@ Shahan Let me help here if I can.


The duality of JESUS God comes in place here.

EVERY SOUL THAT DIES GIVES UP THE GHOST = BREATH = SPIRIT.

THE SOUL AND BODY OF JESUS WENT TO HELL

THE SPIRIT IN JESUS IS THE ETERNAL LIFE OF GOD IT CAN NEVER DIE BECAUSE IT CAME FROM GOD IT MUST RETURN TO GOD.

THE SOUL OF JESUS AND HIS BODY WENT TO HEAVEN THAT DAY( THE THIRD)

SO HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS FATHER IN COMPLETE MAN FORM.

HOPE THIS HELPS

I KNOW WHAT I MEAN BUT THERE OTHER BACKGROUND YOU MUST KNOW TO BE ABLE TO ACCEPT THIS.

SELAH

@ Shahan

Right. When you carefully read that text in Luke 12:47-48, would you apply that to the judgement that takes place "for ever and ever" in Rev. 20:10? Are Satan and his rebels to be 'beaten' with few or many stripes in contrast to what the Lord meant by the judgement where people shall be cast into the place 'prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41)?

There is no relation whatsoever for obvious reasons that the expression "forever and ever" is a mis-translation of the original greek. The very expression "day and night, " indicates limited time periods, and runs opposed to "forever and ever", which as a phrase should not have been translated that way, as was mentoned umptheenth times.

And how does your own biased punctuated translation reflect the actual sense of what the Lord meant? Let us assume that the contruct stands as you offered: does it sound intelligent enough to polish your own idea? Absolutely not.

There can be no room for biases if one views the scriptures in a consistent manner. Nowhere in scripture does it teach that after death a person goes to heaven. It speaks of a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. So in the case of the refered text above which because of faulty punctuation seems out of line with other scriptural teachings then it becomes obvious that something went wrong with the punctuation. That is the only feasable explanation.

Any honest treatment of that verse has to be that the Lord meant it as 'Today shalt thou be with me in paradise'; rather than the other way round, "Today, verily I say unto thee. ." He meant that the event would take place that very day; rather than that He was speaking on that day. He was emphasizing the event rather than His speech. Three reasons strengthen this clearly:

The Lord didn't go to paradise the same day, and neither did the repentant thief. As far as my memory serves me right, Christ was buried and was resurrected on the first day of the week. When Mary attempted to hold on to Christ He said:

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:

#1. the thief knew that he was being spoken to that very day, and not on another day; so the emphatic word 'Today' applies to the last clause of the sentence, and not to the preceding clause.

Yes obviously the thief knew he was being spoken to, but that isn't the issue. The issue is punctuations were never a result of inspiration. Men placed punctuations in some instances to suit their religious biases, and this is one such case. The establishment of the canon of scriptures was done by cathlolic scholars, and isn't it obvious that it is they who teach that persons go to heaven after death? Who else teaches that?

#2. when you read the same word 'Today' (or, 'to day') in the Gospel of Luke, you'll see how the Lord used it in reference to His activity, rather than merely to His speaking.

Luke 13:32 - "And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Luke 19:5 - "And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house."

I am not too sure these have a bearing on the refered text. Each sentence must be taken in its own context.

#3. whenever the Lord wanted to emphasis anything in His speech by the clause "Verily I say unto thee," He most often did not add the word "Today". Why would Luke 23:43 be give a different and far-feteched rule of Greek grammar as in your supposed interpretation? If the Lord made reference to a distant date with regards to issues of the future, He stated it clearly in unmistakable terms:

That is why if you see the right punctuation being implemented everything would easily fall in place.

Hardly the sense at all, as shown above. Remove the punctuations and see your own bias - the very same bias you decried in the translations of the Bible.

Then how do you explain to the fora that Christ didn't enter paradise until after His resurrection?

Just to amuse us a little, let me reference several of them here from those who have a deeper grasp of the Greek construct than you and I could claim here on the internet (please notice the punctuations):

(Analytical Literal Translation) - And Jesus said to him, "Positively, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

(Amplified) - "And He answered him, Truly I tell you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

(Contemporary English Version) - Jesus replied, "I promise that today you will be with me in paradise."

(Darby) - And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

(Douay Rheims) - And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

(Holman Christian Standard Bible, HCSB) - 'And He said to him, "I assure you: Today you will be with Me in paradise"'

(Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, LITV) - And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you will be with Me in Paradise.

(NET) - "And Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

(YLT) - "and Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.' "

Did these experts punctuate the NT scriptures?ll they are doing is continuing the deception.





Quote from: Bobbyaf on Yesterday at 02:19:01 PM
We all know that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after He was resurrected, which was on the third day of His death.

That does not take away from the fact of the statement Jesus made to the penitent man on the Cross in Luke 23:34. Besides, the paradise spoken of in that verse does not exactly represent the very same place where Jesus later ascended and was glorified. He ascended into heaven, no doubt; but where exactly do you suppose that pointed to?

There can only be one paradise, and that is where God dwells. Jesus said He was going to His Father. Is there another paradise that you know of?

And my question hasn't been answered until now. Here again:

If we have to pander to your persuasion otherwise of the phrase meaning "from ages unto the ages", then this is how Revelation 20:10 will read ~~ they "shall be tormented day and night from ages unto the ages" Now, how long is the time period  "from ages unto the ages" that the torment would last?

No one can know how long each person will suffer for.

@bobbyaf

When a man dies the Spirit of the man if it is Holy Goes to Heaven.
The resurrection of man on the last day is resurrection of a complete man.

EVERY SIN is committed by the SPIRIT SOUL AND BODY

THE HEART (SOUL) IS THE DOOR OF SPIRIT JESUS SAYS "BEHOLD I STAND AT THE DOOR"

THAT IS WHY IT SAYS THE SOUL THAT SINNETH SHALL DIE i.e the soul that reject JESUS DIES TOGETHER WITH THE EVIL SPIRIT THAT DWELLS IN THE SOUL AND THE SOUL IN THE BODY.

when a man sins the soul is DEAD IN SIN

WHEN A MAN SOUL IS SINLESS IT is DEAD TO SIN

The sinless soul is without sin so it and the soul goes to heaven.

