# Thread: Hell is for Children. A Christian Parable

1. Originally Posted by Beck
Hey Rose,

An very interesting topic. It seems if the video had taken the point of view that of a young Jewish girl which believed and loved God, but nothing of Jesus. This pivotal point has her after death going to hell and her murder accepting Jesus and going to heaven. I just wonder as to the author's view of christains and of the old testament saints? What would be his or your's understanding of the claim that they will be accepted into heaven while not accepting Jesus?
That's a good question Beck It's something I used to wonder about, but now I realize that in the Old Testament there was no development of the idea of an eternal afterlife in heaven/hell, or the idea of needing to be "saved" to go to heaven. The whole heaven/hell afterlife idea is one that popped up in the teachings of Jesus and Paul, so those ideas must have came from extra-biblical sources, like the different books of the apocrypha, not from the Old Testament.

All the best,
Rose

2. Originally Posted by David M
Good morning Richard. To say the murderer sincerely repented is a subjective conclusion, you have no way of knowing that. However, if I accept that he did, I have already admitted that I accept the judgment of Jesus to accept him.
David,

It appears you do not understand the rules of basic logic. The video presents a logical proposition: IF P THEN Q. The "P" is the proposition "A sinner can be saved." The "Q" is the proposition "A saved person goes to heaven." The video then shows that this proposition leads to the absurd conclusion that a person who was a sinner goes to heaven while the victim of his crime goes to hell because she was not a believer in Jesus. It has nothing to do with any "subjective conclusion" about the sinner in the video. We begin with the proposition that the sinner got saved and so went to heaven. This is the presupposition used to formulate the logical proposition. It's no different than saying "Suppose X is an odd number. If we divide X by 2 it will leave a remainder of 1." This is how people do logic.

Originally Posted by David M
You say that the killer did not have "time to prove his commitment." Is that a new standard for salvation? No Christian has ever taught that you have to live a certain amount of time after salvation before it "counts." That seems to directly contradict that doctrine that people are saved by faith alone.
I quoted "faith without works is dead" so show me this man's works." OK, so he did not have time to do any good works, and so as above I accept him if Jesus I accepts him. This is hypothetical at the moment and unless we can truly see into the man's heart/mind, we are unable to confirm on way or another.
Again, you do not seem to understand basic logic. Hypotheticals are the foundation of logical propositions. They are structured on the logical pattern of "IF P THEN Q." The word "IF" indicates the hypothetical. It is absurd to claim that the logic is invalid because it depends upon a hypothetical. All logic depends on hypothetical propositions. We begin by assuming the hypothetical situation where a sinner is saved and then ask what logically follows from that assumption. This is how people do logic. It is elementary.

Originally Posted by David M
I am constantly amazed at how diverse Christian doctrines are. You have found another common Christian teaching that you totally reject as erroneous. Fascinating!
May be so, but when "everyone does that which is right (or believes) in their own eyes" it is not surprising.
Is not your own interpretation "right in your own eyes"? What distinguishes you from anyone else?

Originally Posted by David M
It is doubtful that such would be a common occurrence, but that has nothing to do with the point of the video. The point of the video was to show the absurdity of the Christian doctrine that says our sins are forgiven if we merely repent and believe. The absurdity was made particularly blatant when the innocent victim was rejected by Jesus and sent to hell because she was a faithful Jew who believed in God but not in Jesus.
You know John 3:16 so what I have highlighted is not exactly true, which is why I cannot trust what you quoting the Bible correctly to make your point. We have to establish more than lip service and that can only be done over time. How do you come to know a person's true motives unless you can look into their heart.
Yes. it was absurd the innocent victim was rejected and that is the absurdity this video. I leave all judgment to God of this girl and I cannot say as the video does, that Jesus will reject her. Since none of us can speak for the girl, we should let God be the judge and leave it at that; not make assumptions.
What are you talking about? John 3:16 gives no condition beyond mere "belief" for salvation. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

We do not have to "establish" anything because we are not the judges of who is or is not saved. We are merely forming the logical proposition "IF P THEN Q." If the sinner truly believed then he was saved and went to heaven" and "if the Jewish girl did not believe then she was not saved and went to hell." It is simple logic David.

