Predestination Theology

[William]

I don't think the false predestination god should be the one to define that seeing how he is willing to torture people eternally for conditions that he placed on them. The false predestination god is a sicko.

Q:1 Is there a "True Predestination God?"

Q2: Even if hellish experiences exist for individuals, does this mean that the god is "a sicko"?

Or

Q:2.1 Is the god only a "Sicko" if those hellish experiences last forever for said individuals?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #176]

The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

You're way off the rails here. My post is not a Biblical interpretation about the afterlife. Its about the now life. I don't use the Bible to interpret time, just like I don't need the Bible to interpret gravity. However, the Bible does support there is no premade timeline and that we are free to choose our own path. Both how the universe works concerning time and the Bible show strong evidence that no person has a set timeline.

[PinSeeker]

There is no distinction between eternal life and eternal existence.

Then how can a person who does NOT receive eternal life... then receive eternal existence?

Because eternal death -- the opposite of eternal life -- is not synonymous in any sense with eternal non-existence. As I said in post 159, "(d)eath is not equal to non-existence. Neither the first nor the second. John is very clear here." And by 'here,' the reference was to your quote in your preceding post of John's quote of Jesus in the fifth chapter of his gospel (John 5:29). Some are raised to life, and some are raised to death, and that's all. This is an all-encompassing statement of the second resurrection, the judgment, and the eternal fate/reality of those on Jesus's right and His left; there is no mention of any kind of "putting down again" or a wiping from existence. Yes, yes, I know: "But dear PinSeeker, destruction! Sodom and Gomorrah!" Read on...

Neither is there a distinction between eternal judgment/punishment or the second death and eternal existence.

There is though. Destruction (utter destruction) is the opposite of existence.

No, there's not, Tammy. I get that you think there is, but there's not. The two can coincide, co-exst, are not mutually exclusive. Regarding destruction, though -- even utter destruction -- the concept of destruction can be understood with validity in different ways and depends on context. Yes, one possible definition of 'destruction' is cessation of existence. Another possible definition of 'destruction' is -- as I said in post 173 -- personal ruin, damnation. From the context of all relevant passages, personal ruin and damnation is the proper meaning of 'destruction.' As Isaiah says in chapter 13 (verses 6 through 9) of his prophecy (and this coincides intimately with what Jesus shows us in Matthew 25 and Luke 16:

• "Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come! Therefore all hands will be feeble, and every human heart will melt. They will be dismayed: pangs and agony will seize them; they will be in anguish like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at one another; their faces shall be as flames. Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it."

Yes, sinners will be "destroyed" from the land (the earth) -- removed (they will certainly depart, as Jesus says in Matthew 7 and 25), with no possibility of returning, and therefore are ruined/damned/condemned for eternity, but they will not cease to exist. They will certainly be dismayed (as we see in Matthew 25), and pangs and agony will seize them, and they will be in anguish (as we see in Luke 16). I appreciate your position, but it's wrong. You think the same concerning me. We can leave it at that. Destruction (utter destruction), as it is portrayed in the Bible, is not the opposite of existence. It is permanent and irreversible spiritual ruin and condemnation, which is the consequence of the final Judgment for the unrepentant. The irreversible judgment of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah is what should be seen, not the physical destruction of the cities themselves.

The choice is Life or Death.

Agreed. See above.

The choice is not Life or eternal existence.

Agreed. See above.

The distinction by Christ directly and elsewhere in Scripture is between the two resurrections (to eternal life and to eternal judgment) and where those experiencing on or the other spend eternity.

This is one resurrection (the resurrection of the dead), with two outcomes. Resurrection to life OR resurrection to Judgment and the second death.

Agreed. See above.

As for the second outcome (resurrection to judgment), people are not just resurrected to judgment. They are resurrected to judgment AND the second death (the lake of fire). Two things are occurring:

1 - Judgment
2 - That judgment is carried out (being cast into the lake of fire)

Resurrection - to life or to judgment - and if judgment, then that judgment is carried out (thrown into the lake of fire).

Again, agreed, but what you are insinuating concerning the lake of fire is wrong. You should see the lake of fire as the figurative total immersion in and dwelling under God's judgment. The opposite of baptism by the Holy Spirit, actually, which is also by fire (Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16).

Just because man was made in the image of God does not mean that man is identical to God in all ways or that man has all the same attributes of God.

I never said such. But He is eternal, and we are, too, as a result of His creating us in His image.

And I asked you to show me where Christ taught this. Where is it written that man being created in the image of God means that man is eternal. Where did Christ teach that?

Yes, I know what you asked. Are you a "red-letter Christian," Tammy? We can discern, from the whole counsel of God -- with the Holy Spirit's help, of course -- that part of being created in God's image is that man is eternal, because God is. I'm sure you will say, "Oh! So you're admitting that you came up with that on your own! See? It's a doctrine of men!" Well, no, it's not, but I'm not going to argue with you further on that, except to say that by your definition, as I said previously, the very same thing ("doctrine of men") can be said of your position on the matter. Christ did not say anything about man being created in God's image. But that does not mean that man was not created in God's image, of course. So He didn't say it, but He didn't deny it, either. Right? Well, right. At any rate, again, man is not deity, of course, and never will be, but he is eternal. You disagree, and I fully understand that. We should be able to leave it at that.