Now Jesus died and his soul went to hell, However The spirit of God that Jesus carries is very different from that of the one you and I carry (that is if we are born Again Without sin)

Because Jesus is God and his death took him to enter ETERNITY a ZONE WHERE HE CAN BE AT DIFFERENT PLACE AND STILL BE AT THE SAME PLACE THAT IS WHY HE IS CALLED OMNISPRESENT THIS IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD.

JESUS CAN BE IN HELL AND ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN AT THE SAME TIME ( I CANT EXPLAIN THAT) THIS THREE OF THE GOD HEAD HAVE THIS ATTRIBUTE.

HOWEVER THEY MOST OF THE TIME DONT GO WITH THEIR FULL GLORY BECAUSE THEY COULD KILL OF HUMAN LIFE IN THEIR ANGER AND FURY.

THE ONLY MAN GOD LOVES IS A CONTRITE MAN. HE IS READY TO WORK WITH A CONTRITE MAN.

THE GOD IN THE SCRIPTURE IS VERY DIFFERENT HE IS ONE THAT WE NEED HELP TO BE WORSHIP. TO WORSHIP HIM YOU MUST LET HIM DWELL IN YOU.

When a man dies the Spirit of the man if it is Holy Goes to Heaven.

The spirit of man is never spelt with a capital S. Point number two the spirit of man goes back to God whether or not he or she the person is good or evil upon death. The scripture doesn't make any distinction.

Eclesiastes 12:7 says, and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

The resurrection of man on the last day is resurrection of a complete man.

Agreed!

EVERY SIN is committed by the SPIRIT SOUL AND BODY

The bible says the soul that sinneth shall die. I am not sure about any spirit or body sinning. Think about it for awhile. All of us have minds to choose. Its our minds that become influenced by temptation which result in sinning against God's principles.

THE HEART (SOUL) IS THE DOOR OF SPIRIT JESUS SAYS "BEHOLD I STAND AT THE DOOR"

The heart is not the soul. The heart as used in scriptures represents the mind. Our mind is the seat of intelligence in which our thoughts are formed. The bible says "as a man thinketh so is he"

Most persons are confused about the word "soul". The hebrew word used for soul is nephesh, which means being, person or creature. If we look at the Genesis story accounting for man's creation we will get a better picture of what the soul represents. When God put man's body together he was only a lifeless form, he wasn't dead since he never had life as yet. When God blew the "breath of life" in his nostrils, oly then did man become a living soul, or being, or person. This breath of life or life force is what the bible calls the spirit of man. So the spirit of man and the breath that came from God are one and the same thing, and the bible teaches that when the body goes back to the dust the spirit will go back to God. Hence the soul ceases to exist for as long as that combination of spirit and body is absent.

THAT IS WHY IT SAYS THE SOUL THAT SINNETH SHALL DIE i.e the soul that reject JESUS DIES TOGETHER WITH THE EVIL SPIRIT THAT DWELLS IN THE SOUL AND THE SOUL IN THE BODY.

See above explanation.

when a man sins the soul is DEAD IN SIN

Agreed, and thats because the soul represents a combination of body and spirit.

WHEN A MAN SOUL IS SINLESS IT is DEAD TO SIN

I'd prefer to say when a person's life becomes locked in Jesus he chooses not to commit sin. Sinning is a choice, and not only an action. Let me explain something. Man was born with a nature to sin. Its in our genes. When we accept Christ our nature gradually changes towards His divine nature, and the more we experience change the more we hate choosing against God and His will for us. Only Christ can wrought this change. The beautiful thing is that Christ lives in us while He empowers us. Any good that results must always be attributed to Him.

The sinless soul is without sin so it and the soul goes to heaven.

See above explanation about what happens after death.

Now Jesus died and his soul went to hell, However The spirit of God that Jesus carries is very different from that of the one you and I carry (that is if we are born Again Without sin)

Explain the hell! Was it burning?

Because Jesus is God and his death took him to enter ETERNITY a ZONE WHERE HE CAN BE AT DIFFERENT PLACE AND STILL BE AT THE SAME PLACE THAT IS WHY HE IS CALLED OMNISPRESENT THIS IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD.

Where are you getting all these teachings from backslider?

JESUS CAN BE IN HELL AND ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN AT THE SAME TIME ( I CANT EXPLAIN THAT) THIS THREE OF THE GOD HEAD HAVE THIS ATTRIBUTE.

You can't explain it yet you expect others to understand it. All these things are easy to pronounce, but without biblical references I cannot accept such.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

The heart is not the soul. The heart as used in scriptures represents the mind. Our mind is the seat of intelligence in which our thoughts are formed. The bible says "as a man thinketh so is he"

You are mistaken in assuming that the heart represents the mind. On the contrary, they are distinguished and contrasted.

'And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.' (Mark 12:30 _{see also Matt. 22:37 and Luke 10:27}).

'This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them' (Heb. 10:16).

Scripture does not use the heart to represent the mind; they are distinguished from each other. The heart is primarily the seat of man's emotions and affections; the mind (as you suggested) is the seat of his intelligence.

'For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee' (Prov. 23:7). The substance in this and akin constructs is indicating the motive in a man's thoughts, not just merely his thoughts.

Bobbyaf:

The issue is punctuations were never a result of inspiration. Men placed punctuations in some instances to suit their religious biases, and this is one such case. . .

Did these experts punctuate the NT scriptures?ll they are doing is continuing the deception.

Your punctuation is rather weak and untenable; and in just the same way was crafted to suit your own uninspired bias. The punctuations as appearing in those versions and translations are accurate and give the sense of what the Lord intended in Luke 23:43. Besides taking the trouble to explain them to you, I think shahan is quite a deep thinker and correct in her outline.

Bobbyaf:

Then how do you explain to the fora that Christ didn't enter paradise until after His resurrection? . .

We all know that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after He was resurrected, which was on the third day of His death.

There can only be one paradise, and that is where God dwells. Jesus said He was going to His Father. Is there another paradise that you know of?