Originally Posted by David M
It's very odd that Christianity is fundamentally based on the idea of "faith" but no Christian seems to know what the word actually means. To say that God is faithful means that he can be trusted to do what he says he will do. The Bible is filled with promises that God rarely, if ever, keeps. If he typically refuses to do anything (as when he frequently lets terrible things happen to believers) then it is absurd to say he is "trustworthy." And worse, to say that he refuses to help as a "test" is as absurd as saying my wife commits adultery to see if I will trust her anyway.
Since you have not given any examples to back up your many claims, I have nothing to answer. You like to mix up words and ideas as if to say; "get out". Not intervening has nothing to do with being trustworthy. Where has God said; "I will intervene at every bad thing one man does to another"? Name one promise "that God rarely, if ever, keeps"? We cannot include promises that are future and have not been fulfilled. You see no future beyond AD70, so it is not surprising you say what you do.
The Bible is filled with stories of God intervening. He killed everyone in the flood. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He parted the Red Sea. But now you say God never intervenes, which means he never does anything on behalf of any believer, and this implies that all the Christian claims that God is faithful are utterly and totally meaningless since God never does anything for anyone at all! (According to you, anyway). You only proved my point.

And of course your assertion that God never promised to care for the well-being of believers in this life is false. The Bible is filled with such promises.

Originally Posted by David M
So Rose committs adultery; what a revelation!
Again, you show you don't understand the most elementary rules of logic. I never said Rose commits adultery! I said "to say that God refuses to help as a 'test' is as absurd as saying my wife commits adultery to see if I will trust her anyway." Your comment is both absurd and rude. I get the impression you brain is starting to boil because you can't support your assertions with logic and facts.

I now understand why you have accused me so frequently of being "illogical." You don't understand the first principles of basic logic.

Originally Posted by David M
Bottom line: How could God's faithlessness be a "test of faith"?
I do not know what you mean by God's faithlessness. Who should God have faith in. Does God need faith?
Say what? Have you never read a word of the Bible?

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Psalm 89:5 And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.

I could go on and on with citations about how God is supposed to be faithful. But you say that God never does anything on behalf of believers, so that is, by definition, faithlessness. It's like a father promises to feed his children but never does. Would you call him a "faithful father"?

Psalm 145:15 The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season. 16 Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.

Do you really mean to say that God does nothing for anyone?

Originally Posted by David M
Thanks for the NT references. I think the point was being made that Abel was "sacrificed" and I could not see justification for saying that.
I never said nor implied anything about Abel being sacrificed. It would help if you read my posts with more care.

Originally Posted by David M
Not surprised you are confused, I do not set out to confuse you, but to enlighten you. The one big lie in the video is that the man goes to heaven. Sorry, the man must wait till the resurrection and resurrected people will be here on earth not in heaven somewhere in outer space. The soul gong to heaven at death is false doctrine which can be discussed in another thread. If you believed in heaven going before you abandoned your faith, I know why you will not agree with me. This video is promoting a lie as well as the other absurdities discussed above.
OK - now I understand that in the religion you have invented from your private interpretation of the Bible, people don't go to heaven when they die. I trust you understand why I was "confused" since there was no way for me to know anything about your idiosyncratic interpretations.

But I'm still confused why you called this the "big lie" in the video since it is irrelevant to the main point of the video. The video has nothing to do with "when" a person is judged - the point was the injustice of giving a truly repentant sinner eternal life while his Jewish victim is rejected for not believing in Jesus.

Richard

3. Hi there Richard and Rose,

It is thought that the development of heaven or hell: if you are (one moment in time supposedly) PERMANENTLY FOREVER AND EVER IRREGARDLESS OF WHATEVER saved, and that this condition is insuring "zoe" (life(-forever)) is not something taught by either Yeshua or Paul.