Nowhere in the Bible is non-existence even mentioned

Utter destruction is, such as in the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.

As I have said before, the concept of destruction here (and elsewhere) is not in the sense of annihilation but rather in the sense of someone's ruin, as in damnation.

But Sodom and Gomorrah are no more; that is the example that we are given. And of course the example of fire (again unless it is being used to REFINE) consumes completely; destroys. So that there is nothing left. Nothing.

As I said, destruction (utter destruction), as it is portrayed in the Bible, is not the opposite of existence. It is permanent and irreversible spiritual ruin and condemnation, which is the consequence of the final Judgment for the unrepentant. The irreversible judgment of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah is what should be seen, not the physical destruction of the cities themselves.

The very nature of fire (unless it is used to REFINE) destroys/consumes completely, so that there is nothing left. That is the example that we are given.

I don't expect you to do with this what I mean for you to do, but our God is a consuming fire, is He not?

Yes, but that does not mean that God must go around destroying things with His presence...

Respectfully, I'm not even sure how you came up with that...

But that fire does not harm those people God is protecting.

Right, but that's only half the story. This all-consuming fire -- God Himself -- refines and consumes in righteousness those who, as Paul puts it in Romans 8:28, love God and are called according to His purpose, for sure. But that same fire -- God, according to His uncompromising, perfect justice -- condemns/damns and consumes in judgment those who do not love Him and are not called according to His purpose,

The choice is between life and death.

Right, I agree. But again, neither one has anything to do with existence or the lack thereof.

Obviously life means existence and eternal life means eternal existence. That is just common sense. If something is alive, it exists.

Agreed.

But equating eternal death with continued and eternal existence is backward.

No, eternal death is a permanent spiritual barrenness and ruin. In a place under God's eternal judgment and devoid of His grace. Utter damnation.

...and, in all the passages discussed regarding this subject (Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 16:19-31, Luke 23, John 5:25-29, Revelation 20:11-15, and others).

The only two passages above that deal with the resurrection of the dead and subsequent judgment (for some of those who are resurrected) are at John 5 and Rev 20. Those who rise to be condemned (John 5) are those who receive the judgment and the second death (lake of fire). Fire being that which destroys; consumes completely.

My point was that all neither state nor show nor imply nor insinuate annihilation.

None use the word 'annihilation', but annihilation is a synonym of destroy, meaning to destroy completely. I do not know how you can possibly deny that the implication of annihilation is not present in the word destroy; destruction.

Well, yes, you do know. Yet again, from the context of all relevant passages, personal ruin and damnation is the proper meaning of 'destruction.'

Luke 16 is a parable, and is taking place BEFORE the resurrection of the dead (and so before the second death). We can know that this does not represent anything after the resurrection of the dead, because Hades is emptied out (and then thrown into the lake of fire) at the resurrection of the dead. But in the parable, the Rich man is in Hades.

We've been here many times. too. Yes, it is a parable, but as such is illustrative of a moral or spiritual lesson -- this is the reason Jesus often related His parables -- and that lesson involves a situation that will become a reality for people who remain unbelievers and unrepentant of their sin. Yes, this parable is of a situation before the resurrection, but his eternal dwelling/fate is what's in view here. That you think otherwise is clear, but how you see otherwise is (frankly) astonishing. But we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

The Luke 23 passage -- sorry, specifically verses 39 to 42 -- shows that both those who believe (as the thief crucified on Christ's right did) would after physical death immediately be with Christ in paradise, and those who do not believe (as the thief crucified on His left) would after physical death immediately be... somewhere other than with Christ.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything we are talking about?

That those on Jesus's left do not cease to exist.

Nothing is said there about where those who do not believe would be; and nothing there suggests that these others would exist eternally.

Agreed with the first part of your assertion but not the second. The fact that He tells the first where He would be clearly insinuates that the other would not be there (in paradise with Him) but somewhere else. As is true with countless things in the Bible (and elsewhere), the direct assertion of one thing very clearly indicates the assertion of it's opposite. For example, Romans 8:28 says ",,,for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose," and very clearly from that we can deduce that for those who do not love God all things do not work together for good, for those who are not called according to his purpose.

(side note: considering that Christ was in the grave (Sheol/Hades/the world of the dead) for "3 days and nights", unless you are suggesting that Paradise exists in Hades, what you have said above is not possible; not on that very day at least).

Ah!!! So this kind of takes us somewhere else (another topic), but do you suppose Christ lied when He said to the thief on His right, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise”? Surely not, so how do you reconcile that?

Sure, you might say eternal existence apart from God, but that is still eternal existence.

Great! Yes, this is the second death.

See above question then.

Okay, well, see above answer.