Perhaps you should explain to the Forum where you believe the Lord Jesus went when He died in the flesh, before He rose and ascended to heaven.

(Perhaps, it is better to use the singular form of the word "Forum" instead of the plural "fora". I notice you have made the same honest mistake several times).

[/quote]
The spirit of man is never spelt with a capital S. Point number two the spirit of man goes back to God whether or not he or she the person is good or evil upon death. The scripture doesn't make any distinction.

Gen 2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a[b] living soul[/b].


You must know that when man was made he was given the breath of life and he became a living soul, this means that he was a dead soul before the breath came into him.

The breath that came out of God was the Eternal life and Not an EVIL SPIRIT.

a Sinner carries a Dead life an Evil spirit and when he dies his soul goes to hell where Satan is to await the final Judgment in hell fire.

A righteous man soul is taken to heaven and he leaves his body here on earth. The pure Spirit that the sinless man carries go to be with the lord and the soul also.

The soul of man was dead at the beginning It was the spirit that quickened the soul. Remember " THE LETTER KILLETH THE SPIRIT GIVETH"

EVERY LIVING THING HAS LIFE BUT NOT ALL HAS ETERNAL LIFE.

YOU COMMIT SIN WITH ALL YOUR WHOLE BODY SOUL AND SPIRIT.

YOU SPEAK EVIL WITH YOUR MOUTH and One that does evil does not do it with God's spirit.

A man is said to have a Evil spirit if he does wickedly.

The heart is not the soul. The heart as used in scriptures represents the mind. Our mind is the seat of intelligence in which our thoughts are formed. The bible says "as a man thinketh so is he"

Most persons are confused about the word "soul". The hebrew word used for soul is nephesh, which means being, person or creature. If we look at the Genesis story accounting for man's creation we will get a better picture of what the soul represents. When God put man's body together he was only a lifeless form, he wasn't dead since he never had life as yet. When God blew the "breath of life" in his nostrils, oly then did man become a living soul, or being, or person. This breath of life or life force is what the bible calls the spirit of man. So the spirit of man and the breath that came from God are one and the same thing, and the bible teaches that when the body goes back to the dust the spirit will go back to God. Hence the soul ceases to exist for as long as that combination of spirit and body is absent.

I am not confused with word "SOUL" people are ready to Go into Hebrew and pick and Choose.

The heart is the door of the soul ( It says Guard you heart)

Mind is the Eye of the soul

THE SOUL OF MAN NO MAN CAN KNOW IT IS THE HEART OF MAN THE BIBLE SAYS THE HEART OF MAN IS DECEPTIVE.

YOU SEE YOU DONT LEARN IN ISOLATION YOUR LEARNING MUST POINT TO RIGHT AND WRONG.

I'd prefer to say when a person's life becomes locked in Jesus he chooses not to commit sin. Sinning is a choice, and not only an action. Let me explain something. Man was born with a nature to sin. Its in our genes. When we accept Christ our nature gradually changes towards His divine nature, and the more we experience change the more we hate choosing against God and His will for us. Only Christ can wrought this change. The beautiful thing is that Christ lives in us while He empowers us. Any good that results must always be attributed to Him.[quote]

A man that christ dwell in does not commit sin you have contradicted

1 John 3



8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Any man (soul) that HAS AN EVIL SPIRIT IS OF THE DEVIL.

Funny how the doctrine f eternal torment was shown as having no bases in the bible and all the pro eternal torment brigade disappeared .

I guess they got tired of saying that Rev 20:8 = Hellfire and seeing that it cant conflict and contradict the rest of the bible

sage:

Funny how the doctrine f eternal torment was shown as having no bases in the bible and all the pro eternal torment brigade disappeared .

I guess they got tired of saying that Rev 20:8 = Hellfire and seeing that it can't conflict and contradict the rest of the bible

Mr sage,

I don't think they 'disappeared'. If at all that were the case, then my questions that are yet unanswered would indicate the same - that the pro-annihilationists have disappeared as well.

It appears to me that regardless of the great divides or dichotomy of views held on this subject, the annihilationists are not all agreed as to what they believe thereto; neither are the eternal-torment propagators (including me). We all differ in our views; and people are endeavouring to put across their views as best they can.

@ Stimulus

@Bobbyaf,


Quote from: Bobbyaf on March 18, 2007, 05:36 AM
The heart is not the soul. The heart as used in scriptures represents the mind. Our mind is the seat of intelligence in which our thoughts are formed. The bible says "as a man thinketh so is he"

You are mistaken in assuming that the heart represents the mind. On the contrary, they are distinguished and contrasted.

'And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.' (Mark 12:30 see also Matt. 22:37 and Luke 10:27).

'This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them' (Heb. 10:16).

These texts don't prove that the word heart and mind don't mean the same thing. The simple fact is that they are used interchangably in the same sentences. These are two different words meaning the same thing.

Scripture does not use the heart to represent the mind; they are distinguished from each other. The heart is primarily the seat of man's emotions and affections; the mind (as you suggested) is the seat of his intelligence.

While the scripture doesn't show that the heart represents the mind, there exists no doubt that it does. I will even use your own words to prove it. You say that "the heart is the seat of man's emotions and affections". Now let me ask you a simple question, where does one's emotions and affections originate if not in the mind?

'For as he thinketh in his heart,

Ah there you go! Here heart is used to represent one's mind, because only the mind can think and reason.

Your punctuation is rather weak and untenable;

You're not qualified to say that.

and in just the same way was crafted to suit your own uninspired bias.

All of us have a bias including you, but my problem doesn't lie with anyone being biased, as long as being biased is consistent with the general understanding of what scripture teaches. No where in scripture does it teach that people who acknowledge Christ as being the Son of God goes to paradise the same day. Christ Himself spoke of the resurrection taking place on the last day. Secondly, there can be no paradise other than where His Father dwells, and to which He Jesus made reference when He spoke to Mary saying (I am paraphrasing) touch me not or hold not unto me for I have not yet ascended to my Father which is in heaven

What is in the expression "not yet ascended to My father" that you seem not to understand?

