant bits of Revelation. And I'm not about to revisit it for your personal enjoyment.

Is not the word "torment" ~ which you are quibbling further up this page ~ found in Revelation?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Licking your wounds with a little "Christian on Christian" action, then? Pathetic.

Do you ever engage in "Christian on Christian" action on this forum?

Originally posted by sonship

The question is where in Pauls letters, did he explain to the GENTILES THEN AT THAT TIME, about the dire consequences of eternal torment of not knowing Christ etc? The word torment does not exist in Pauls letters.

In one of the earliest of his epistles Paul taught of eternal destruction and eternal judgment.

[quote] [b] "And to you ...[text shortened]... condemned.

No one should take a chance.
Obey the Gospel of Christ to believe into Christ.

THEREFORE SONSHIP

YOU CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE TEACHINGS OF PAUL, PETER, JAMES, JOHN, JUDE THAT SPEAK OF ETERNAL TORMENT.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"eternal destruction"?

What do you think this means?

Is "destruction" the same as "torment"?

No.

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." -- Matthew 10:28, KJV

And THIS is "eternal destruction", not "eternal torment". And yeah, it's still horrific.

Do you think then that Jesus was wrong to portray the rich man in torment after death ?

" And he called out and said, Father Abraham ... I am in anguish in this flame" (see Luke 16:24)

"For I have five brothers - so that he may solemnly testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment." (v.28)

Though this man had the wits to carry on a conversation Jesus depicts him, nevertheless, in "anguish" and in a "place of torment".

Am I to believe that Jesus was unrighteous to portray a situation which is impossible, would never be, not to mention against the will of His Father ?

Is the "solemnly testify" of verse 28 concerning something absurd which could never be of God ?

And he said, Then I ask you, Father, to send him to the house of my father - For I have five brothers - so that he may solemnly testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment. " (vs,27,28).

Jesus was suggesting the need for a solemn warning based upon a lie - a destiny that is impossible to happen ?

Originally posted by Suzianne
You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

Why not just answer the question?

Originally posted by sonship
Do you think then that Jesus was wrong to portray the rich man in torment after death ?

[b] " And he called out and said, Father Abraham ... I am in anguish in this flame" (see Luke 16:24)

[quote] "For I have five brothers - so that he may solemnly testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment." (v.28) [ ...[text shortened]... esting the need for a solemn warning based upon a lie - a destiny that is impossible to happen ?[/b]

Jesus spoke in parables, stories and analogies all the time. It's only literalists like yourself that confuse the topics and the messages.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Paul Was Wrong

Yes.

Originally posted by divegeester

Jesus spoke in parables, stories and analogies all the time. It's only literalists like yourself that confuse the topics and the messages.

This still doesn't answer the question I put to you and now put to Suzianne.

And the term "literalist" can be a convenient way to describe a circle of things you wish to believe, all things outside of that circle believed, are the result of someone's literalist error.

ie. "You believe that there is actually a God?? Literalist!"
ie . "You believe a Jesus of Nazareth actually lived ? Literalist!"
Ie. "You believe in the resurrection of Christ ?? Literalist!"

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes.

Somehow everything about Paul is more impressive to me than you are FabianFnas.

Is there parable Jesus spoke in which He mentioned a person's name.
The teaching of Luke 16:19-11 mentions Lazarus.

Prodigal son parable - no name mentioned.
Woman sweeping for lost coin - no name mentioned.
Shepherd leaving ninety-nine sheep to find one - no name mentioned.
Wheat and tares parable - no name mentioned.
Woman mixing leaven into the meal flour - no name mentioned.
Unrighteous judge parable - no named person mentioned.
City on a hill - no name.
Candle under a bushel - no name.
Eagles gathered together - no name mentioned.
Servants with pounds - no names mentioned.
Servants with talents - no names mentioned.
Servants working different hours of the day - no name mentioned.

The Good Samaritan parable mentions a place - Jericho, but no person's name.
All kingdom of the heavens parables in Matthew - no one's name mentioned.
No mention of a person's name in any parable that I can see.

If Luke 16:19-31 is anther parable, WHY does it uniquely contain the name of a specific person - Lazarus ?

Originally posted by sonship
Is there parable Jesus spoke in which He mentioned a person's name.
The teaching of [b]Luke 16:19-11 mentions Lazarus.

Prodigal son parable - no name mentioned.
Woman sweeping for lost coin - no name mentioned.
Shepherd leaving 99 sheep to find one - no name mentioned.
Wheat and tares parable - no name mentioned.
Woman mixing le ...[text shortened]... is anther parable, WHY does it uniquely contain the name of a specific person - Lazarus ?[/b]

What is the topic sonship? Is it not that the Apostles when preaching to the Gentiles said nothing of eternal torment?
Why is it that you are no addressing that point?

And if it is the case that the Apostles did in fact say nothing of eternal torment to the Gentile Christians then why are you just not saying that?

" ... Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of His power, in flaming fire,

Rendering vengeance to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His strength When He comes to be glorified in His saints ..." (See Second Thessalonians 1:7-10)

You all should be persuaded as you wish.

I think LESS likely is the meaning that "vengeance" here meant the vengeance of eternal non-existence.

I think LESS likely does "pay the penalty of eternal destruction" mean - pay the penalty of eternal non-existence.

To the question of "Why didn't they preach it?" They did not speak of it in every paragraph of what they did preach.

In the Second Thessalonian letter Paul wrote of the Antichrist as "the son of perdition"
( 2 Thess. 2:3)

But "son of perdition" I tend not to think that Paul meant "the son of eternal non-existence".

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] [b] " ... Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of His power, in flaming fire,

Rendering vengeance to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His strength When He comes to be glorified in H ...[text shortened]... ]"son of perdition" I tend not to think that Paul meant "the son of eternal non-existence".[/b]

Then obviously the Apostles said nothing of eternal torment.
You just lack the ability to be forthright to come out and say it.

Now it gets worse. This means that they themselves.
Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude and all the other disciples ..
All the many hundreds of them
Know nothing of eternal torment of nonChristians or unbelievers.

This is therefore a doctrine fabricated somewhere several hundred years after the early church, and clearly not a doctrine that Jesus sent out the disciples and Apostles to preach.

Originally posted by Suzianne
At the risk of dancing to your tune, which is the only thing you think Christians are good for, I'll answer this question once, no matter how many times you'll try to entertain yourself by asking again and again and again.

That it doesn't exist.

Everyone speaks about what they know and have experienced, so Jesus talked as much,
or more about Hell, than He did Heaven. Those that followed Him wouldn't have His
insight into such matters, except John who wrote about what He was shown in Revelation,
so it isn't surprising who wrote about Hell and who didn't.The words of Jesus were not
written by Jesus, but by those who wrote the gospels who recorded the things they knew.
The truth of Hell and Heaven will play out no matter how all of us feel about either or God,
our likes and dislikes, our relationship or lack thereof will have meaning or none at all
when judgment day comes and all is revealed for what was real, and what wasn't, what
was loving, and what was hateful.

Originally posted by sonship

Jesus spoke in parables, stories and analogies all the time. It's only literalists like yourself that confuse the topics and the messages.

This still doesn't answer the question I put to you and now put to Suzianne.

And the term "literalist" can be a convenient way to describe a circle of things you wish to believe, all things outs ...[text shortened]... ually lived ? Literalist!"
Ie. "You believe in the resurrection of Christ ?? Literalist!"

Oh dear, are you suggesting that a belief in a literal god, prevents one accepting the parables, stories and symbolism in the bible.

My post fully answers the question, there is not confusion, only from you and your attempts to squeeze literal,interpretations from parables.