So where will they be then? There is no more Hades (the world of the dead). If they are not part of the new heavens and the new earth (and nothing else is said to be in existence), then where is this place that holds the dead who are tormented for all eternity?

Those are fair questions, I guess, but really unanswerable. The only really concrete thing we are told is that they will be sent away from the new heaven and new earth.

Some food for thought then, yes? Though there is One who knows the answer to the question (Christ Jaheshua - and of course His Father). One could take the issue to Him, right?

Sure. Eat away. The only thing I will say is, there will be no more sin and no more death in the new heaven and new earth. But there will indeed be a... place... that the dead depart to. Christ said so, in Matthew 7 and 25.

God has not spent all this time teaching/training us (via His son) in mercy and love only to discard those teachings when glorified.

Oh, my. Okay, no comment, here -- except this one, I guess... : I'm dismissing this.

Okay. I'm leaving it up though.

Okay, suit yourself. But it is an absurdity, and I treated it as such.

There is no point to this. There is no need for this.

God will never dispense of or compromise any part of His character, including His love, His justice, His holiness, and His glory.

That does not respond to the fact that there is no point to eternal suffering; there is no need for it.

But that's the problem. It's not a fact in any shape or form. God's justice has to be satisfied. The only question then is, who satisfies it? God Himself, in the Person of Jesus, on a man's behalf? Or the man himself?

If I can find the links to our previous discussion on this, I will put them up here... Responses/rebuttals to the claim that God's justice is supposedly satisfied by eternal suffering...

All the links you provided are irrelevant, because I would never "claim" (or assert, or say) that God's justice is satisfied by any suffering, eternal or otherwise. But the consequence (wages) of sin is death (Romans 6:23a) -- which, as I have maintained (yes, I know you have maintained otherwise) is not cessation of existence. And that consequence cannot and will not be revoked. For those on whom God has had or will have mercy, Christ has satisfied that debt, standing in the place rightfully and justly ours, endured that consequence in our place. And for those whom God has not had or will not have mercy/compassion... not so much; they will stand at the judgment with no Advocate and will be destroyed -- ruined/damned/sent away -- for eternity.

(the following is just a reminder about the meaning in Ecclesiastes: viewtopic.php?p=1008732#p1008732 and viewtopic.php?p=1008817#p1008817)

This just took me to the original post in that thread, so I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to, but I suspect it's yours (and myth-one's, and possibly others') oft-repeated misinterpretation that Ecclesiastes 9:5 has anything to do with folks who have previously died. The whole of Ecclesiastes is about life "under the sun" -- this life. And regarding 9:5 specifically, the folks among us who do not have regenerate hearts are spiritually dead and know nothing of their need for Christ and God's great salvation. It's a great passage, but really irrelevant to the particular topic we're discussing here, except to say that for those who never repent and believe on Christ, they will spend eternity in the same state of death, but made permanent in the Judgment and thus "second," meaning last, final. Cessation of existence is not in view.

Even in the world of the dead now, that kind of suffering does not exist; the dead know nothing; they are sleeping - awaiting a resurrection.

Well, they don't exist "under the sun" -- in this life; that's what Ecclesiastes is all about -- for sure.

I did not mention the people not existing. They certainly exist - they are sleeping, knowing nothing, awaiting the resurrection. Sleeping people exist. I said that they are not suffering.

Okay, back up. You're mixing two entirely different things here. Never mind for now about suffering or lack thereof, you are referring to those in the world of the dead now -- which would mean those who have physically died. But you then say, concerning these who have already died, referring to Ecclesiastes 9:5 -- which is about those living now, those even now experiencing life under the sun, because that's what the whole of Ecclesiastes is all about -- that the dead know nothing. Again, as above, what's being said there is that the folks among us now, living, under the sun as we are, who do not have regenerate hearts are spiritually dead and know nothing of their need for Christ and God's great salvation. Again, that you can fail to see that you're conflating two different things is just astonishing, but you are.

And now back to the suffering... Yes, those unrepentant sinners who have died are in sadly but surely in anguish... not physically suffering, but indeed anguished, even to the point of wishing they could warn others not to follow them This is exactly what the parable of Luke 16 illustrates.

What about the people who descended to Sheol/Hades (who are even now awaiting the resurrection of the dead)?

Those are the unrepentant. After the Judgment, they will experience the second death. Which is destruction in the sense of personal ruin and damnation rather than cessation of existence.

I said more than that though. What about the people who descended to Sheol/Hades (who are even now awaiting the resurrection of the dead)? Do you think Job is suffering (or even thought he would be suffering after he died and descended to Sheol/Hades/)? Job, who longed to go to Hades (Sheol) in order to escape his suffering? Do you think Jacob suffered in the world of the dead after he died and was buried and gathered to his people? What about David, who said that he would go to his son (who died), but that his son would not come back to him? (2Samuel 12:23)

Oh, my. Okay, so, just taking the 2nd Samuel passage, David's son had died, and he could not bring his son back. Neither can any of us bring anyone back from the dead. Neither Job, nor Jacob, nor David suffered in the world of the dead in the sense you are thinking. By extension, you and I are walking through the valley of the shadow of death (David, Psalm 23) as we speak. So, to answer your presumably rhetorical question, of course neither Job, nor Jacob, nor David suffered in the world of the dead, because they never actually went there... ...because they all repented of their sin and believed before they died.

