| Author | Message | ||
     the_apostolic_truth_ministries Junior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 33 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
John Wesley writing in his “Complete Works of John Wesley” states that an infant who dies before baptism will be lost. In the “Works of James Arminius,” his children state that not only does the infant have to be baptized but so do the infant’s parents in order for the child to be saved. Roman church doctrine holds that an un-baptized infant will go into limbo. What say ye? Will infants who die prematurely, go to heaven or hell or somewhere in between? At what age/IQ level does a child become accountable for sin? What are the requirements for infant/child salvation? Sources: 1. Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 10, Thesis on Baptism. 2. The Works of James Arminius, Disputation on Baptism. 3. The Pope. | ||
| fatherofaking New member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 15 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
there is no heaven or hell. so that answers that question. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Junior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 36 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Hello Mr. fatherofaking. Did you know science has proven you wrong? Ever hear of black holes? | ||
| fatherofaking New member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 17 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
that is an intepretation of a scientific discovery. not fact. | ||
| trainedobserver New member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 11 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.96.26.104 |
Isn't it rather preposterous to think that John Wesley, The Pope, or anyone else has any knowledge of this subject and why would anyone believe they would have any authority to speak on it? These are the types of religious arguments that are completely meaningless and a waste of time and energy. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Junior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 37 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Please Mr. trainedobserver, give us a meaningful subject. | ||
| fatherofaking New member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 18 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
hey TO, surprised to see you on this day and at this time. i have decided to challenge this persons beliefs just to have a different audience. kind of like the reason i got into the shepards chapel threads. i like to have a large audience. i know it sounds arrogant but i really think that i can do some good here. so i engage as many different people in conversation as i can. i even learn a few things myself. imagine that. | ||
| jayshawn New member Username: jayshawn Post Number: 14 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 132.61.176.6 |
Infants who die go to the grave like everyone else. Or as the Tanach would say...they go to "Sheol" or in the Brit Chadasha it would be "Hades" which all refer to the "grave" but unfortunately twisted into the mythical "hell" via the greek mythology of "hades" and tortured souls, and one ruling over that domain, etc. In the Tanach (OT) there's really no mention of anyone going to heaven or hell immediately after death. There's propehts/writers alike who speak of their bones being laid or going to "Sheol" upon death. We do have the one instance of Eliyah (Elijah) being taken up in a whirlwind. I would have to study that one out again. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Junior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 39 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Mr. fatherofaking: Quoting: "that is an intepretation of a scientific discovery. not fact." End quote. My interpretation is as good as your's. We can say the same thing for evolution, global warming, and the old earth theory . . . all are interpretations of scientific discovery and not fact. | ||
| fatherofaking New member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 19 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
My interpretation is as good as your's. We can say the same thing for evolution, global warming, and the old earth theory . . . all are interpretations of scientific discovery and not fact. indeed we could. now that we got that little thing clarified. we can now speculate on the meaning and implications of black holes without assigning these speculations any more authority than any other opinion. unless of course you have the ability to back up your speculations with fact. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Junior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 41 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Mr. fatherofaking: Are you seeking fact or fiction? or Praying that I fell off the turnip truck this morning? | ||
| fatherofaking New member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 23 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
what i seek i am not likely to find here. i find little bits of information here that are useful but that i can find anywhere. i am simply here to contribute what i have. i would hope you are here either here to learn or to contribute or both. | ||
| trainedobserver New member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 12 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.23 |
"Please Mr. trainedobserver, give us a meaningful subject." Is Religious Faith Intellectual Dishonesty? The Supernatural, does it really exist? Where is the evidence? The Bible, History Book or Fictional Account? If there is a god, what makes one god or group of gods more compelling than others? Why believe that Jehovah is god rather than Ra, Zeus, or any of the thousands of gods human beings worship or have worshiped? Religion as Social Control ... is that sufficient? Pick one. | ||
| fatherofaking Junior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 34 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
Pick one. i think i am just arrogant enough to pick them all. Is Religious Faith Intellectual Dishonesty? define religious faith. The Supernatural, does it really exist? Where is the evidence? define supernatural. If there is a god, what makes one god or group of gods more compelling than others? Why believe that Jehovah is god rather than Ra, Zeus, or any of the thousands of gods human beings worship or have worshiped? define god. Religion as Social Control some are guides and some are not. define social control. | ||
| trainedobserver New member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.23 |
Religious Faith is believing in something without or contrary to the evidence at hand. Intellectual dishonesty is proclaiming something as truth that you know you have no evidence for and trying to persuade others that it is 'eternal truth' when is is nothing but a 'guess' or at best, a 'hope'. I think dictionary.com will suffice for the rest. su·per·nat·u·ral /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity. 3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed. 4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult. –noun 5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order. 6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings. 7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs. 8. the supernatural, a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively. b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural. All apply. God /gɒd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[god] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, god·ded, god·ding, interjection –noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. a. the upper balcony in a theater. b. the spectators in this part of the balcony. –verb (used with object) 9. (lowercase) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize. –interjection 10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense? All apply except 8 and 10 for obvious reasons. social control –noun 1. Sociology. the enforcement of conformity by society upon its members, either by law or by social pressure. 2. the influence of any element in social life working to maintain the pattern of such life. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. WordNet - Cite This Source social control noun control exerted (actively or passively) by group action All apply. | ||
| fatherofaking Junior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 35 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
now that that is out of the way, these issues can be discussed. let us see if anyone even has the courage or interest to do so. | ||
| trainedobserver New member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 15 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.25 |
Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin! | ||
| trainedobserver New member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 16 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.25 |
Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin! | ||
| trainedobserver New member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 18 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.25 |
Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin! | ||
| trainedobserver New member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 19 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.25 |
Whoops. Sorry about the multiple posting. | ||
| hillariousharry New member Username: hillariousharry Post Number: 5 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 86.139.15.200 |
Whoever called this thread "infant...heaven or hell" is totally insensitive to the innocence and loveliness of children. The very title of the thread is indicative of someone who is fanatically clinical about the Scriptures..a case I would say where knowledge of the scriptures is in the mind but it's reality has got stuck in the windpipe not having reached the emotions of the heart. I would say yet again lots of hot air perhaps to shock but limited insight into the Christlike pattern. How dare this thread step onto childrens' territory. They dont deserve this...especially when the title is categorised "infants". I abhor the notion of bringing such into debate. Having said the above I am in a way not too surprised that the initiator of this thread has done so......their track record in here is in my view barmy and continually provocative, possibly a symtom of someone who is desperate for attention. Shame on you....leave the infants alone.....our dear Lord has them in the palm of His hand. HH | ||
| trainedobserver New member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 20 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.25 |
"Religious Faith is believing in something without or contrary to the evidence at hand. Intellectual dishonesty is proclaiming something as truth that you know you have no evidence for and trying to persuade others that it is 'eternal truth' when is is nothing but a 'guess' or at best, a 'hope'." "Infant ... heaven or hell" is a prime examine of religious faith as intellectual dishonesty. How could anyone make a justifiable claim to know something of this nature? No one can. Yet they will teach it, discuss it, and speculate about it as though they have some actual knowledge of it. And there are those who readily believe anything they are told and swallow the whole business hook, line, and sinker. After all the church wouldn't lie would it? | ||
| fatherofaking Junior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 45 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
After all the church wouldn't lie would it? i have been told they wouldn't. i have also been told if it is on television it must be true. | ||
| yaakov2 New member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.242.68.167 |
Also the Postulate of Repetition, repeat something often enough and it becomes accepted as true. | ||
| fatherofaking Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 53 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
Also the Postulate of Repetition, repeat something often enough and it becomes accepted as true. that is one of the biggest difficulties to overcome when doing research. | ||
| trainedobserver Junior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 28 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.37 |
"i have also been told if it is on television it must be true." Yes, and as Jethro Bodean said once, "They couldn't put Moon Maiden's in the comic books if they weren't real." If you recall he used the 'cement pond' for reentry from his aborted journey to the moon via home made rocket pack. Well, at the danger of being called a nag, I have to say that this returns us to the question of what our criteria is for something to be accepted as true. (This message board software is as clunky as my mother's old Pontiac. Someone please write something that will port the content over to something else. That is the hold up. They can't move their existing content. Arrgg) (Message edited by TrainedObserver on May 15, 2007) (Message edited by TrainedObserver on May 15, 2007) | ||
| ezekiel_37 New member Username: ezekiel_37 Post Number: 14 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 64.231.242.185 |
Back on topic, When Mary went to Elisabeth's home, the day of the angelic visitation, Elisabeth was 6 months pregnant (with who would be John the baptizer), and he jumped around in Elisabeth's womb, at the presence of the just conceived Child (Jesus) in Mary's womb. This MUST therefore put the beginnings of life at conception. ALL souls go to heaven after the flesh death. Good, bad, indifferent. What side of the gulf(for there are 2 sides to heaven) they are on, depends on how they lived their flesh life, and their belief (or rejection) of THE redeeming Savior. The Hell that most people think of is non existent at this time. It will exist at God's Judgement (after the 1000 years), and then will Satan, and all evil souls will be destroyed forever. Eternal torture is not taught, but the second death, the death of the soul, which is forever...eternally.... is definitely taught, multiple times. So, do the young, young in mind or not yet born children go to a place of punishment that most call hell? No they do not. God is out for Salvation, and He loves His children. These certainly haven't chosen Satan (or the world) over God. There is no punishment deserved. God has reasons for everything, even if we can't figure it out. Life is a lesson. c | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 82 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Hello Mr. ezekiel_37 I didn't see you comment until this morning. You present an interesting idea, but is it validate? You overlooked original sin. | ||
| ezekiel_37 New member Username: ezekiel_37 Post Number: 20 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.156.149.203 |
I guess there are many different ideas on just what original sin is! What is your opinion? | ||
| franklin Member Username: franklin Post Number: 58 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.51.75.72 |
Heaven! | ||
| still_small_voice Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 83 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.3 |
If they go to heaven, which I am neither saying I think they do or think they don't, the question is, what is an infant soul? When does the disembodied infant "grow up"? If you believe in a physical resurrection, with what body do they resurrect? If you hold to "original sin" what just and loving God would eternally torture a being that he created which has done neither good or evil? Can you answer any of those questions with your dogma or must you step outside of your safety net of a belief system? If you can neither prove or disprove it based on your faith, why ask the question? Are you feeling the first stirrings of dissatisfaction with the narrow limitations of dogmatic thought? One thing this does show in reference to the original post... Wesley was a cold hearted dude. | ||
| arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 118 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 |
i beleive in heaven as a real place. i believe in hell as a real place hell is full of fire and torment, heaven is all peaces and life. we have our choice as to what place we will go. and infant cant decide for themselves and are under the protection of GOD till the reach the age of accountabilty or knowledge of good and evil. if they never reach that state they are still kept by GOD. in any rat the infant will go to heaven i beleive ethat when we get there we will see them and know them i believe they will be fully grownall gods children will be fully at peace at last | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Intermediate Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 105 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Hello M(r)(s). Still_Small_Voice: God has no limitations. God said he "hated Esau from the womb." God condemned all (wo)men from birth forward to death in the Garden of Eden, like it or not. Here is your chance, using your limited dogma and faith, find a way into heaven for children. Book, chapter and verse. | ||
| grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 26 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 |
Hey TATM - did I run you off the other thread? | ||
| common_sense New member Username: common_sense Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 68.127.95.191 |
The only person you or anyone else needs to "find a way into heaven for" is yourself! | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Intermediate Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 108 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
