₦airaland Forum

@ Stimulus

Where in Scripture does it say that the earth itself is the lake of fire?

2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up."

Where in the verses offered does it say: "UNTIL"??

Whatever verse that utilises the word "unquenchable", in other words the word used means that no one will be able to stop the fire from doing its work until its work is complete.

Most christians including you, are likely to use the word un-quenchable as meaning an indefinite burning, when in truth it means nothing of the sort when it is lined up contextually.

How long exactly will the lake of fire last - one day, two weeks, a month??

How would I know?

Does the Bible present the punishment with the lake of fire as a slight punishment just because God is LOVE?

Can't recall ever using the word slight in my response. What I recall explaining is that God's love and justice cannot allow Him to unduly punish sinners.

Where in Scripture does the Bible say that earth is the lake of fire?

See the above response for the same question you already posed above.

Ricadelide and Somze as soon as you get the time please take a look at these streaming videos and give me your views. I believe you should find them interesting. The one hour or so presentation is worth it.

Here is the link:

http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

The Centre of the universe video really shaters the theory of the doppler's effect as it relates to the universe. I know you guys will appreciate the videos.

God bless.

I doubt if you spent the time viewing the videos before making those remarks. Why not take the time to view them carefully for yourself. View them independently and then after we can discuss what was presented in a reasonable manner. I know you're a sensible person so act like one. Besides, you often make the claim that science is all about empirical observation. Well, here it is! Dr. Robert Ventry has challenged the status quo and has succeeded. If that weren't the case his works would not have been published in peer-reviewed science journals, and hence his works cannot be labeled "lies"

Anyone who views those videos with an open mind could not rationally walk away saying what you said.

Well said ricadelide.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. God cannot be brought down to a laboratory to be viewed empirically. His ways are past finding out, and He in His own sweet time will reveal the truth.

I pray that people will have an open mind to such revelations as they come.

Please take a look at these streaming videos that provide evidence that the bible's account of an instantaneous creation of the earth's granite or foundation rocks is indeed true, and likewise the account of the universal flood. Here is the link:

http://www.halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm#yae

They each deal with:

1. The centre of the universe

2. The young age of the earth

3. Fingerprints of creation

Simply choose the best downlad speed and watch for at least one hour the fascinating truth about what evolutionists have not yet discovered. Its so simple one wonders why they failed to see the evidence

Even Jesus gave them a clue about the rocks crying out, and they still didn't heed the advice. 

God bless and enjoy the videos.

Thank God for somze and ricadelide.

Somze its pretty obvious that if there is a design to the universe there aught to be a designer. And as you correctly said that designer is God the Creator. These chance evolutionists don't stop to think. They desire people to readily accept that all this order in the universe came by chance.

Keep up the good work guys.

@ Viable

I want to address this question from the biblical point of view. Hell fire is an event and not a place as so many christian denominations do teach today.

I tend to see where you're coming from when you say hell is more of an event than a place, but I have to say its both an event and a place. However the place is not somewhere under the earth, but the whole earth itself. The whole earth will be engulfed in fire, and if the whole earth will be engulfed then it means that the earth itelf would be the place. I hope you see the point I am making.

One pastor said that sinners will be burning forever and ever that is not what the bible says.

And I very much agree with you! There has been a gross mis-understanding of what the bible teaches about hell fire, coupled with the reality of a lot of translational errors that tend to confuse a lot of christians.

The bible says unquenchable fire, that is a fire which nobody can put off untill it consume every sinner. that means that sinners will be burnt up with fire which noone can put off.

Well said! Unquenchable doesn't mean indefinite burning.

see Isaiah 24;1-6 and jude verse 7 where the bible mentioned the destruction of sodom and gomorrha as example of eternal fire. The question for anyone who says that hell fire will burn forever, the question for such person is , is sodom and gomorrha still burning till today? So if the Jehovah's Witnesses told you that hell fire is not a place as many christians teaches today, they are right but if they taught you that GOD will not punish sinners to death with fire, they are wrong,

In some other thread I brought out this point to those who believes in an everlasting hell fire. On the surface it does appear that way to the average person if they were to take the word at face value all the time. Phrases found in Revelation 20:9-10

9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.