Best guess here is it seems to be something of a Roman Catholic convention initiated as an alternative to not-paying indulgences, the primary of which appears to be buying the dead out of purgatory.

Everyone reading is requested to please show just one verse that clarifies if you get 'saved' one time, you are insured a place in heaven...or for that matter, that humans do go to heaven.

Yeshua "saved" thousands upon thousands yet there is only mention of 120 on Solomon's porch at Pentecost following Yeshua's crucifixion. So, where were all those "saved" people?

This whole issue calls into question the theologistics of current soteriology and not merely heaven or hell.

Here it's thought that it was extra-biblical sources completely responsible for saying such rubbish concerning potential heaven because it is not be found in either testament.

May you all
experience the goodnesss of God
within and beyond

Timmy

p.s. Because of the above stated, it's surmised that old Sunday School lesson about: heaven yes, hell no... does not really even deserve a place in biblical teaching at all.
Last edited by Timmy; 06-30-2012 at 02:39 PM.

4. Originally Posted by Rose
That's a good question Beck It's something I used to wonder about, but now I realize that in the Old Testament there was no development of the idea of an eternal afterlife in heaven/hell, or the idea of needing to be "saved" to go to heaven. The whole heaven/hell afterlife idea is one that popped up in the teachings of Jesus and Paul, so those ideas must have came from extra-biblical sources, like the different books of the apocrypha, not from the Old Testament.

All the best,
Rose
Hey Rose,

I agree to a point, but would say that within the old testament there are teachings of heaven and hell and the consequence of judgment. Like what is mentioned in Ezekiel 32-33 of Egypt going down to the pit of hell (sheol). Heaven and Hell in the old testament is also seen in how the 'mountain' of God is on top and that Hell is at the bottom or 'valley'. Any time one where to go high on the mountain it was as going to the dwelling place of God 'heaven' and any time one removed far away from the mountain it was considered as going to hell. Just of couple of ideas and concepts within the old testament. The most clear concept of hell was that it would bring about judgment, thus calling one to be saved from this judgment as in the case in Ezekiel.

The irony is that the young Jewish girl cried out to God, yet God did nothing.
Last edited by Beck; 06-30-2012 at 03:31 PM.

5. Originally Posted by Beck
Hey Rose,

I agree to a point, but would say that within the old testament there are teachings of heaven and hell and the consequence of judgment. Like what is mentioned in Ezekiel 32-33 of Egypt going down to the pit of hell (sheol). Heaven and Hell in the old testament is also seen in how the 'mountain' of God is on top and that Hell is at the bottom or 'valley'. Any time one where to go high on the mountain it was as going to the dwelling place of God 'heaven' and any time one removed far away from the mountain it was considered as going to hell. Just of couple of ideas and concepts within the old testament. The most clear concept of hell was that it would bring about judgment, thus calling one to be saved from this judgment as in the case in Ezekiel.
Hey there Beck,

The word "sheol" should never be translated as "hell." That word was first used in the 14th century and it is associated with a host of mythological ideas not found in the OT at all. Here is what the etymological dictionary says about it:
HELL: O.E. hel, helle, "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions," from P.Gmc. *haljo "the underworld" (cf. O.Fris. helle, Du. hel, O.N. hel, Ger. Hölle, Goth. halja "hell") "the underworld," lit. "concealed place" (cf. O.N. hellir "cave, cavern"), from PIE *kel- "to cover, conceal, save" (see cell).

The English word may be in part from O.N. Hel (from P.Gmc. *halija "one who covers up or hides something"), in Norse mythology the name of Loki's daughter, who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist"). Transfer of a pagan concept and word to a Christian idiom. In M.E., also of the Limbus Patrum, place where the Patriarchs, Prophets, etc. awaited the Atonement. Used in the KJV for O.T. Heb. Sheol and N.T. Gk. Hades, Gehenna.
Of course, the NT imported a lot of the pagan mythology about hades which is used in the LXX to translate sheol. But where did those mythological ideas come from? They just appear suddenly in the NT without any OT precedent or any explanation at all. It looks like the common first century mythology was just taken for granted by the folks who wrote the NT.