M(r)(s). common_sense: God has a way into heaven for everyone. Have you been invited? or Did you choose? | ||
| arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 123 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 |
tatm is really ...not | ||
| granite New member Username: granite Post Number: 3 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 63.25.97.13 |
Several Scriptures in the Bible, particularly some of Jesus' statements, seem to hint at reincarnation. Perhaps the answer can be found by attempting to reconcile reincarnation with the doctrine of the resurrection. That is a possible answer to not only the issue of the destiny of babies (whether 'baptized' or not), but also the issue of those who never heard the gospel or were unable to comprehend it. That would also affirm the justice of God without compromising the ultimate universal need for salvation through Christ alone. Not only that, but it would allow as well for the prospect that God's scales of balance for fairness in life do indeed equal out, if not in this present life, then in the hereafter. It would also correct the "Dante's inferno" concept of an eternity of suffering as punishment for the sins of just one lifetime, and yet still show God as being both good as well as righteous. Although vilified and persecuted, reincarnation was not a teaching unknown in the early church. It would explain the seeming unfairness of life, why some people have it so good while others are made to suffer. That could also have something to do with why history repeats itself, and also could help make more sense of mysteries like the final judgment and the difference between the soul and the spirit. It would actually make a human life even more profoundly significant. It would also explain why God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon the children's children, unto the third (and fourth) generation, but NOT the fifth! (Ex. 34:7) That is because the cycle of life just doesn't last that long. Not only that, but it would also totally explain certain unexplainable phenomena such as deja vu! Perhaps at this point we begin to tread upon the secret things known only to God! (Deut. 29:29) | ||
| grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 27 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 |
2 Samuel 12:22 22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell [whether] GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? 23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. Matthew 18:2 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Nehemiah 8:2 2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. | ||
| marta New member Username: marta Post Number: 11 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.15.28.105 |
Several Scriptures in the Bible, particularly some of Jesus' statements, seem to hint at reincarnation. I disagree. Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is destined that each person dies only once and after that comes judgment, .... | ||
| common_sense New member Username: common_sense Post Number: 2 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 67.125.107.148 |
God has a way into heaven for everyone. Have you been invited? or Did you choose? Both. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 110 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
"Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is destined that each person dies only once and after that comes judgment, .." First, you paraphrased according to your own interpretation. Second, given the context of this passage, it is very likely this was referring to the judgment upon and death of Adam and through Adam all mankind which happened only once and therefore is explaining, because of this, Jesus only had to die once rather than over and over. If you want to get all literal with this verse, what about the people that were raised from the dead and therefore died twice? I have searched the scriptures pretty in depth and have come to the conclusion the bible neither affirms nor denies reeincarnation. Some passages hint at it, and some only make sense within that context. It is entirely possible, although certainly not provable, reencarnation references were redacted and/or edited out of the bible by later orthodox scholars. The thought does not necessarily contradict Christianity at all, and in a sense can complement it. It makes sense out of paradoxical issues and allows for a much more Just God than narrow minded fundamentalism can conceive of. As much as we sometimes disagree granite, we have some common views on this matter. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 111 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
"23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." The problem with this verse, if you are a Christian which I assume you are is... David did not go to heaven for a long time. Had to wait for Jesus to die right? So the infant went to Sheol (hell) before David? The most obvious and simple interpretation of this is... I shall go to him (in death) but he shall not return to me (in this life). Anything else is speculation and not suitable for doctrine or concrete teaching on the matter. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 113 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
Please forgive the typo, I am aware that it is spelled 'reincarnation'. | ||
| grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 28 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 |
"The problem with this verse, if you are a Christian which I assume you are is... David did not go to heaven for a long time. Had to wait for Jesus to die right? So the infant went to Sheol (hell) before David? " Still small voice. I'm sorry - my mind cannot even get to where you went to with that. 2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 124 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
You should know your bible better. You believe the Old Testament "saints" went to heaven under the Old Testament? Then why was the atonement necessary? In Romans Paul declares there are none righteous, not one. David commited murder and adultery, so he certainly was not "righteous". If David was without sin I suppose he could have been the sacrifice for sin instead of Jesus? If he was not without sin, sinners go to heaven? You can't have it both ways. It is very common among orthodoxy to teach that No one ascended to heaven prior to Jesus. 13 “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. 14 “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. Although apparently John overlooked Enoch and Elijah. David had eternal life prior to Jesus, are you saying? Went to heaven? What is all this born again stuff about then if it was not necessary? | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 125 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
Acts 2: 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Explain this one 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. So, it seems to me that at least this author of ACTS appears to be a proponant of soul sleep or mortality of the soul and a future resurrection. I will admit, this one is difficult to explain and reconcile with common Christian theology. | ||
| grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 34 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 |
It's a metaphor. Joh 3:13 - No man hath ascended - This seems a figurative expression for, No man hath known the mysteries of the kingdom of God; as in Deu_30:12; Psa_73:17; Pro_30:4; Rom_11:34. And the expression is founded upon this generally received maxim: That to be perfectly acquainted with the concerns of a place, it is necessary for a person to be on the spot. But our Lord probably spoke to correct a false notion among the Jews, viz. that Moses had ascended to heaven, in order to get the law. It is not Moses who is to be heard now, but Jesus: Moses did not ascend to heaven; but the Son of man is come down from heaven to reveal the Divine will. From Clarke. | ||
| grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 35 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 |
Joh 3:13 - And no man hath ascended into heavens - No man, therefore, is qualified to speak of heavenly things, Joh_3:12. To speak of those things requires intimate acquaintance with them - demands that we have seen them; and as no one has ascended into heaven and returned, so no one is qualified to speak of them but He who came down from heaven. This does not mean that no one had Gone to heaven or had been saved, for Enoch and Elijah had been borne there (Gen_5:24; compare Heb_11:5; 2Ki_2:11); and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and others were there: but it means that no one had ascended and “returned,” so as to be qualified to speak of the things there. But he that came down ... - The Lord Jesus. He is represented as coming down, because, being equal with God, he took upon himself our nature, Joh_1:14; Phi_2:6-7. He is represented as “sent” by the Father, Joh_3:17, Joh_3:34; Gal_4:4; 1Jo_4:9-10. The Son of man - Called thus from his being “a man;” from his interest in man; and as expressive of his regard for man. It is a favorite title which the Lord Jesus gives to himself. . . . Barnes | ||
| grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 36 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 |
I laugh at the fact that I am saying this is a metaphor because not long ago I would have probably taken the literal translation and then I (like Friend puts it) experienced some things through God's Divine power. It's kind of funny when I look back on it. I got "attacked" (not really it was just the way it felt) by metaphors in my dreams and then while going through what I consider pre-menopause (probably another metaphor) found myself in a therapists office saying things that I could not believe were coming out of my mouth. Like - i.e. I think there is a symbolic language. Now I had a head knowledge of this because I read about the parables etc. in the Bible but it seems that God decided He was going to start putting me through an "emersion language course". Now in hindsight - a therapist is not really what one needed for this but God was turning up the volume big time in my life . . . | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 130 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.71 |
You are presenting a horrendous contradiction. If salvation were obtainable by the Law and Prophets why was the blood of Jesus necessary. If Jesus was necessary, how could anyone before him be saved? Also, your comment overlooks the passage about david which contradicts it. the Metaphor defense is ad hoc because most will interpret literally unless a "metaphor" is necessary to avoid theological problems. Then one is constructed that fits. How do we know what is metaphor and what is literal? Who determines? The harrowing of hell and the teaching of saints in "paradise" or hades prior to Jesus' death is based on original sin theology. It is for the most part still mainstream, evangelical, and orthodox... for the most part, which I am not, nor to some degree are you apparently. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 131 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
"I think there is a symbolic language" Me too. That subconscious part of us is able communicate to our conscious part through it. The Spirit is able to communicate to us in the same way whether through parable, metaphor, nature, or whatever symbol. I also highly suspect that in heaven, those there, do not have to use words but can communicate through empathy in a way impossible for me to describe with words.  | ||
| grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 37 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 |
"You are presenting a horrendous contradiction. If salvation were obtainable by the Law and Prophets why was the blood of Jesus necessary. If Jesus was necessary, how could anyone before him be saved? " I realize you don't know me but I was brought up in a completely legalistic environment. I believe the Blood of Jesus saved all - those before Christ when Jesus went in to hell and set the captives free and today through the acceptance of His gift of grace when we accept Him as Savior. I can't pinpoint the verses and really need to be doing other things right now. But that is what I believe. Oh - I meant to mention that you are right about me needing to know my Bible better. Now if I could just stay away from Factnet!  | ||
| grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 38 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 |
Maybe because of the eternity issue that outside of the time we see on earth that David's baby could be with the Lord. Maybe hell is outside of the time dimension of the world? Don't know. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 132 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
"those before Christ when Jesus went in to hell and set the captives free and today through the acceptance of His gift of grace when we accept Him as Savior." OK which is what I was referring to earlier. These "captives" included all people that lived before Christ no? Also, this gets interesting... these people heard the gospel and were saved in a state of death correct? Very interesting. "Maybe hell is outside of the time dimension of the world? Don't know." Add heaven to that as well. Really, there are 70 sextillion visible stars in the known universe. (70,000 million million million) http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/ To put that into perspective, that is more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth many times over. To think God operates in linear earth time of one earth rotation as a heaven "year", to me, is a strange limiting concept. FACTnet is addictive... maybe we should start a FACTnetaholics 12 step thread. | ||
| rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 102 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 |
"God has no limitations. God said he "hated Esau from the womb." God condemned all (wo)men from birth forward to death in the Garden of Eden, like it or not. Here is your chance, using your limited dogma and faith, find a way into heaven for children. Book, chapter and verse".TATM Sandy, am I understanding that you really think God would send children hell? There are many things in life that can't be explained away thru scripture but the cruelity in your statement is hard for me to grasp..Maybe I am misunderstanding or do you believe in predestination..R | ||
| rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 103 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 |
Luke 18:16-Jesus however called the infants to Him. "Let the little children come to me," He said; "do not hinder them; for it is to those who are childlike that the Kingdom of God belongs. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 138 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
"Sandy, am I understanding that you really think God would send children hell?" Many Calvinists, which include some mainstream denominations will avoid answering this question. It is the logical conclusion of Predestination and original sin theology. I have spoke with one Presbyterian (Calvinist) who stated to me it is entirely possible that all infants and children go to hell (and that eternally of course) the thought of an infant suffering eternally in the torment of flames disgusts me personally, I question the sanity and decency of anyone that holds to this, and when they inculde children into this concept of all men are Totally Depraved... I can honestly say I am glad I was not born to Calvinist parents. They are not alone maybe in this theology, but make up a big portion of those who own it. FYI the Catholic Church has revised their teaching of limbo to the teaching that children go to heaven. It is about time. If true Christianity worships a God that tortures small children and babies on a whim or according to some divine plan or for whatever reason, I guess I am not a Christian. Just can't lose my mind to that point. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 183 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
"Roman church doctrine holds that an un-baptized infant will go into limbo." TATM "Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven. Theologians said the move was highly significant - both for what it says about Benedict's willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church's views on heaven, hell and original sin - the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with. Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God. "If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame." From Article on the web... there are many such articles concerning this reversal. Gotta stay up to speed TATM, never know when a major theological shift is coming down the pike with the catholics. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Intermediate Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 105 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 208.61.5.114 |
Actually, Rev. McBrien is a bit limited in his options. There is another option: scrap the understanding of Original Sin that is also based on Augustinian theology. | ||
| ezekiel_37 New member Username: ezekiel_37 Post Number: 22 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 64.231.172.158 |