Grace and peace to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Going to skip the repetitious stuff,

And by 'here,' the reference was to your quote in your preceding post of John's quote of Jesus in the fifth chapter of his gospel (John 5:29). Some are raised to life, and some are raised to death, and that's all. This is an all-encompassing statement of the second resurrection, the judgment, and the eternal fate/reality of those on Jesus's right and His left; there is no mention of any kind of "putting down again" or a wiping from existence. Yes, yes, I know: "But dear PinSeeker, destruction! Sodom and Gomorrah!" Read on...

No, you do not know, lol.

The quote:

Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice 29and come out— those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Once judged, those people are thrown into the lake of fire (the second death).

So there is indeed mention of a 'putting down again'.

Yes, one possible definition of 'destruction' is cessation of existence.

Yes, so that it is indeed possible from the definition and usage of the word; and then one can add in all the rest (that has also been said).

Just because man was made in the image of God does not mean that man is identical to God in all ways or that man has all the same attributes of God.

I never said such. But He is eternal, and we are, too, as a result of His creating us in His image.

And I asked you to show me where Christ taught this. Where is it written that man being created in the image of God means that man is eternal. Where did Christ teach that?

Yes, I know what you asked. Are you a "red-letter Christian," Tammy?

Note that I asked you to show me where Christ taught this - since we are supposed to be listening to Him, remaining in His word, then it matters if He taught it or not. I know that you cannot show me where He is written to have said that, though, so I also asked you to show me where it is written, period. That was not 'red-letter' exclusive.

So He didn't say it, but He didn't deny it, either.

I just want to make a quick point on this (not just for you but for anyone making comments like this):

Christ did not outright deny lots of things that people claim (but that are not true - that we know at least some cannot be true because they contradict one another). For instance, Christ did not deny that He was Michael the Archangel. But that does not mean that Christ taught it. He should not have to deny that (or other things that people have 'come up with'). It should be enough that He does not teach it. Same goes for the trinity. Same goes for some things that William claims as well.

Christ does not need to have denied every single thing that false prophets, false teachers, false apostles, and false christs are going to come up with. He just had to tell us to remain in Him and His word. If we are truly His disciples, truly listening to Him, then we will obey His commands and remain in His word. Itt won't matter then what others come up with. Because we will know the truth from THE Truth: Christ.

The very nature of fire (unless it is used to REFINE) destroys/consumes completely, so that there is nothing left. That is the example that we are given.

I don't expect you to do with this what I mean for you to do, but our God is a consuming fire, is He not?

Yes, but that does not mean that God must go around destroying things with His presence...

Respectfully, I'm not even sure how you came up with that...

But that fire does not harm those people God is protecting.

Right, but that's only half the story.

The other half is in the comment above (where you said you are not sure how I came up with that).

The Luke 23 passage -- sorry, specifically verses 39 to 42 -- shows that both those who believe (as the thief crucified on Christ's right did) would after physical death immediately be with Christ in paradise, and those who do not believe (as the thief crucified on His left) would after physical death immediately be... somewhere other than with Christ.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything we are talking about?

That those on Jesus's left do not cease to exist.

Nothing in the passage states that (one way or the other).

Nothing is said there about where those who do not believe would be; and nothing there suggests that these others would exist eternally.

Agreed with the first part of your assertion but not the second. The fact that He tells the first where He would be clearly insinuates that the other would not be there (in paradise with Him) but somewhere else. As is true with countless things in the Bible (and elsewhere), the direct assertion of one thing very clearly indicates the assertion of it's opposite.

The opposite of 'you will be with me in paradise' is 'you will not be with me in paradise'.

(That being said, Christ states nothing at all as to the fate of the other man. So I am not going to attempt to judge that fate, or add to what Christ said.)

(side note: considering that Christ was in the grave (Sheol/Hades/the world of the dead) for "3 days and nights", unless you are suggesting that Paradise exists in Hades, what you have said above is not possible; not on that very day at least).

Ah!!! So this kind of takes us somewhere else (another topic), but do you suppose Christ lied when He said to the thief on His right, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise”? Surely not, so how do you reconcile that?

I'm sure you know how to reconcile it, Pinseeker. You probably just think it is 'too simple'. Just move the comma and the sentence has a different meaning. I mean, that is what grammar teachers (and grammar police) keep telling us, right?

Same as if you remove the comma in Matt 25:41 (NIV), between the words cursed and into. That is what I received in the spirit regarding that verse. (pertinent because there is "a thousand years" between that separation and the resurrection of the dead/judgment)

There is no point to this. There is no need for this.

God will never dispense of or compromise any part of His character, including His love, His justice, His holiness, and His glory.

That does not respond to the fact that there is no point to eternal suffering; there is no need for it.