The punctuations as appearing in those versions and translations are accurate and give the sense of what the Lord intended in Luke 23:43. Besides taking the trouble to explain them to you, I think shahan is quite a deep thinker and correct in her outline.

Really how would you know who is right or wrong on the topic? On what basis are you saying that? I take nothing from Shahan, but what does her being a deep thinker have to do with the obvious fact that what is said in Luke 23:43 runs contrary to what was said by Jesus Himself explaning to Mary that He had not yet ascended to His Father? How can one text be saying that Jesus and the thief would be going to paradise or heaven the very same day, and the other be saying that Christ rose on the third day and went to His Father?


Quote from: Bobbyaf on March 17, 2007, 04:33 AM
Then how do you explain to the fora that Christ didn't enter paradise until after His resurrection? . .

We all know that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after He was resurrected, which was on the third day of His death.

There can only be one paradise, and that is where God dwells. Jesus said He was going to His Father. Is there another paradise that you know of?

Perhaps you should explain to the Forum where you believe the Lord Jesus went when He died in the flesh, before He rose and ascended to heaven.

I knew where He went and that was the grave. Where else do you think He might have gone? I suspect that you're going to say how He went to preach to spirit world. If that is what you're coming with don't waste your time.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

These texts don't prove that the word heart and mind don't mean the same thing. The simple fact is that they are used interchangably in the same sentences. These are two different words meaning the same thing.

You're forcing your own thoughts into Scripture - the very same thing you've often done and yet unable to defend your presumptions when scrutinized. The Lord Jesus never meant to use heart and mind interchangably in those text. If that were the case, your assumptions would mean that "soul" and "strength" are used interchangably in those verses.

Bobbyaf:

While the scripture doesn't show that the heart represents the mind, there exists no doubt that it does.

Another confused assumption. On the one hand it doesn't;  on the other hand it does - all in the same breath!

Bobbyaf:

I will even use your own words to prove it. You say that "the heart is the seat of man's emotions and affections". Now let me ask you a simple question, where does one's emotions and affections originate if not in the mind?

You haven't proven anything with my own words. One's affections and intelligence are not the same things. The heart is the seat of one's emotions and affections; unless you don't know the meaning of these words.

Bobbyaf:

Ah there you go! Here heart is used to represent one's mind, because only the mind can think and reason.

Wrong. You only sliced that verse to butter your bias. Read the whole verse and see the connections - it is referring to the motive of man's thoughts rather than just merely his thinking.

Bobbyaf:

You're not qualified to say that.

I'm very well qualified to do so.

Bobbyaf:

All of us have a bias including you, but my problem doesn't lie with anyone being biased, as long as being biased is consistent with the general understanding of what scripture teaches.

Scripture doesn't offer us a ticket to be biased, whether or not one is claiming to be consistent with the general understanding of what scripture teaches. 1 Tim. 5:21 - "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."

Bobbyaf:

No where in scripture does it teach that people who acknowledge Christ as being the Son of God goes to paradise the same day. Christ Himself spoke of the resurrection taking place on the last day.

It all depends on what you define as paradise. But as regarding those who sleep in the Lord, here's what the Scripture says: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." - 2 Cor. 5:8.

Bobbyaf:

Secondly, there can be no paradise other than where His Father dwells, and to which He Jesus made reference when He spoke to Mary saying (I am paraphrasing) touch me not or hold not unto me for I have not yet ascended to my Father which is in heaven

Is paradise the place you identify as where the Father dwells? Here's actually what the Bible identifies as God's dwelling - "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen" - 1 Tim. 6:15-16.

Indeed, Scripture distinguishes between the various spheres of "heaven"; and even the apostle Paul speaks of paradise in this way: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" - 2 Cor. 12:2 - 4.

And again in the OT, the prophets recognized the various spheres of heaven: "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee" - Neh. 9:6.

So, your paraphrase does not strengthen your argument. It was a weak attempt to establish your own thoughts.

Bobbyaf:

What is in the expression "not yet ascended to My father" that you seem not to understand?

I haven't argued for or agaisnt John 20:17. The question was about the place; not about the expression or the ascension.

Bobbyaf:

Really how would you know who is right or wrong on the topic? On what basis are you saying that?

On the basis of a careful reading and studying of the texts.

Bobbyaf:

I take nothing from Shahan, but what does her being a deep thinker have to do with the obvious fact that what is said in Luke 23:43 runs contrary to what was said by Jesus Himself explaning to Mary that He had not yet ascended to His Father?

I haven't said that shahan is the final authority on Scripture; but obviously, she is a deep thinker. No one has to take anything from you either as you're unable to articulate your arguments on sound Scriptural principles.

Second, it's only your characteristic debate to make one verse run contrary to another. You quoted Luke 23:43 and made referrence to John 20:17 in the same connection; so who's now sweating to make them run "contrary" to each other?

Bobbyaf:

How can one text be saying that Jesus and the thief would be going to paradise or heaven the very same day, and the other be saying that Christ rose on the third day and went to His Father?

So, there's your problem. Scroll above and see the difference for yourself.

Bobbyaf:

Quote from: Bobbyaf on March 17, 2007, 04:33 AM
Then how do you explain to the fora that Christ didn't enter paradise until after His resurrection? . .

We all know that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after He was resurrected, which was on the third day of His death.

There can only be one paradise, and that is where God dwells. Jesus said He was going to His Father. Is there another paradise that you know of?

I knew where He went and that was the grave. Where else do you think He might have gone? I suspect that you're going to say how He went to preach to spirit world. If that is what you're coming with don't waste your time.

I won't waste my time since you've already expressed your intimidation thereto. If you assume He went to the grave and that settles the matter for you, then you really have a weak grasp of your arguments.

I like this FORUM

It s great - (NOT JUST THIS thREAD) - I mean the FORUM , is STRUCTURE and has (believ u me!) a friendly tenor in comparison to some other FORUMS !

SOME are ALL SYRUPPY (spel?) and others all hell-fire and Brim-stone, ohm, helo , that reminds me where I am , oh vey!