ssv, The problem with this verse, if you are a Christian which I assume you are is... David did not go to heaven for a long time. Had to wait for Jesus to die right? So the infant went to Sheol (hell) before David? That is illogical. David is in heaven right away. He doesn't have to wait for Christ, as will be explained soon... David and Daniel and Abraham and all other over-comers, shall have to go through Christ, but indeed are around the thrown of God on the good side of the gulf in Heaven, right now and before Christ was crucified. I would refer you to the teachings of Christ in Luke 16 Abraham is in heaven, before the crucifixion. My understanding is that he would have had to go through Christ to get there, but Abraham is there, with Lazarus. The hell described is not the burning lake of fire (which doesn't even exist until the White Thrown Judgement of God, after the 1000 years), but the bad side of heaven...where all who do not overcome go. So, none have been to Paradise yet, and that is here after the Judgement....but many are around the thrown of God, and that before Christ paid the price. So, Abraham is in heaven before Christ is killed. It is important to realize that the Burning Forever Hell, where bad folk get tortured forever....does not exist, and won't exist. The truth about Hell is that it is God's judgement on the non-over-comers, and they get 100% destroyed forever. We couldn't have eternity, with no tears, if there was uncle bob frying in hell. Hell is for one to be destroyed, soul and all, forever. Our God is not a sadist. I have spoke with one Presbyterian (Calvinist) who stated to me it is entirely possible that all infants and children go to hell (and that eternally of course) the thought of an infant suffering eternally in the torment of flames disgusts me personally, I question the sanity and decency of anyone that holds to this, and when they include children into this concept of all men are Totally Depraved... I can honestly say I am glad I was not born to Calvinist parents. I agree!!! in His service c | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 191 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
"That is illogical. David is in heaven right away. He doesn't have to wait for Christ, as will be explained soon..." By what merit did David achieve this distinction? Who is the Bible referring to when it states that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison and those that were dead? If these people are sinners, they had a second chance? If these people are saints... why does the bible say Jesus preached to those who were once disobedient? Also, if they were saints, why not David included? Who is to say that in Luke (which I would say is clearly parable) paradise is not part of sheol? If Jesus went to the "heart of the earth" and "preached" and this is where the rich man was, it seems strange heaven was so close as to be within talking and hearing distance. No more strange I suppose than a dead person having a body in the state of death. A mouth, ears and a tongue? Where did this body come from? It states in Acts 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, And Paul teaching in Romans that there is not one righteous person under the Law. David was under the Law, if he was not righteous, how did he get to heaven? If he was righteous without the blood of Christ, why the need for the atonement? David commited murder and adultery and sinned in numbering Israel which resulted in the deaths of 70,000 people. Why did he get a pass and go to heaven, but joe shmoe nobody lives a decent life no murder, no adultery, hasn't heard about Jesus, so he gets destroyed in hell for not accepting Jesus when he had no chance? | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 192 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
Also: Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. If I had been in heaven as a saint... I don't think I would have been too happy about having my soul torn from heaven and being reembodied, or reincarnated if you will and having to die again! Or were they just walking bodies like night of the living dead? What is up with this? | ||
| ezekiel_37 New member Username: ezekiel_37 Post Number: 25 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 64.231.172.158 |
By what merit did David achieve this distinction? faith and works Who is the Bible referring to when it states that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison and those that were dead? All those that were on the wrong side of the gulf, in heaven. I do not believe that this includes David or Abraham. If these people are sinners, they had a second chance? They never had a chance to begin with. If these people are saints... why does the bible say Jesus preached to those who were once disobedient? Also, if they were saints, why not David included? They were not the Saints. Who is to say that in Luke (which I would say is clearly parable) paradise is not part of sheol? Lazarus and the rich man, who said it was a parable??? Christians are on the most part ignorant of the Word. The Lake of Fire is non existent at this time. The grave, meaning death, happens and exists. 2 sides to heaven, and everyone is conscious and able to communicate with each other. Whether you are good or bad, you wind up in heaven, on one side of the gulf or the other. If Jesus went to the "heart of the earth" and "preached" and this is where the rich man was, it seems strange heaven was so close as to be within talking and hearing distance. That's what the Word declares. No more strange I suppose than a dead person having a body in the state of death. A mouth, ears and a tongue? Where did this body come from? 1Cor15 explains the two bodies. It states in Acts 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. The promise is for David to rule, so this is drawing back to the promise. ... ... ... 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, This is not inferring the heaven in general (where Abraham is), but to the thrown of God (where no man is). David is not going to the thrown, and David will not sit at God's right hand, but Christ will. Christ is to be the ONE, not David... I read the whole thought including the verses in between the ones that you quoted, and that is what is being implied. And Paul teaching in Romans that there is not one righteous person under the Law. David was under the Law, if he was not righteous, how did he get to heaven? If he was righteous without the blood of Christ, why the need for the atonement? No one is righteous now, but obviously, from prophecy and Christ's words, there are inhabitants of Heaven...now, and then. No soul shall be allowed into the FOREVER AFTER...PARADISE...right here on earth, until they overcome....if at all. I have no problem understanding that David accepted Christ upon his arrival into heaven...or if you wish, after Christ's visit to the other side. I don't believe that David or Abraham were ever on the other side of the gulf. On the happy side and therefore fully prepared to accept the Messiah. | ||
| ezekiel_37 Junior Member Username: ezekiel_37 Post Number: 26 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 64.231.172.158 |
David commited murder and adultery and sinned in numbering Israel which resulted in the deaths of 70,000 people. Why did he get a pass and go to heaven, but joe shmoe nobody lives a decent life no murder, no adultery, hasn't heard about Jesus, so he gets destroyed in hell for not accepting Jesus when he had no chance? Joe Shmoe won't be sent to hell, especially if he is the qualities that you state. A soul such as this, won't have a problem accepting the Messiah, the only way to God. Whether the acceptance is in this life or the afterlife, matters not for Salvation. As explained above, the Burning Lake of Fire, does not exist yet. God is fair, and everyone shall get a true chance for Salvation. Even you!!! Also: Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. This is a one time event to show that Christ was indeed the Messiah. My understanding is that they were all very recently dead. Within a few days. If I had been in heaven as a saint... I don't think I would have been too happy about having my soul torn from heaven and being reembodied, or reincarnated if you will and having to die again! You wouldn't mind too much if you were serving God, and they must have been serving God...for they were the type, for the Resurrection that happens at the 7th trump, and later after the Millennium. Or were they just walking bodies like night of the living dead? Naw, they had/have a soul. What is up with this? You'll have to ask God that when you see Him... 'cause you will. in His service c | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 219 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 |