But that's the problem. It's not a fact in any shape or form. God's justice has to be satisfied. The only question then is, who satisfies it? God Himself, in the Person of Jesus, on a man's behalf? Or the man himself?

If I can find the links to our previous discussion on this, I will put them up here... Responses/rebuttals to the claim that God's justice is supposedly satisfied by eternal suffering...

All the links you provided are irrelevant, because I would never "claim" (or assert, or say) that God's justice is satisfied by any suffering, eternal or otherwise.

The links are there for anyone who wishes to see them.

(the following is just a reminder about the meaning in Ecclesiastes: viewtopic.php?p=1008732#p1008732 and viewtopic.php?p=1008817#p1008817)

This just took me to the original post in that thread, so I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to, but I suspect it's yours (and myth-one's, and possibly others') oft-repeated misinterpretation that Ecclesiastes 9:5 has anything to do with folks who have previously died. The whole of Ecclesiastes is about life "under the sun" -- this life. And regarding 9:5 specifically, the folks among us who do not have regenerate hearts are spiritually dead and know nothing of their need for Christ and God's great salvation. It's a great passage, but really irrelevant to the particular topic we're discussing here, except to say that for those who never repent and believe on Christ, they will spend eternity in the same state of death, but made permanent in the Judgment and thus "second," meaning last, final. Cessation of existence is not in view.

See below.

Even in the world of the dead now, that kind of suffering does not exist; the dead know nothing; they are sleeping - awaiting a resurrection.

Well, they don't exist "under the sun" -- in this life; that's what Ecclesiastes is all about -- for sure.

I did not mention the people not existing. They certainly exist - they are sleeping, knowing nothing, awaiting the resurrection. Sleeping people exist. I said that they are not suffering.

Okay, back up. You're mixing two entirely different things here. Never mind for now about suffering or lack thereof, you are referring to those in the world of the dead now -- which would mean those who have physically died. But you then say, concerning these who have already died, referring to Ecclesiastes 9:5 -- which is about those living now, those even now experiencing life under the sun, because that's what the whole of Ecclesiastes is all about -- that the dead know nothing. Again, as above, what's being said there is that the folks among us now, living, under the sun as we are, who do not have regenerate hearts are spiritually dead and know nothing of their need for Christ and God's great salvation. Again, that you can fail to see that you're conflating two different things is just astonishing, but you are.

This is why I brought up Ecclesiastes. Those passages CANNOT be referring to "spiritual death". That is impossible from the text itself. Why it is impossible is pointed out in those two links. I would (humbly) suggest that you re-read, think it through, answer any questions asked. Though the best thing to do would be to ask Christ to open these to you, if indeed truth is what you want to see/hear. Because if you (or I or anyone) just want to be right, then truth is not the thing that you (or I or anyone) can expect to see.

What about the people who descended to Sheol/Hades (who are even now awaiting the resurrection of the dead)?

Those are the unrepentant. After the Judgment, they will experience the second death. Which is destruction in the sense of personal ruin and damnation rather than cessation of existence.

Well that can't be true.

1 - If the Judgment has not yet occurred, then those in Hades (the world of the dead) cannot already have been judged (as the unrepentant or anything else). And what would have been the point of Christ preaching even to these ones, if they were already judged? The judgment has not yet happened.

2 - Some who are resurrected from the dead (and the sea gives up the dead in it; and Death and Hades give up the dead in them) - will receive LIFE. It makes no sense to suggest that everyone in Hades (the world of the dead) are the unrepentant and who will only experience the second death.

3 - RE: Jacob and his son Joseph. All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, “No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” Thus his father wept for him. Genesis 37:35 How could everyone in Sheol/Hades be unrepentant, wicked, if Jacob expected to go there at his death, and expected his son was already there (when he thought his son was dead)?

4 - See Ecclesiastes. Everyone went there eventually. (no longer true because of Christ, but at the time)

I said more than that though. What about the people who descended to Sheol/Hades (who are even now awaiting the resurrection of the dead)? Do you think Job is suffering (or even thought he would be suffering after he died and descended to Sheol/Hades/)? Job, who longed to go to Hades (Sheol) in order to escape his suffering? Do you think Jacob suffered in the world of the dead after he died and was buried and gathered to his people? What about David, who said that he would go to his son (who died), but that his son would not come back to him? (2Samuel 12:23)

Oh, my. Okay, so, just taking the 2nd Samuel passage, David's son had died, and he could not bring his son back. Neither can any of us bring anyone back from the dead. Neither Job, nor Jacob, nor David suffered in the world of the dead in the sense you are thinking.

I did not say any of them suffered in the world of the dead. The dead know nothing.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #176]

The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

You're way off the rails here.

Not at all. There is no denying that there are different beliefs within Christianity which are clearly at odds with each other. [as can be seen with Tammy and Pinseekers interactions]

It is important therefore to examine the differing beliefs and come to some realistic explanation for it being the case.

My post is not a Biblical interpretation about the afterlife.