I don't think you can make a case for the Christian ideas of "heaven and hell" if you restrict yourself to just the OT. At best you can read the Christian meanings into obscure OT passages, but that would just be eisegesis. The meaning of "heaven" (shamaiam) is very ambiguous. It generally just means "sky" and later acquired the metaphorical meaning of "abode of God." But it would be foolish to literalize it and suggest there is a real "place" where God lives called "heaven." There is no basis for that in the OT at all as far as I can tell. If you think you know of such a verse, please share it.

Richard

6. Originally Posted by Timmy
Hi there Richard and Rose,

It is thought that the development of heaven or hell: if you are (one moment in time supposedly) PERMANENTLY FOREVER AND EVER IRREGARDLESS OF WHATEVER saved, and that this condition is insuring "zoe" (life(-forever)) is not something taught by either Yeshua or Paul.
How then do you understand the verses that promise everlasting life for the faithful?

And as an aside, I think his name was Yehoshua. The Jews have a tradition that letters are removed from names as a sign of divine displeasure. That's why they write his name with just three letters Yeshu (Yod Shin Vav). It's meant as an insult. Yeshua is a little better. It's a legitimate variation of Yehoshua. But Yehoshua is the proper full name. It is how you would say the name Joshua in Hebrew. And it has the most appealing numerical value of all the possibilities (391) but that's another topic.

Originally Posted by Timmy
Best guess here is it seems to be something of a Roman Catholic convention initiated as an alternative to not-paying indulgences, the primary of which appears to be buying the dead out of purgatory.
I know that the religious hierarchy stoked the fires of hell seven times hotter in their effort to control the sheep/zombies but I'm not so sure that they invented the concept. Have you looked into the history of how it developed?

Originally Posted by Timmy
Everyone reading is requested to please show just one verse that clarifies if you get 'saved' one time, you are insured a place in heaven...or for that matter, that humans do go to heaven.
Actually, it's a lot easier to find the conditional verses that say you will be saved IF you remain faithful.

The OSAS doctrine is derived using logic and Biblical presuppositions. For example, the Bible says a believer is a "new creature" and "born again." It never says anything about people getting "unborn again" or being "uncreated back into an old creature" and then "born again again" and being a new old new creature. I think the problem is that the Bible is logically incoherent. It says things that cannot be logically harmonized.

Originally Posted by Timmy
Yeshua "saved" thousands upon thousands yet there is only mention of 120 on Solomon's porch at Pentecost following Yeshua's crucifixion. So, where were all those "saved" people?
Where did you get the idea the Jesus saved "thousands upon thousands." I don't think you can find any verses supporting that assertion.

Originally Posted by Timmy
This whole issue calls into question the theologistics of current soteriology and not merely heaven or hell.
Oh yes indeed I not could more agree. Theologistics! Now there's a neologism I think I'll keep, right next to my old fave Philopholizing!

Originally Posted by Timmy
Here it's thought that it was extra-biblical sources completely responsible for saying such rubbish concerning potential heaven because it is not be found in either testament.

May you all
experience the goodnesss of God
within and beyond

Timmy
Sweet! I appreciate your kind thoughts.

Originally Posted by Timmy
p.s. Because of the above stated, it's surmised that old Sunday School lesson about: heaven yes, hell no... does not really even deserve a place in biblical teaching at all.
I do believe you may do us all a favor if you exfoliated the full meaning intended in those words.

7. Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Hey there Beck,

The word "sheol" should never be translated as "hell." That word was first used in the 14th century and it is associated with a host of mythological ideas not found in the OT at all. Here is what the etymological dictionary says about it:
HELL: O.E. hel, helle, "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions," from P.Gmc. *haljo "the underworld" (cf. O.Fris. helle, Du. hel, O.N. hel, Ger. Hölle, Goth. halja "hell") "the underworld," lit. "concealed place" (cf. O.N. hellir "cave, cavern"), from PIE *kel- "to cover, conceal, save" (see cell).