"No more strange I suppose than a dead person having a body in the state of death. A mouth, ears and a tongue? Where did this body come from?" Me "1Cor15 explains the two bodies." Zeke The Context of 1Cor15 is clearly referring to the resurrection... clearly. Which has not happened yet. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. and 1 Thess 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. According to your interpretation, the humans have a physical body, then a spiritual/physical body after death, then receive a resurrection spiritual/physical? body at the resurrection. This adds a resurrection in the text that is not in there. Or maybe you teach the resurrection has already happened which Paul condemns as heresy: 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. If you say no resurrection has happened yet, you can't appeal to 1 Cor 15 as support for teaching a current body in the state of death. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 220 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 |
One reason I made the distinction of spiritual/physical in regard to future bodies and bible teaching... if Christ is to be considered the first fruit of the resurrection, which is clearly presented in scripture, and we receive a body similar to him... Christ ate food and could be touched after the resurrection,,, yet he passed through walls and could fly. So it appears to be a hybrid body. Of course, when the ghost of samuel came up from Sheol in the Old Testament he still had his clothes on so I suppose we get spirit clothes. Make sure whatever you are wearing at death is what you want to spend eternity in... no wait, that is just silly. | ||
| arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 163 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 |
the resurrection has not taken place yet.. but that is only for our bodies(mortal) our spirts , if we are saved are with THE LORD in a place of rest but yet not soulsleep as some teach. my wife is in heaven her body is in the grave, she is i am sure haveing a great time with THE LORD JESUS | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 222 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 |
"Lazarus and the rich man, who said it was a parable???" Ezekiel_37 The gospel of Mark and Matthew make that a real possibility. Mark 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples. Matthew 13: NASB: All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable. Luke 15 3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying, So in Luke, we have Jesus teaching to the public in parables... this discourse to the same group starts off with "and he spake a parable unto them" The four subjects preceding the rich man and lazarus are clearly parable. In fact the one immediately preceding also starts off with "there was a certain..." But for some reason certain people love to insist the rich man and lazarus is not parable... maybe because there is such a lack of concrete teaching on the state of the afterlife in the bible they grasp onto this. Many bible scholars and theologians consider this parable. Among the camp that does not, it is mostly made up of literalist fundamentalist inerrantists. Which you someitmes appear to be, then sometimes not, depending on which passage you are teaching about. | ||
| ezekiel_37 Junior Member Username: ezekiel_37 Post Number: 34 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.158.182.80 |
Hello ssv, This is going to take 3 posts. No more strange I suppose than a dead person having a body in the state of death. A mouth, ears and a tongue? Where did this body come from?" Me "1Cor15 explains the two bodies." Zeke The Context of 1Cor15 is clearly referring to the resurrection... clearly. Which has not happened yet. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. Actually, the WHOLE chapter is teaching about the two states. This flesh state and the spiritual state. In both, we have a body. What is incorruptible cannot inhabit that which is corruptible. The point of teaching the two bodies is that folks can understand how the dead can be resurrected. It is not the flesh body (skeleton) that is resurrected to earth, but the spiritual body which is incorruptible and does not decay. and 1 Thess 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. There are many scriptures that teach of the 2nd coming. The point is that there are 2 bodies, one for life in the flesh and one for the Millennium and Paradise. According to your interpretation, the humans have a physical body, then a spiritual/physical body after death, then receive a resurrection spiritual/physical? body at the resurrection. This adds a resurrection in the text that is not in there. I don't mind discourse, but let's not put words into each others mouths/comp screens. That is not what I am saying. We have a flesh body for life in this existence, and we have a body after flesh death. The 2nd body is the same body as the resurrected body. All who are dead have this spiritual body. The dead in Christ are ALREADY IMMORTAL, and with Christ NOW. The others, have that spiritual body, but it is not immortal and is still liable to die the 2nd death.... The spiritual body is very physical and is the same body that the angels have. They exist now and do not have to wait for the 2nd Coming to get it. That is why the dead in Christ cannot be preceded by US that are alive at His return. They are already in that body. I understand that the Resurrected body is meant to convey souls living on earth again. Resurrected to life on earth. The biblical accounts of prophecy and visions indicate that souls are not sleeping, waiting for their new bodies, but that they already have them and are awaiting their "getting back' to the earth...which as you probably know is where Paradise forever is located. Or maybe you teach the resurrection has already happened which Paul condemns as heresy: No I do not believe that the resurrection (7th trump?) has happened yet for US. But the dead in Christ have their resurrected bodies already and must wait to use them here on earth. | ||
| ezekiel_37 Junior Member Username: ezekiel_37 Post Number: 35 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.158.182.80 |
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. If you say no resurrection has happened yet, you can't appeal to 1 Cor 15 as support for teaching a current body in the state of death. I don't, if you are referring to the Resurrection of the dead to life on earth and Christ's 2nd coming. But all dead have their physical-spiritual body NOW. The dead in Christ have their IMMORTAL spiritual body(ressurected body) NOW. One reason I made the distinction of spiritual/physical in regard to future bodies and bible teaching... if Christ is to be considered the first fruit of the resurrection, which is clearly presented in scripture, and we receive a body similar to him... Christ ate food and could be touched after the resurrection,,, yet he passed through walls and could fly. So it appears to be a hybrid body. Could be. He's God, and can do what ever He wants, really!!! Christ is the first fruit of Resurrection, and He is already resurrected as is evident in scripture. He walked and talked and went through walls... All those that die in His name are also resurrected, albeit still in heaven for now. They are around His Throne. First Fruits means BEST. Of course, when the ghost of samuel came up from Sheol in the Old Testament he still had his clothes on so I suppose we get spirit clothes. Make sure whatever you are wearing at death is what you want to spend eternity in... no wait, that is just silly. lol | ||
| ezekiel_37 Junior Member Username: ezekiel_37 Post Number: 36 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 69.158.182.80 |