Not directly. But you do have beliefs about what you will be experiencing in the afterlife [the next phase of experience] and those beliefs come from your interpretations of the present life. So in that, it helps a great deal to know a persons position on afterlife beliefs in order to understand their position re biblical interpretation in present life.
Obviously the bible can be used to justify the two most prominent of different Christian beliefs [1]&[2]

[1] A "Person" is "Spirit" and temporarily exists as a human being until the body dies then that "Person" enters an afterlife and is judged by "God" and is condemned or saved. Those saved go to "heaven" and those condemned go to "Hell" - or in some variances on this, are "exterminated".

[2] A "Person" a "Human being" and when the human being dies, that is the end of that person unless "God" judges them as "saved" in which case that person is resurrected and given a new body which will last forever more.

Its about the now life. I don't use the Bible to interpret time, just like I don't need the Bible to interpret gravity. However, the Bible does support there is no premade timeline and that we are free to choose our own path. Both how the universe works concerning time and the Bible show strong evidence that no person has a set timeline.

However a person can arrive at the realization that their life is indeed in the hands of a Creator and that ones life is predestined by The Creator, even that from the position of being within the human experience living said life, can allow for one to not be able to see it that way.

Elegant and ingenious.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to William in post #185]

Your opinion is noted.

[PinSeeker]

Going to skip the repetitious stuff...

LOL!!!! Yeah, so you can continue with your repetitious stuff. That's hilarious.

And by 'here,' the reference was to your quote in your preceding post of John's quote of Jesus in the fifth chapter of his gospel (John 5:29). Some are raised to life, and some are raised to death, and that's all. This is an all-encompassing statement of the second resurrection, the judgment, and the eternal fate/reality of those on Jesus's right and His left; there is no mention of any kind of "putting down again" or a wiping from existence. Yes, yes, I know: "But dear PinSeeker, destruction! Sodom and Gomorrah!" Read on...

No, you do not know, lol.

Oh but I do. "Sodom and Gomorrah!" It's probably coming (yet again)...

The quote: "Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out— those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

Once judged, those people are thrown into the lake of fire (the second death).

As as I've said many times -- because you have said this many times; my repetition is due to yours -- the lake of fire symbolizes total immersion (His grace is totally removed) in God's everlasting judgment. For the duration of eternity. PRINCIPLE DIFFERENCE #1

So there is indeed mention of a 'putting down again'.

So again, absolutely not.

Yes, one possible definition of 'destruction' is cessation of existence.

Yes, so that it is indeed possible from the definition and usage of the word; and then one can add in all the rest (that has also been said).

LOL! Yes, it's a possible definition, but an equally possible definition, as I said, is personal ruin, damnation. And from the context of all passages discussed, personal ruin and damnation is the proper meaning of 'destruction.' PRINCIPLE DIFFERENCE #2

Just because man was made in the image of God does not mean that man is identical to God in all ways or that man has all the same attributes of God.

I never said such. But He is eternal, and we are, too, as a result of His creating us in His image.

And I asked you to show me where Christ taught this. Where is it written that man being created in the image of God means that man is eternal. Where did Christ teach that?

Yes, I know what you asked. Are you a "red-letter Christian," Tammy?

Note that I asked you to show me where Christ taught this - since we are supposed to be listening to Him, remaining in His word, then it matters if He taught it or not. I know that you cannot show me where He is written to have said that, though, so I also asked you to show me where it is written, period. That was not 'red-letter' exclusive.

Fair enough, but show me where Christ taught the opposite (that man is not eternal because he is made in the image of God -- or for any other reason, for that matter) of what I said. You can't. You most certainly cannot. So if you want to accuse me, as you have, of adding to God's Word, the exact same can be said with equal validity of you... even much more so, because the Biblical facts that God is eternal and that we are each made in His image can be validly seen to mean -- despite whether or not anyone else actually accepts it or not -- that man is eternal.

So He didn't say it, but He didn't deny it, either.

I just want to make a quick point on this (not just for you but for anyone making comments like this):

Christ did not outright deny lots of things that people claim (but that are not true - that we know at least some cannot be true because they contradict one another). For instance, Christ did not deny that He was Michael the Archangel. But that does not mean that Christ taught it. He should not have to deny that (or other things that people have 'come up with'). It should be enough that He does not teach it. Same goes for the trinity. Same goes for some things that William claims as well.

Christ does not need to have denied every single thing that false prophets, false teachers, false apostles, and false christs are going to come up with. He just had to tell us to remain in Him and His word. If we are truly His disciples, truly listening to Him, then we will obey His commands and remain in His word. It won't matter then what others come up with. Because we will know the truth from THE Truth: Christ.

This is a total avoidance of and redirection of what I just said and asked. Astonishing, but not surprising. Thanks for throwing that little tidbit in there about the trinity (repeating for the umpteenth time, actually); Christ clearly referred to the three Persons of the Godhead, the triune Jehovah God in John 14 (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). But back to my (totally avoided) point, here, no, He didn't express that man was/is eternal verbally, but He did not deny that man was/is eternal, either. And to add to this in view of your comment, if He had said that man was/is eternal, there would have been absolutely no contradiction with anything He said or anything else in the Bible.