The English word may be in part from O.N. Hel (from P.Gmc. *halija "one who covers up or hides something"), in Norse mythology the name of Loki's daughter, who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist"). Transfer of a pagan concept and word to a Christian idiom. In M.E., also of the Limbus Patrum, place where the Patriarchs, Prophets, etc. awaited the Atonement. Used in the KJV for O.T. Heb. Sheol and N.T. Gk. Hades, Gehenna.
Of course, the NT imported a lot of the pagan mythology about hades which is used in the LXX to translate sheol. But where did those mythological ideas come from? They just appear suddenly in the NT without any OT precedent or any explanation at all. It looks like the common first century mythology was just taken for granted by the folks who wrote the NT.

I don't think you can make a case for the Christian ideas of "heaven and hell" if you restrict yourself to just the OT. At best you can read the Christian meanings into obscure OT passages, but that would just be eisegesis. The meaning of "heaven" (shamaiam) is very ambiguous. It generally just means "sky" and later acquired the metaphorical meaning of "abode of God." But it would be foolish to literalize it and suggest there is a real "place" where God lives called "heaven." There is no basis for that in the OT at all as far as I can tell. If you think you know of such a verse, please share it.

Richard
Hi Richard,

In my discussion with Rose I was'nt attempting to make a case for the fundamental christian idea of heaven and hell, but rather that the OT did indeed speak of them. Even as you have claimed that it has roots in mythology. I would say I see no reason to believe in heaven and hell as an literal eternal place as do the fundamental christian, but rather see in both OT and NT these have been written in relationship to the mountain of God (Jerusalem). To which the gentile nations afar from which the children of Israel was scrattered as being hell for those gentile nations knew not the God of Israel. (separation from God and his mountain)

I just think in the NT that Jesus and Paul used what the OT understood as the mountain of God as being the heavens [temple on mount moriah] which also parallels to the sky and it's stars [the host and priests]. The only difference from the OT and the NT is that heaven on earth was the temple with it's three compartments compared to the heaven which isn't maded with man's hand as the temple of the Body of Christ the church.

The book of Hebrews records that Abarham by faith looked for this land with an heavenly city. I'm guessing Abarham looked for a land where there were more than an earthly tabernacle. It's as if Abarham saw life as meaningless without hope for something better.

8. Originally Posted by Beck
Hi Richard,

In my discussion with Rose I was'nt attempting to make a case for the fundamental christian idea of heaven and hell, but rather that the OT did indeed speak of them. Even as you have claimed that it has roots in mythology. I would say I see no reason to believe in heaven and hell as an literal eternal place as do the fundamental christian, but rather see in both OT and NT these have been written in relationship to the mountain of God (Jerusalem). To which the gentile nations afar from which the children of Israel was scrattered as being hell for those gentile nations knew not the God of Israel. (separation from God and his mountain)

I just think in the NT that Jesus and Paul used what the OT understood as the mountain of God as being the heavens [temple on mount moriah] which also parallels to the sky and it's stars [the host and priests]. The only difference from the OT and the NT is that heaven on earth was the temple with it's three compartments compared to the heaven which isn't maded with man's hand as the temple of the Body of Christ the church.

The book of Hebrews records that Abarham by faith looked for this land with an heavenly city. I'm guessing Abarham looked for a land where there were more than an earthly tabernacle. It's as if Abarham saw life as meaningless without hope for something better.
I can see what you are getting at, but I don't think it really works. It doesn't seem consistent with what Paul taught here:
2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6 ¶ Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
It seems pretty clear that Paul believed in some sort of "spirit realm" (heaven) where Christians go when they die. How do you read this passage?

9. Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2012
Posts
1,246
Hello Richard

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
David,

It appears you do not understand the rules of basic logic. The video presents a logical proposition: IF P THEN Q. The "P" is the proposition "A sinner can be saved." The "Q" is the proposition "A saved person goes to heaven." The video then shows that this proposition leads to the absurd conclusion that a person who was a sinner goes to heaven while the victim of his crime goes to hell because she was not a believer in Jesus. It has nothing to do with any "subjective conclusion" about the sinner in the video. We begin with the proposition that the sinner got saved and so went to heaven. This is the presupposition used to formulate the logical proposition. It's no different than saying "Suppose X is an odd number. If we divide X by 2 it will leave a remainder of 1." This is how people do logic.

Again, you do not seem to understand basic logic. Hypotheticals are the foundation of logical propositions. They are structured on the logical pattern of "IF P THEN Q." The word "IF" indicates the hypothetical. It is absurd to claim that the logic is invalid because it depends upon a hypothetical. All logic depends on hypothetical propositions. We begin by assuming the hypothetical situation where a sinner is saved and then ask what logically follows from that assumption. This is how people do logic. It is elementary.
To say that the girl will not be saved because she believes in God and not Jesus, you do not know for certain. You do not allow for the mercy of God. Since God had caused a veil to be over the eyes of the Jews and they do not recognize Jesus, this girl has mitigating circumstances and I am sure if she was devout and God judges her as God-fearing she will be saved. I understand logic so you do not need to give me a logic lesson.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Is not your own interpretation "right in your own eyes"? What distinguishes you from anyone else?
My interpretation is not my own interpretation, it is according to best interpretation of God's word. You must show that my interpretation, which is not unique, is not the best, but then the way I have seen you interpret the scriptures, you will be able to do that easily, which is why I let others decide between us who is reasoning the best.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
What are you talking about? John 3:16 gives no condition beyond mere "belief" for salvation. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
My apologies. I realize the word I wanted to refer to is not in this verse. However, belief in Jesus must also be demonstrating commitment and the outward sign of one committing their life to Jesus is by baptism. (Mark 16:16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
If it is merely "repent and belief" there is more to belief than many think and more to John 3:16 than the face value of the words.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
We do not have to "establish" anything because we are not the judges of who is or is not saved. We are merely forming the logical proposition "IF P THEN Q." If the sinner truly believed then he was saved and went to heaven" and "if the Jewish girl did not believe then she was not saved and went to hell." It is simple logic David.
I do not agree that this girl would not be raised from the dead purely for the reason you give. There is a mitigating circumstance because of the veil that is on the spiritual eyes of Jews. Hence, I do not like the way this video intends this matter to be black and white and why you cannot apply the logic you want to.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
The Bible is filled with stories of God intervening. He killed everyone in the flood. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He parted the Red Sea. But now you say God never intervenes, which means he never does anything on behalf of any believer, and this implies that all the Christian claims that God is faithful are utterly and totally meaningless since God never does anything for anyone at all! (According to you, anyway). You only proved my point.
I never said God never intervenes, you did not give any examples for me to comment on. I accept that in the examples you have now given, God's actions are seen as interventions to change the course of history.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
And of course your assertion that God never promised to care for the well-being of believers in this life is false. The Bible is filled with such promises.
Please quote me on this assertion I am supposed to have made. It would be a gross typo for me to have said anything like that.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Again, you show you don't understand the most elementary rules of logic. I never said Rose commits adultery! I said "to say that God refuses to help as a 'test' is as absurd as saying my wife commits adultery to see if I will trust her anyway." Your comment is both absurd and rude. I get the impression you brain is starting to boil because you can't support your assertions with logic and facts.
I took it as inferrence but I agree in re-reading, I should have not read it that way, so apologies to you and Rose, although I think you should have chosen a bettter example and I do not see the point of the example anyway.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
I now understand why you have accused me so frequently of being "illogical." You don't understand the first principles of basic logic.
That is what you say, and that is your opinion. I have said above, you do not need to teach me about logic. When it comes to judgment, and life and death issues, the the outcomes are not always based on logic. The outcome for the girl you make out to be logical, God's judgment is not based on logic. Where does mercy fit in with logic? It is logical that if God can apply mercy and does, the logical conclusion you are trying to make will not be the outcome.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Say what? Have you never read a word of the Bible?
This is in response to my questions;
I do not know what you mean by God's faithlessness. Who should God have faith in. Does God need faith?