"Lazarus and the rich man, who said it was a parable???" Ezekiel_37 The gospel of Mark and Matthew make that a real possibility. But it isn't said to be one. Not only that but Lazarus is a figure in the Gospels who does indeed die, and is brought back to life. The visions in the bible more than suggest that souls are fully coherent in Heaven. Christ taught in parable because not every one is supposed to understand at this time, or that time. They may need the Millennium to understand. After, Christ would tell the disciples the strait forward message as you have noted below. All through out the bible, there are souls in heaven doing things. Mark 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples. Matthew 13: NASB: All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable. Luke 15 3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying, So in Luke, we have Jesus teaching to the public in parables... this discourse to the same group starts off with "and he spake a parable unto them" The four subjects preceding the rich man and Lazarus are clearly parable. In fact the one immediately preceding also starts off with "there was a certain..." It is clear to me that some who heard the parables got the message, and some did not. Truthfully, you cannot prove that it was a parable, especially since the man was named and is a figure in Christ's life. No where else in any PArable will you find that Christ uses the name of a person that He knows...or any named person for that matter. Lazarus is the Greek equivalent to Eleazar, the chief priest...this is a priestly teaching and one to be taken literally. The part of the story which may not be literal is the description of Lazarus eating the crumbs of the rich man's food. It is conveying the positions in society that the 2 men had. One rich and one poor....or One good and one bad......or one righteous and one selfish. But for some reason certain people love to insist the rich man and Lazarus is not parable... maybe because there is such a lack of concrete teaching on the state of the afterlife in the bible they grasp onto this. I see the story of Lazarus and the rich man to be in harmony with the visions of the afterlife. All alive and doing 'stuff'. Remember that the parables that Christ taught were a way to teach reality. Many bible scholars and theologians consider this parable. Among the camp that does not, it is mostly made up of literalist fundamentalist inerrantists. Which you someitmes appear to be, then sometimes not, depending on which passage you are teaching about. I don't like titles like fundamentalist or literalist. I teach what I believe. Sometimes the subject matter is literal, and sometimes it is not. I am by far infallible, and have learned much, even here at factnet. Have a nice day, ssv. in His service c | ||
| called New member Username: called Post Number: 3 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 141.150.36.6 |
A child is born with no state of mind, not knowing the difference between right and wrong, but that same child is also born with the original sin of Adam and eve hanging over its head. As it was the mother of Christ and the rest of the human race, therefore we all need a redeemer including that new born baby which knows no sin! We find the answer in the NT Scriptures recorded in 1 Cor 7:14 please read from 7:8-16, 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? We can clearly see according to these scriptures that their must be at least one believing parent in order for that child to be saved, or else their children are considered unclean in the eyes of God. Johnny | ||
| arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 185 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 |
johnny .. you are crazy | ||
| rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 172 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 |
Dear heavens arron, I just read that and I will agree with you..Johnny you are into some very sad stuff...how do some of you guys have the nerve to think you understand God-you really make God look terrible-no wonder people are turned off by this! get with the program and start spreading some good around the world. Like my Friend from Hondurus used to say..peace be unto thee.R | ||
| called New member Username: called Post Number: 5 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 141.150.36.6 |
Hi Rachel it’s been a long time I am sorry you don’t agree but that’s straight up what the scripture says and as a preacher I can’t twist’ water down or candy coat it in anyway shape or form. I pray to God that i am wrong to, but this is what that word of God says without adding or taking away from it! And Arron you are really deceived sir in many many ways! You truly need to start taking the word of God seriously if you plan on making it through the gates of that city one day. The Pentecostal church is not going to get you in, but it will keep you out. Johnny | ||
| called New member Username: called Post Number: 6 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 141.150.36.6 |
Rachal said, how do some of you guys have the nerve to think you understand God-you really make God look terrible-no wonder people are turned off by this! get with the program and start spreading some good around the world. It’s simple Rachel just by believing the word of God says just what it means and means just what it says. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 408 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.3 |
While I do not disagree with arron's conlcusion of a distinct lack of reason, and the term "crazy" not totally misplaced... to be fair the doctrine of original sin goes back pretty far. Whereas the Catholics afforded the belief of limbo concerning the infants, early Calvinism and certain others, did not. If you are bored here is a link to an article... specifically section 2, regarding infant damnation and Calvinism. http://www.gospeltruth.net/harris/har_cal_toc.htm And when one cleaves to a literal interpretation, or total inerrancy position, such things like this horrendous belief arise. The source of said "craziness" maybe being as much the ambiguity of the verses themselves, as much as the reader reverently worshiping and following them. "no wonder people are turned off by this!" Exactly. The question is, is this true Christianity or just his flavor. If this is true Christianity, most people would probably rather be any number of other things, including heathen. The conscience, natural affection, human understanding, and reason reels in horror of what this belief and teaching implies about, not only us and our children, but more so the implication concerning the nature of God. | ||
| rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 173 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 |
His(called) concepts are heartbreaking.... | ||
| arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 189 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 |
called of course the pentecostal church WILL NOT et me into heaven neither will it make me BE LOST for i am saved by THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHIRST BY FAITH IN THAT BLOOD, NO WATER NEEDED NO WROKD NEEDED, JUST JESUS TO GET ME INTO HEAVEN your "church" if you have one will never ever get you there either so read your bible. GOD would never send a child who knew nothing of believeing on HIM to hell. so study GOD WORD THE BIBLE AND QUIT READING OTHER TRASH and get right with THE LORD | ||
| called New member Username: called Post Number: 14 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 141.150.36.6 |
Your man made church is apostete and i have no church because i am the Church. | ||
| called New member Username: called Post Number: 15 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 141.150.36.6 |
Your man made church is apostate and i have no church because i am the Church. | ||
| rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 180 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 4.159.5.247 |
http://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 414 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
Hey, I had no idea there was anyone else on here who was at all aware of what it even is. http://www.moderndeism.com/index.html It reminds me of the Mark Twain quote. Only altered slightly. "The recent reports of its demise have been greatly exaggerated". | ||
| rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 184 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 4.159.5.247 |
I'm a deist...it is growing..R | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 415 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
Well, it certainly does make sense doesn't it. Also, it is pretty close to what I have always thought before I ever got sucked into following men and "revealed" religion. In fact, I never abandoned it totally, even during my jaunt through pentecostalism. Which is an interesting concept. That someone else receives a revelation, then demands you follow their revelation which they are unable to prove, which must be accepted "by faith". Is it any wonder, given the superstitious nature of mankind, that we end up with ten thousand cults, who all claim to have the "revealed" truth? I say, revealed to you, wonderful, your revelations revealed to me?? I have my own thank you and I see no need to share them. I am sorry, I return this thread to its rightful owner... the original poster. John Calvin Junior. Or JCJ for short. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 416 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
"My interpretation is as good as your's. We can say the same thing for evolution, global warming, and the old earth theory . . . all are interpretations of scientific discovery and not fact." TATM But would you say this about your interpretations of the Bible? That someone else's is just as good as yours and yours just as good as someone else's? Probably not. I am curious TATM, I do not know if you are on here still... you never said what you believe. I assumed you believe infants go to hell based on your first post. Was your intent to simply stir up the debate then step away? | ||