But that fire does not harm those people God is protecting.

Right, but that's only half the story.

The other half is in the comment above (where you said you are not sure how I came up with that).

LOL! No, because your "other half" contains the terrible misconception of the destruction suffered by unrepentant sinners. Properly put, the other half is, as I said, that this all-consuming fire, God Himself, according to His uncompromising, perfect justice, condemns/damns -- devotes to destruction -- and consumes in judgment those who do not love Him and are not called according to His purpose. Yes, repetition, but in response to yours. DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO PRINCIPLE DIFFERENCE #2 ABOVE

The Luke 23 passage -- sorry, specifically verses 39 to 42 -- shows that both those who believe (as the thief crucified on Christ's right did) would after physical death immediately be with Christ in paradise, and those who do not believe (as the thief crucified on His left) would after physical death immediately be... somewhere other than with Christ.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything we are talking about?

That those on Jesus's left do not cease to exist.

Nothing in the passage states that (one way or the other).

Exactly, but the insinuation -- because of what He tells the thief on His right -- is crystal clear. PRINCIPLE DIFFERENCE #3

Nothing is said there about where those who do not believe would be; and nothing there suggests that these others would exist eternally.

Agreed with the first part of your assertion but not the second. The fact that He tells the first where He would be clearly insinuates that the other would not be there (in paradise with Him) but somewhere else. As is true with countless things in the Bible (and elsewhere), the direct assertion of one thing very clearly indicates the assertion of it's opposite.

The opposite of 'you will be with me in paradise' is 'you will not be with me in paradise'.

Exactly!!! I agree! And to carry that thought out, “you will be... somewhere else.” Exactly.

That being said, Christ states nothing at all as to the fate of the other man. So I am not going to attempt to judge that fate, or add to what Christ said.

Nobody is judging anybody's fate (except Christ, of course, because He has that authority), and no one is adding to what Christ said; His silence says all we need to know. Actions (or lack thereof) often speak louder than words.

(side note: considering that Christ was in the grave (Sheol/Hades/the world of the dead) for "3 days and nights", unless you are suggesting that Paradise exists in Hades, what you have said above is not possible; not on that very day at least).

Ah!!! So this kind of takes us somewhere else (another topic), but do you suppose Christ lied when He said to the thief on His right, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise”? Surely not, so how do you reconcile that?

I'm sure you know how to reconcile it, Pinseeker. You probably just think it is 'too simple'. Just move the comma and the sentence has a different meaning. I mean, that is what grammar teachers (and grammar police) keep telling us, right?

Uh, Tammy, the direct quote is, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” [English Standard Version (ESV)]. There is absolutely no ambiguity in that statement. Not one iota. Are you talking about the first comma? Or the second? What comma do you want to move and where? Or what comma do you say I have moved and where? My goodness, it matters not; there is no ambiguity. My goodness.

Same as if you remove the comma in Matt 25:41 (NIV), between the words cursed and into. That is what I received in the spirit regarding that verse. (pertinent because there is "a thousand years" between that separation and the resurrection of the dead/judgment).

My goodness. Well, I pray that God would fill you with His Holy Spirit. He would tell you much differently. I know, because He has told me. Aside from that, it utterly ridiculous to think that any mark of punctuation, comma or otherwise, indicates the passage of a 1000-year period.

Even in the world of the dead now, that kind of suffering does not exist; the dead know nothing; they are sleeping - awaiting a resurrection.

Well, they don't exist "under the sun" -- in this life; that's what Ecclesiastes is all about -- for sure.

I did not mention the people not existing. They certainly exist - they are sleeping, knowing nothing, awaiting the resurrection. Sleeping people exist. I said that they are not suffering.

Okay, back up. You're mixing two entirely different things here. Never mind for now about suffering or lack thereof, you are referring to those in the world of the dead now -- which would mean those who have physically died. But you then say, concerning these who have already died, referring to Ecclesiastes 9:5 -- which is about those living now, those even now experiencing life under the sun, because that's what the whole of Ecclesiastes is all about -- that the dead know nothing. Again, as above, what's being said there is that the folks among us now, living, under the sun as we are, who do not have regenerate hearts are spiritually dead and know nothing of their need for Christ and God's great salvation. Again, that you can fail to see that you're conflating two different things is just astonishing, but you are.

This is why I brought up Ecclesiastes. Those passages CANNOT be referring to "spiritual death". That is impossible from the text itself. Why it is impossible is pointed out in those two links. I would (humbly) suggest that you re-read, think it through, answer any questions asked.

Let's just take a look at it, shall we? You say (probably in both links), "There is no reason to think that Ecclesiastes 9:5 is talking about believers and unbelievers.” As I have said several times, the whole of Ecclesiastes is talking about people who are alive (physically alive), and says here that all share the same destiny: to die and "join the dead" in that sense.

The same destiny overtakes all (all die and join the dead). This is self-evident. Though the best thing to do would be to ask Christ to open these to you, if indeed truth is what you want to see/hear.