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Psalm 89:5 And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.

I could go on and on with citations about how God is supposed to be faithful. But you say that God never does anything on behalf of believers, so that is, by definition, faithlessness. It's like a father promises to feed his children but never does. Would you call him a "faithful father"?

Psalm 145:15 The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season. 16 Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.

Do you really mean to say that God does nothing for anyone?
Now you have given me examples of God's faithfulness but my main concern was about your use of the phrase "God's faithlessness". I accept God is faithful in the sense of reliable and trusted, but does God need to have faith as we have faith in Him?

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
I never said nor implied anything about Abel being sacrificed. It would help if you read my posts with more care.
I know it was not you, this is what happens when you join a conversation. It was the following remark from Timmy that made me mention it.
It's asked that you look how G_d dealt with Cain though he sacrificed his own brother.
Since this was Timmy post to you as well, I will leave it with you to reply to Timmy
Ello Richard, Rose (you remain in these prayers)
...and David (correct me when, not if, error is observed)
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
OK - now I understand that in the religion you have invented from your private interpretation of the Bible, people don't go to heaven when they die. I trust you understand why I was "confused" since there was no way for me to know anything about your idiosyncratic interpretations.
Please do not say I am inventing my my own private interpretation. I say when my interpretation is my own. I believe what a lot of other people do; we are in the minority I know.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
But I'm still confused why you called this the "big lie" in the video since it is irrelevant to the main point of the video. The video has nothing to do with "when" a person is judged - the point was the injustice of giving a truly repentant sinner eternal life while his Jewish victim is rejected for not believing in Jesus.

Richard
It might not be the main point to the video but as you and the video are using words to try and make your point in so doing I see the doctrinal error which is implicit it the imagery used of fire and Jesus being in the ethereal sky. I could say that it is the use of subliminal images depicting heaven and hell which the general mass if Christendom wants to think that is where souls go after death. I think it is wrong and when I see examples like this, I have to point it out. I cannot let you or anyone else get away with making claims that I do not agree with and so I will get the alternative interpretation across in these post for others to make up their minds as to which is correct.

OK, I am now done with answering your questions dealing with this video.

All the best, I will catch you in another thread.

David
Last edited by David M; 06-30-2012 at 05:09 PM.

10. Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
I can see what you are getting at, but I don't think it really works. It doesn't seem consistent with what Paul taught here:
2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6 ¶ Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
It seems pretty clear that Paul believed in some sort of "spirit realm" (heaven) where Christians go when they die. How do you read this passage?
I also see what you getting at. At first reading this does seem to be what Paul has descibed, but I've come to except that Paul wasn't speaking of his physical body. It rather seems that he is speaking metaphorical of the transformation of the old 'earthly tabernacle' of the old covenant to that of the heavenly tabernacle. I think Paul has used this earthly 'house' as in the same manner as in the book of Hebrews which speaks of 'not of this building' (Heb.9:11) Ktisis which Paul employed in Romans 8 which he spoke of the whole 'creation' (ktisis) of every creature as the 'house of God' the Body of Christ.

Thus Paul is comparing the old covenant 'body' of death to that which will be transformed into an new creation a new body of life in heaven. Again lets remember that the temple on top of the mountain of Jerualem is seen as heaven(s) where God dwells with it's outer, inner courts and the most holy place.
In which the spiritual the heavenly city that Paul hoped for has three parts the soul, spirit and mind which form the body, that is the Body of Christ the new covenant not maded with hands.

This body of death isn't Paul's physical body, but the body 'Adam' of the old covenant, so Paul is looking forward to the day in which there is an completion of the body as according to Romans 8 the redemption of our body is the manifestation of the sons of God.

##### Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may edit your posts
•