| called New member Username: called Post Number: 22 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 141.150.36.6 |
a deist Belief that humanity has the ability to use Reason to develop ethical/moral principles and through the application of Reason these principles can be used to implement moral behavior, which in turn creates a Utilitarian-Humanist morality. Essentially, {{{humans can be guided by their conscience in matters of morality}}}. humans woulden't have a conscience if it wasen't for God. """{humanity has the ability to use Reason to develop ethical/moral principles} {What a joke} thats why were all trying to kill eachother and out do eachother and blow eachother off the face of the mape right!!! {{{Belief that God should be honored in a way that the individual believes is best and most appropriate for them}}}. Individuals must determine for themselves how best to honor God and only they can develop how to accomplish this. For many, it is a multi-faceted and an individualized process"""".''Theirs only one way to honor or worship God and thats in Spirit and truth!!!! Whats wrong with you people? Just get a NT KJVB read it and do what it says or is that to much for God to ask? | ||
| called New member Username: called Post Number: 23 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 141.150.36.6 |
Rachel """I'm a deist""" a deist is not a Christian it’s just another man made modern, new age, liberal belief system don’t you realize that? | ||
| arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 192 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 |
called then you are hell bound rachel england you are a diest?? o my | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 420 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
Well, I for one, have been hurt much more by so "called" christians than any deist. I would offer that history records more atrocities at the hands of religious zealots than any other motivating factor. What have deists done to me? Nothing. What have some deisits in history done? Had a hand in founding America for one (Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson etc...) You probably hate America too. Deism is not 'new age'. Your definition is wacked. Not only that, deism covers such a broad range of thought, belief and philosophy, it is impossible to sum it in your nutshell. There are also Christian deists. Naw, at this point I would trust a deist quicker than most so "called" Christians, many of whom are simply wacked out spooky followers of some man who has interpreted the bible for them. Including King James. Which has many many errors. And the original manuscripts have errors. No we do not have the originals. We have copies of copies the earliest from around 300 ad. Those "originals" differ. Why am I repeating myself? This is over on the bible inerrancy thread. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 422 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.15 |
"for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man." (from the article Ms. England posted.) I have found this, based on my life experience, to be utterly and undeniably true. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 423 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.15 |
And a God that would torture infants eternally, which He had a hand in creating, not to mention eternal torment itself, with all its pagan concepts and origins... is absolutely cruel, and the concept would hold God in contempt of Himself. For God is loving (you would affirm). God is merciful, God is just (you would proclaim) Love is defined in 1 Cor 13. But apparently, as some would have it and have everyone believe... this 'love' is rather ethereal and passes swiftly, for upon the moment of death, which we mere mortals have the power over... to take or refrain from taking... the mercy ends, the love is limited, and the creation shall be eternally tormented by that which created it. This, makes no sense whatsoever. Of course humans are free to believe it. Leave me out of it, I want no part in it, nor would I endeavor to malign the character and integrity of God in such a manner. | ||
| called New member Username: called Post Number: 25 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 141.153.235.208 |
still_small_voice """And a God that would {{{torture infants eternally}}}, which He had a hand in creating, not to mention eternal torment itself, with all its pagan concepts and origins... is absolutely cruel, and the concept would hold God in contempt of Himself""". I never said that I believe that God will {{{torture infants eternally}}} I don't believe we will be {{{tortured eternally}}} if we don't make it! To me that would make God some kind of monster, I believe that this {{{EARTH}}} will be burned up along with all that didn’t make in the very end. It’s called the lake of fire, and yes the KJV has many errors but I feel it’s the closest we have. I am an independent nondenominational preacher so I hold to no originational teachings, I only teach what the bible clearly states word for word that’s my job. And from what I see if both parents are unbeliever than there children are unclean in the eyes of God. Other than that the bible seems to be silent on this subject. | ||
| still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 425 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 |
"I am an independent nondenominational preacher so I hold to no originational teachings, I only teach what the bible clearly states word for word that’s my job." You are in the minority. I believe Catholicsim and the Roman church had much to do with the eternal torture teaching being inserted into Christianity. The problem is, or at least one, is many others also believe they are teaching what the bible states "word for word" and come up with totally different teachings. I recall when researching at one time, it is recorded there were six theological schools at one point in the Christian faith. 1 taught eternal torment (Rome) 1 Anihilation, and 4 Universal Reconciliation. ""Christian Universalism", in its simple and proper sense, has existed in almost all ages of the Church. It was very prevalent and virtually unchallenged among early Christians until the time known as the "dark ages," which started in the fifth century. From A.D. 170 to 430, there were six Christian schools. Of these schools, four taught the salvation of all (Christian Universalism), one taught annihilation, and one taught eternal torment. During the dark ages, "Christian Universalism" still existed, but largely underground until the sixteenth century Protestant reformation." (Ken Allen, ThD from article: "What is Christian Universalism?" When you search for unity among believers, was there ever any? There is discord and division recorded in Acts. There were always divisions and there are divisions now. And everyone uses the bible, and most believe it to be inerrant. I credit this to certain people picking favorite passages, or one of two possibilities which contradict (see thread on bible inerrancy). If the scriptures were so clear, and you were simply "teaching what the bible clearly states word for word that’s my job." A. You would not be such a minority, and conflict with orthodoxy. B. The Christian community would not be so divided and conflicted nor have such a history of conflictwith itself. The Catholics used to torture heretics. The early protestants used to torture heretics and catholics. Have you studied John Calvin in Geneva? Now many Christian groups claim to be the only ones right, and all others in error to some degree or deceived. "And from what I see if both parents are unbeliever than there children are unclean in the eyes of God." To uses your reasoning here, the believing husband sanctifies the unbelieving wife as well, would you state that the unbelieving wife gets to heaven on her husband's faith? "Other than that the bible seems to be silent on this subject." Yes, it is. It is silent on many matters of importance, and definitely vague about the afterlife. If the apocolypse of Peter had been kept intact, and made it into the Canon, you would no doubt believe that angels carry infants to heaven where they are raised and grow up and enter eternal bliss. While a lot of others are tortured in various and numerous ways in hell. | ||
| called Junior Member Username: called Post Number: 27 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 141.153.239.198 |
"""You are in the minority. I believe Catholicism and the Roman church had much to do with the eternal torture teaching being inserted into Christianity''' You are so so right and I agree with you 100%, Catholicism is responsible for just about {ALL} the evil deception we have in the so called church today, and the great whore will be judged by God almighty at the end, she will not escape believe you me. |