Honestly, mate, Ive not read all the posts on this thread --- I -being human -- tend to gravitate toward those
that agree with my P.O. V.

small-testimony is that while at School , A RELIGIOUS EDUCATUION teacher tried to impress upon me
that there is a HELL-fire tormenting SOULS and then - at that time - I began to think he may been right??

Okay, I was 'betwixt and between' and being a minority person in a majority (black) S outh A frica
i could only speak to (x) people -- minority of people -- NO net then -- lot of (ANTI-Cult) literature ,
YOU know, next thing I was 'THROWN' in to a HELL-FIRe!! of sorts -- the ;war against 'the Communist Hordes'

That was 'fighting for the SaDF (South African Defence Force) and there there were thosuands in hospitals
(as we as 'whities' were given the right to work as 'voluntary medics' in black hospitals as Baragwanath and
Kalafang and others in the old Apartheid -regime South Africa) as well . WHAT Dawned on me was that
the "NO Hell _ ers" (particularly the Jehovah's Witnesses) as well Christadelphians : were the
oNES , as whites only were conscripted to 'fuel' the Apartheid MONSTER , by HELL-Believing
APARTHEID - Demons - Leaders ,


THINK abnout it , man , women ,, Friends -: I simply and kindly , sanely and saguely

ASK that you consider the messengers and their conduct and then their message
in-lieu there-of .

If you'd like Scriptures and reasoning and a FORUM (I have a S African Bible Study Forum)
then just P.M. me --- thank you (t y) k ?

Respects to the FORUM ADMINISTRTOR andthe guys and gents who started this FORUM

GOOD JOB

@BibleZAP

Just because people are evil does not mean God is not righteous

Backslider,
thanks for replying -- "people are evil" --- Yes Jeremiah 7 makes that plain.
God is righteous. Yes, ?

Sorry, maybe it's that I am 'missing something'. I do not quite see the connection, please help.
Thanks again!

I will not here and now post the many Scriptural citatations and the reasoning in view of support for the teaching of 'second death' (ultimate extinction) in opposition to the concept of 'eternal suffering', because no doubt much ground on this has already been covered by significant others (on this forum).
Rather than laying again a 'foundation' I shall first try read all other posts and not whom is "pro and con"

But, believe me when I say that, the Righteousness of the ALL Mighty is incongruent with Eternal Suffering.
One Scripture: "Romans 6:23 - "The wages of sin is death" - See; Not eternal suffering. -Death = Extinction. Yes?

@ Stimulus

You're forcing your own thoughts into Scripture - the very same thing you've often done and yet unable to defend your presumptions when scrutinized. The Lord Jesus never meant to use heart and mind interchangably in those text. If that were the case, your assumptions would mean that "soul" and "strength" are used interchangably in those verses.

I think you're the one doing that just about now.

Another confused assumption. On the one hand it doesn't; on the other hand it does - all in the same breath!

Not exactly if you take the time to read properly. The scriptures don't show that the word heart is the mind definitively , but I am saying that there is no doubt that the word heart means the mind. Its always easy to look at scripture and take it at face value, but its another matter to understand that different writers used different styles of writing, and in this case heart and mind were used interchangably, and metaphorically to emphasise something. Most bible writers used that approach. Your point about the heart being the seat of our emotions and affections is no doubt correct, but what is also correct is that those attributes could only have found their origin in the mind.

You haven't proven anything with my own words. One's affections and intelligence are not the same things. The heart is the seat of one's emotions and affections; unless you don't know the meaning of these words.

I didn't say they were. You're saying it. I simply asked you where do our emotions and affections come from if not from the mind. Dogs and cats show emotions and affection must we say that these come from their hearts too?

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 05:50:56 AM
Ah there you go! Here heart is used to represent one's mind, because only the mind can think and reason.

Wrong. You only sliced that verse to butter your bias. Read the whole verse and see the connections - it is referring to the motive of man's thoughts rather than just merely his thinking.

So in other words you don't have a bias. Good for you! Let me ask you again where do thoughts come from if not the mind?

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 05:50:56 AM
All of us have a bias including you, but my problem doesn't lie with anyone being biased, as long as being biased is consistent with the general understanding of what scripture teaches.

Scripture doesn't offer us a ticket to be biased, whether or not one is claiming to be consistent with the general understanding of what scripture teaches. 1 Tim. 5:21 - "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."

Of course they do. They offer us a bias towards the truth. Being biased goes both ways. We can either be biased towards the truth, or a lie. So if I prefer the truth above a lie then my being bias is a wonderful thing.


Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 05:50:56 AM
No where in scripture does it teach that people who acknowledge Christ as being the Son of God goes to paradise the same day. Christ Himself spoke of the resurrection taking place on the last day.

It all depends on what you define as paradise. But as regarding those who sleep in the Lord, here's what the Scripture says: "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." - 2 Cor. 5:8.

So according to you those who die in the Lord go to heaven leaving their bodies on earth. Sorry this text has nothing to do with the point under discussion, and neither is it teaching that error either. Be careful lest you read Paul's writings unto your own damnnation. Don't isolate a passage just to prove a point, and especially if you don't understand what the writer is trying to say. The better approach to take as I have always suggested, is to use the weight of evidence of multiple passages to throw substance for or against a topic.

Is paradise the place you identify as where the Father dwells? Here's actually what the Bible identifies as God's dwelling - "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen" - 1 Tim. 6:15-16.

Are you saying that light is paradise? Do better than that Stimulus. Right now you're not stimulating. The bible speaks of a place where God dwells. It also speaks of a time when that place will be brought down to earth in which both God and man will live together. Listena s John speaks cleary:

John 14:1-3, 1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

Christ didn't say that when they died they would go to this beautiful place to dwell with Him. He simply said that when He should come again He would take them to be with Him there. This can only happen after they tak epart in the first resurrection, and not before.

Your use of a text which shows no definitive statement about paradise is very lame if you ask me. What makes it even worse is that you're trying to prove what doesn't exist. In other words the bible doesn't teach that people go straight to paradise when they die, and it certainly did not mean for the thief to have been an exception either. The only exceptions I am aware of is Moses who spoke to Christ and was seen on the mount by Peter, James, and John.