Well I certainly agree about that something is self-evident (crystal clear), but... wow. Yes, the same destiny overtakes us all -- all that are living ("under the sun") -- which includes believers as well as unbelievers. All (believers and unbelievers alike) will certainly die. I hope we all know that. LOL! Any rereading and rethinking -- and praying for wisdom and understanding, and listening to God -- on this point apparently needs to be done by you. But suit yourself.

What about the people who descended to Sheol/Hades (who are even now awaiting the resurrection of the dead)?

Those are the unrepentant. After the Judgment, they will experience the second death. Which is destruction in the sense of personal ruin and damnation rather than cessation of existence.

Well that can't be true.

Yes, it can, and is. To each of your points:

• 1 - If the Judgment has not yet occurred, then those in Hades (the world of the dead) cannot already have been judged (as the unrepentant or anything else). And what would have been the point of Christ preaching even to these ones, if they were already judged? The judgment has not yet happened.
  • There are at least a couple of misconceptions, here. I agree that those in the realm of the dead have not already been judged in the sense of the final Judgment, but they were unrepentant all the days of their lives and are still unrepentant after their physical deaths and in the realm of the dead. This takes us back yet again to Jesus's parable in Luke 16. At their deaths, the souls of Old Testament believers went immediately into the presence of God (Luke 16:22). Jesus’s teaching in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man points in a contrary direction. We see this also in what He says to the thief crucified on His right in Luke 23, so it's true in the New Testament also. As for Jesus preaching in hell, there isn’t any reason why Christ would travel to hell to proclaim his victory to any condemned human soul, and there certainly is no biblical warrant for an offer of salvation to those who’ve already died. The final judgment, after all, will take into account only what one has done in this life, not anything done in the hereafter (1 Peter 1:17; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27). The one who does the proclaiming in 1 Peter 3:19 is not the risen Jesus. It’s Jesus who preaches, to be sure -- God has spoken to us in these latter days by His Son -- but He preaches in His life then and in the Person of the Holy Spirit now; it is the Holy Spirit Who brings to our remembrance all that He said and did. And the timing of this preaching is not the window between the death and ascension of Jesus Christ, it’s during the lifetime of Noah. Which means that Peter is saying that Jesus is preaching now -- in the Holy Spirit -- even to those living -- even now -- who are unrepentant, dead in their sin, and thus "in prison." Just as He preached, in the Holy Spirit, in the days of Noah, who, in the course of building the ark, bore testimony to the coming judgment of God.

• 2 - Some who are resurrected from the dead (and the sea gives up the dead in it; and Death and Hades give up the dead in them) - will receive LIFE. It makes no sense to suggest that everyone in Hades (the world of the dead) are the unrepentant and who will only experience the second death.
  • Well, yes, it certainly does make sense, because not all who have physically died are in the world of the dead; some are with Jesus in paradise, just as the thief on Jesus's right was after his and Jesus's crucifixion.

• 3 - RE: Jacob and his son Joseph. All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, “No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” Thus his father wept for him. Genesis 37:35 How could everyone in Sheol/Hades be unrepentant, wicked, if Jacob expected to go there at his death, and expected his son was already there (when he thought his son was dead)?
  • My goodness. Well I'm glad you pointed out the fact that Joseph was not really dead, that Jacob only thought that his son was dead. But what he's talking about there is not "joining Joseph in the realm of the dead," but mourning Joseph's death. The report of Joseph's death causes Jacob to cry out that his grief would be without end and continue forever.

• 4 - See Ecclesiastes. Everyone went there eventually.
  • Right; see Ecclesiastes and my correction of your misunderstanding above.

I said more than that though. What about the people who descended to Sheol/Hades (who are even now awaiting the resurrection of the dead)? Do you think Job is suffering (or even thought he would be suffering after he died and descended to Sheol/Hades/)? Job, who longed to go to Hades (Sheol) in order to escape his suffering? Do you think Jacob suffered in the world of the dead after he died and was buried and gathered to his people? What about David, who said that he would go to his son (who died), but that his son would not come back to him? (2Samuel 12:23)

Oh, my. Okay, so, just taking the 2nd Samuel passage, David's son had died, and he could not bring his son back. Neither can any of us bring anyone back from the dead. Neither Job, nor Jacob, nor David suffered in the world of the dead in the sense you are thinking.

I did not say any of them suffered in the world of the dead. The dead know nothing.

LOL! No, you didn't, but you asked me (rhetorically) If I somehow thought that, and I answered your question. Yes, the dead among us -- the spiritually dead among the physically living at any point in time -- know nothing of their need for Christ and God's salvation. Oh, but I repeat myself. But only because you continue to. We could stop if you want...

Grace and peace to you.

[tam]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #187]

We could stop if you want...

Yes, I can't see anything to respond to that would not be repetition (so it is all there for anyone who wishes to read), so we could stop.


Peace again to you!

[PinSeeker]

Peace again to you!

To you also, Tammy. The Lord make His face to shine on you. Grace and peace to you in His name.