Indeed, Scripture distinguishes between the various spheres of "heaven"; and even the apostle Paul speaks of paradise in this way: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" - 2 Cor. 12:2 - 4.

Paul didn't qualify what he meant anyway as to whether such a person was dead so your use of this text wouldn't count. Since this text isn't addressing one who dies and goes to heaven right away as you're trying so hard to fit into scripture, it must be talking about something else then. Paul simply had a vision, and when people have visions it feels as if their bodies are transported to where their minds go. The same happened to Ezekiel when the Spirit held him by his hair and carried him to the temple to see the pagan practises that was conducted by God's people. Ezekiel never moved an inch from his verandah.

I would agree that there are different spheres of heaven. The first heaven is the atmospheric, the second is the stary heavens, where we find all those beautiful galaxies. David said that such a heaven declares the glory of God. The third heaven is where God dwells. Its His control tower from which He sees the entire universe. Paul saw lots of things but he was not permitted to speak about those things, and that is why he used the words "not lawful, "

My reason for saying its Paul is based on what he said in other writings. Listen: Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." 1 Corinthians 2:9.

And again in the OT, the prophets recognized the various spheres of heaven: "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee" - Neh. 9:6.

Thanks for supporting my point with such a wonderful passage. See my explanation above.

So, your paraphrase does not strengthen your argument. It was a weak attempt to establish your own thoughts.

Well, now that you know what paradise really means I figure my words still stand. Jesus didn't put those confusing punctuation marks where we happen to see them today. It is these nuances that are causing people to not take the bible seriously. Roman catholic scholars so-called placed those marks to buttress their already erroneous views about what happened to good people when they died.


Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 05:50:56 AM
What is in the expression "not yet ascended to My father" that you seem not to understand?

I haven't argued for or agaisnt John 20:17. The question was about the place; not about the expression or the ascension.

And why should there be a question about the place? There is no issue with that at all. The issue lies with whether or not generally, people, and more specifically the repentant thief, go to paradise when they die in the Lord. I say no to that teaching.

On the basis of a careful reading and studying of the texts.

You mean the use of vague ones that have no relevance to the topic?

I haven't said that shahan is the final authority on Scripture; but obviously, she is a deep thinker. No one has to take anything from you either as you're unable to articulate your arguments on sound Scriptural principles.

Wow!

Second, it's only your characteristic debate to make one verse run contrary to another. You quoted Luke 23:43 and made referrence to John 20:17 in the same connection; so who's now sweating to make them run "contrary" to each other?

You lost me there!

So, there's your problem. Scroll above and see the difference for yourself.

You mean scroll to your vague use of passages?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

I think you're the one doing that just about now.

Doing what exactly?

Bobbyaf:

Not exactly if you take the time to read properly. The scriptures don't show that the word heart is the mind definitively , but I am saying that there is no doubt that the word heart means the mind.

That's where your confusion becomes perennial. If the Scriptures don't show that both are the same, you definitely want to apply a cultic approach of forcing your own thoughts into Scripture. And if you read carefully, you will not miss the distinction that is made between either faculties of man.

Bobbyaf:

Its always easy to look at scripture and take it at face value,

Which is what you often do.

Bobbyaf:

but its another matter to understand that different writers used different styles of writing, and in this case heart and mind were used interchangably, and metaphorically to emphasise something. Most bible writers used that approach.

I offered you texts from different writers to show precisely that they did not use either word interchangably or metaphorically: Mark 12:30; Matthew 22:37 and Luke 10:27. Besides, they were writing SCRIPTURE - God's inspired Word; and penning down what the Lord Jesus said, rather than their own thoughts. The Lord Himself did not use those words interchangably.

Bobbyaf:

Your point about the heart being the seat of our emotions and affections is no doubt correct, but what is also correct is that those attributes could only have found their origin in the mind.

You're only concretely establishing my convictions and nullifying yours: you can't it both ways, as Scripture does not teach that affections and emotions originate from the mind. I earlier made the point that one's intelligence and emotions are not the same.

Bobbyaf:

I didn't say they were. You're saying it. I simply asked you where do our emotions and affections come from if not from the mind.

Same wrong assumptions, which I never expressed.

Bobbyaf:

Dogs and cats show emotions and affection must we say that these come from their hearts too?

Until you can establish from Scripture that dogs and cats are supposed to express the very same emotions and affections in divine issues as man does.

Bobbyaf:

So in other words you don't have a bias. Good for you! Let me ask you again where do thoughts come from if not the mind?

As long as we're discussing Biblical issues, I don't believe my points are biased (see again 1 Tim. 5:21). And your question having been re-arranged does not take away from my earlier point.

Bobbyaf:

Of course they do. They offer us a bias towards the truth. Being biased goes both ways. We can either be biased towards the truth, or a lie. So if I prefer the truth above a lie then my being bias is a wonderful thing.

Even though you prefer to cleverly wiggle your bias, you haven't demonstrated a firm grasp of "truth". Your bias is often the direct opposite of what Scripture affirms, and that is what is called eisegesis - the very thing that God's Word expressly forbids (2 Pet. 1:20). Is your cultic bias still a 'wonderful' thing?

Bobbyaf:

So according to you those who die in the Lord go to heaven leaving their bodies on earth.

It's not surprising you have a difficulty with that. So, according to you, where do they go?

Bobbyaf:

Sorry this text has nothing to do with the point under discussion, and neither is it teaching that error either.

It has everything to do with the topic being discussed as long as you beat your own assertions into it. If it is an 'error' to you, please expound on it.

Bobbyaf:

Be careful lest you read Paul's writings unto your own damnnation.

You're neither Paul nor his personal elocutionist. You should rather be taking your own advice.

Bobbyaf:

Don't isolate a passage just to prove a point, and especially if you don't understand what the writer is trying to say. The better approach to take as I have always suggested, is to use the weight of evidence of multiple passages to throw substance for or against a topic.

And after all that rhetoric, what do you interpret 2 Cor. 5:8 to mean? Making noise against your trademark style of isolating passages to prove your point hasn't helped you the wiser, has it?

Bobbyaf:

Are you saying that light is paradise? Do better than that Stimulus. Right now you're not stimulating.

Where did I say that, Bobbyaf? Are you again trying to pretend your eisegesis into my post? And thanks for your usual cultic slobber, as if you did not know that "Bobbyaf" is a term for a British policeman who forgot his brains in Afghanistan .

Bobbyaf:

The bible speaks of a place where God dwells. It also speaks of a time when that place will be brought down to earth in which both God and man will live together. Listena s John speaks cleary:

John 14:1-3, 1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

Okay, mr 'Bobbyaf', where in John 14:1-3 did Jesus mention 'clearly' the word paradise? And did you read in that verse the same thing you supposed - 'that place will be brought down to earth'? Or is that another one of your 'wonderful' cultic bias?

Bobbyaf:

Christ didn't say that when they died they would go to this beautiful place to dwell with Him. He simply said that when He should come again He would take them to be with Him there. This can only happen after they tak epart in the first resurrection, and not before.

Maybe He didn't say what you suppose; and should we therefore discredit the entire NT that teach it so?

What did Stephen mean when he prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit' (Acts 7:59)?

What did Paul mean in 2 Cor. 5: 6 & 8 - 'Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord. . .We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord'?

Does the above correlate or not with Phil. 1:23 - 'For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better'?

If you die before the Lord comes, Bobbyaf, where will you be?

Bobbyaf:

Your use of a text which shows no definitive statement about paradise is very lame if you ask me.

I didn't ask you; rather it's the other way round. And your own eisegesis is simply spider webs as you've been desperately quoting texts that have no bearing on your assertions.

Bobbyaf:

What makes it even worse is that you're trying to prove what doesn't exist.

Oh thanks. So, paradise doesn't exist? Hee-haw! Please come back with another 'wonderful bias!'

Bobbyaf:

In other words the bible doesn't teach that people go straight to paradise when they die, and it certainly did not mean for the thief to have been an exception either. The only exceptions I am aware of is Moses who spoke to Christ and was seen on the mount by Peter, James, and John.

Ah, there. You anticipated me on the mention of Moses (Luke 9:31). Your problem, however, is that cultists characteristically make 'exceptions' where truth confronts them.

That said, what do you say about the same situation without exception as in Matt. 27:52-53? 'And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.'

Bobbyaf:

Paul didn't qualify what he meant anyway as to whether such a person was dead so your use of this text wouldn't count. Since this text isn't addressing one who dies and goes to heaven right away as you're trying so hard to fit into scripture, it must be talking about something else then.

Your miscalculated dribble, Bobbyaf. The point of referencing 2 Cor. 12:2-4 was to show that 'Scripture distinguishes between the various spheres of "heaven", and not your new device of qualifying whether or not someone who dies goes to heaven right away.

Bobbyaf:

Paul simply had a vision, and when people have visions it feels as if their bodies are transported to where their minds go.

Paul was not speaking merely about a vision in that text. He used the word 'revelations' also (vs. 1); and in verse 3 he did not assume your assertions.

Bobbyaf:

The same happened to Ezekiel when the Spirit held him by his hair and carried him to the temple to see the pagan practises that was conducted by God's people. Ezekiel never moved an inch from his verandah.

And by Ezek. 8:3 you suppose that your rule applies in all cases. There are incidences well documented in Scripture to show that people were literally transported away from one place to another by the Spirit of God:

'And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee, that the Spirit of the LORD shall carry thee whither I know not; and so when I come and tell Ahab, and he cannot find thee, he shall slay me: but I thy servant fear the LORD from my youth.' 1 Kings 18:12. (see also 2 Kings 2:16)

'And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.' Acts 8:39-40.

Even the same Ezekiel you claimed 'never moved an inch from his verandah' actually was literally transported by the Spirit of the Lord to different places. He was first 'in the land of the Chaldeans by the river of Chebar' (ch. 1:3); and when the Spirit lifted him up and took him away, he came 'to them of the captivity at Telabib' (ch. 3:14-15). Was he still within the inch of his verandah?

Bobbyaf:

I would agree that there are different spheres of heaven.

Good then.

Bobbyaf:

The first heaven is the atmospheric, the second is the stary heavens, where we find all those beautiful galaxies. David said that such a heaven declares the glory of God. The third heaven is where God dwells. Its His control tower from which He sees the entire universe. Paul saw lots of things but he was not permitted to speak about those things, and that is why he used the words "not lawful, "

If the third heavens is 'the control tower from which He sees the entire universe', where in Scripture did you read your assertion that the same place shall be brought down to earth? Reminder:

Bobbyaf:

'The bible speaks of a place where God dwells. It also speaks of a time when that place will be brought down to earth in which both God and man will live together'

Could you kindly clear up your cacophony between these two assertions?

Bobbyaf:

My reason for saying its Paul is based on what he said in other writings. Listen: Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." 1 Corinthians 2:9.

I don't remember arguing against the person being Paul; nor does 1 Cor. 2:9 necessarily establish your previous argument.

Bobbyaf:

Thanks for supporting my point with such a wonderful passage. See my explanation above.

You didn't make the point earlier; and I'd just offered that text to clear up your confusion.

Bobbyaf:

Well, now that you know what paradise really means I figure my words still stand.

Have you actually explicated the meaning of paradise?

Bobbyaf:

Jesus didn't put those confusing punctuation marks where we happen to see them today. It is these nuances that are causing people to not take the bible seriously. Roman catholic scholars so-called placed those marks to buttress their already erroneous views about what happened to good people when they died.

Neither did Jesus suggest your own confusing punctuation marks where you happen to see them. For the very same reason as you accuse others, you've been propounding your already erroneous views with your nuances.

Bobbyaf:

And why should there be a question about the place? There is no issue with that at all. The issue lies with whether or not generally, people, and more specifically the repentant thief, go to paradise when they die in the Lord. I say no to that teaching.

You really don't need to sweat it - you're not the one who decides otherwise where the repentant thief or others go when they die in the Lord. the Scriptures are clear on that; and it really doesn't matter if you shout 'NO' a thousand times.

Bobbyaf:

You mean the use of vague ones that have no relevance to the topic?

The same ones you have been running away from and foaming in the mouth about.

Bobbyaf:

You lost me there!

No bother; I didn't expect you'd get the gist of your confusion.

Bobbyaf:

You mean scroll to your vague use of passages?

You couldn't do better than your cheap and weathered foibles, could you?

@Biblezap,

Biblezap:

But, believe me when I say that, the Righteousness of the ALL Mighty is incongruent with Eternal Suffering.

Have you read Romans 11:22 - 'Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off'? The righteousness and holiness of God issues forth an awful judgement upon sin and wickedness.

Biblezap:

One Scripture: "Romans 6:23 - "The wages of sin is death" - See; Not eternal suffering. -Death = Extinction. Yes?

In that case, when Jesus died, did He become extinct? Or, do righteous people not die as well? Those who use Rom. 6:23 as a support for the doctrine of annihilation should very carefully study that verse in its connection with its surrounding texts.

Stimulus, thanks for your respectful and reasoned approach -> you are no doubt a man who loves God and His WOrd!
Amen?!

However - it is 2 a.m. here - nevertheless in the dark and likely to my dear wife's chagrin I'll make what is likly a good attempt at a bad answer

Hmm, let's remember that the Romans quote is in regard to the Jews and those (like us) who are 'grafted in' and who can 'be cut off' - simply cut off from the Almighty God's favor us-ward. See?

Indeed such would be terrible-horrible, Yes yes YES InDEED God's action of so-doing would be reminniscent of a loving Father (say your's or say mine) adopting you/me as a son (yes? do you see , yes?!) and then 'cutting me/you OFF!!'
That would be painfull altogether to the point of it being oh so very severe!

NOW, my friend, I lovingly ask you to consider the Second Chapter of the Book Of ACTS of the APOSTLES: wherein it is stated clearly that Jesus 'could not be held of death' for he was sinless!!

Refer also to 1 Cor . 15 and there we see (v. 51 , think ) that Jesus died as RANSOM for mankind to RE-PURHASE that which Adam lost FOR all mankind -- Life-right!
We , you Stimulus and me BibleZap die ON ACCOUNT of Adam's disobedience. A baby, too without committing a sin, so dies on account of Adam's sin.

Be very careful of a statement likened unto that which you ask in regards to Jesus becoming "extinct' -never say that!

Without Jesus - ALL are lost!! With Him - ALL are saved! ! Please read John 12 : 32 .

Stimulus, respects man! I look forward to our further dialogue,, keep bringing the Scriptures,

@Biblezap,

Much appreciate yours; and I blush on your compliments while trusting you're also one who loves the Lord.

Biblezap:

Hmm, let's remember that the Romans quote is in regard to the Jews and those (like us) who are 'grafted in' and who can 'be cut off' - simply cut off from the Almighty God's favor us-ward. See?

Indeed such would be terrible-horrible, Yes yes YES InDEED God's action of so-doing would be reminniscent of a loving Father (say your's or say mine) adopting you/me as a son (yes? do you see , yes?!) and then 'cutting me/you OFF!!'
That would be painfull altogether to the point of it being oh so very severe!

Okay, I've considered your input above; and I must ask: what's your point?

Biblezap:

NOW, my friend, I lovingly ask you to consider the Second Chapter of the Book Of ACTS of the APOSTLES: wherein it is stated clearly that Jesus 'could not be held of death' for he was sinless!!

I think syrup has dealt with that:

syrup:

He paid the price, but it was NOT possible that He should be held bound by death.
"Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. . . He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." (Act 2:24, 27, 31).

Biblezap:

Refer also to 1 Cor . 15 and there we see (v. 51 , think ) that Jesus died as RANSOM for mankind to RE-PURHASE that which Adam lost FOR all mankind -- Life-right!

1 Cor. 15:51 - 'Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed'.

Biblezap:

We , you Stimulus and me BibleZap die ON ACCOUNT of Adam's disobedience. A baby, too without committing a sin, so dies on account of Adam's sin.

Okay.

Biblezap:

Be very careful of a statement likened unto that which you ask in regards to Jesus becoming "extinct' -never say that!

Obviously, that was what you broad statement would lead some to believe.

Biblezap:

Without Jesus - ALL are lost!! With Him - ALL are saved! ! Please read John 12 : 32 .

I would need you to clarify that statement. I agree with the first part, that without Jesus all are lost. However, does the second part mean that the unrepentant and wicked who die in their sins are still saved and will not face the final judgement?

Biblezap:

Stimulus, respects man! I look forward to our further dialogue,, keep bringing the Scriptures,

Me, too. Plenty respects broda!

@ Stimulus

The simple truth is you are not able to define what the heart is, at least from a biblical point of view, so why should I take your word as gospel? Heart is simply another word for mind. Thoughts, affections, emotions come form nowhere else but the mind, regardless of what you believe or were taught. Besides, this isn't the topic at hand.

Regards.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

The simple truth is you are not able to define what the heart is, at least from a biblical point of view, so why should I take your word as gospel? Heart is simply another word for mind. Thoughts, affections, emotions come form nowhere else but the mind, regardless of what you believe or were taught. Besides, this isn't the topic at hand.

I've clearly enunciated the difference between the heart and mind; and it is rather queer that you have not been able to maintain a clear perspective from Scripture of your persuasion. You're only making assertions and hoping that all would be well as long as not many people would have the discipline to check you out.

I wonder why you'd have to mention the subject at all in your post if you already knew 'this isn't the topic at hand'. Regards.

I was away late March, what was the conclusion of the whole matter?

As you are very much aware that there can be no eternal hell, or torment. Hell was made for the devil and his angels. It so happens that humans who chose to follow Satan will find themselves there also.

Bobbyaf:

As you are very much aware that there can be no eternal hell, or torment. Hell was made for the devil and his angels. It so happens that humans who chose to follow Satan will find themselves there also.

Your personal opinion is not the conclusion of the whole matter.

Really now! , and yours is?

Bobbyaf:

Really now!

Yep. Did you miss out?

Bobbyaf:

and yours is?

Already stated - review it.

WOW, have you never heard of False prophets?
The bible tells nothing about an immortal soul or an everlasting hell.


http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html