10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[b] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

I want you to notice something here. The bold word in verse 9 says "devoured", while the bold phrase in verse 10 says "forever and ever". On the surface it would seem contradictory, wouldn't it? One word is connoting a complete act, and another phrase is connoting an indefinite act.

To end the confusion all that is needed is spending some time doing a proper research of translational idiomatic phrases in the scriptures and deriving the truth that surrounds them. "Forever and ever" is one such idiomatic phrase that was never meant to be taken at face value, just like all other idiomatic ones. The original greek expression was writtenin the plural form and which meant "from the ages to the ages".

It simply implied an event that would happen during a time epoch, or era, or an event that would happen in time stages for as long as that event lasted. So in the case of hell fire the wicked would be punished not indefinitely, but as long as their punishment was meant to last.

As you rightly said even the word unquenchable as used in scripture takes on greater meaning when it is understood in the proper context of who God is. God is LOVE. He is also a God of righteousness and justice. He cannot give greater punishment than is necessary. No one would be able to stop the fire until it does its work of cleansing the earth of sin and sinners.

Besides, if this fire is allowed to burn indefinitely, where would God establish the new earth? If the earth is allowed to burn without end how would the meek inherit the earth?

@ KImba

The Bible was not written and given to man for the purpose of Argument. It is meant to be believed and to serve as a guide, leading immortal man to the Eternal God.

True, but one has to be able to prove "all things" according to the apostle Paul. The admonition to prove all things has an element of debate in it. One should be able to use the bible to prove the truth seeing that there is so much deception in the world. Listena s Paul makes it clear as to one of the functions of the word.

2 Timothy 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Really now! , and yours is?

Let who is without Sin be the first to cast the stone!
Stop picking the speck in other peoples eyes and yet you stand as the greatest culprit.

Hahahah, what does having sin, or not having sin have to do with this topic? When does pointing out something as important as the thread is intended to do, picking the speck in other people's eyes? If you don't agree with what we have to say then simply say so and move on, but don't give the false impression that because people have something to share with others, that they are some how judging others.

@ Donnie

The name of the father is Jesus; the name of the son is Jesus; the name of the Holy ghost is Jesus. The all answer to that all powerful name.

This is not biblical in any form, or fashion. It only goes to show how far you all will go just to prove a point. Think about it logically and sensibly. The name Jesus was only ascribed to the Son at His birth, so your argument is false when you say that the father's name is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit's name is Jesus. You only say that because you have failed to read and understand plain English. Let us examine what the scripture says in Matthew 28.

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

The word name as used here is used to signify representation, and authority. Its not saying that we must call the Father Jesus, or call the Holy Spirit Jesus as you're implying.

To be baptised in the name of Jesus isn't different from being baptised in the name (authority) of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit. If I come in your name I come in your authority. I represent you. If you accept me then you accept what the One who sent me has, and all that He stands for, and that is exactly what Jesus meant when He said what He said in Matthew 28.

@ Firestar

Wrong!!!

Easter IS a pagan name derived from ancient roots. Talk about a sweet in the gutter, ( Seems tasty but ugh! disgusting!) Christ, when with his disciples on the night of the Passover (Nisan 14) told 11 of his disciples to keep "doing this in remembrance of me." Some other so-called "Christian" celebrations which aren't Biblical are celebrated,
Please people, read for yourselves the fact by the studying these customs and you'll see that a huge majority aren't biblical.

Peace.

Exactly! Most of the traditions we find in christendome today have been implanted by men and not God, and some persons seem bent on not seeing the truth about such things. To them its all right as long as you call upon Jesus.

@ Stimulus

If Christians cannot live holy EVERYDAY of their lives, where does the argument lead?

Is anyone in this thread debating that? Stick to the thread topic!

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.

That is a good question and topic. Personally, I don't see a problem if christians should take an active part in politics if we stop to properly define the purpose of politics. However, it would be foolish of me to give the impression that any christian is expected to remain spotless while being involved, especially in today's politics.

Biblical history has shown where God's chosen were at some point appointed leaders in the affairs of men. Daniel, Joseph, and queen Esther were good examples. Daniel and Joseph both served as Prime Ministers in governments that were opposed to God at some point in time. Their outstanding and exemplary lives brought great leaders to recognize the Creator-God of heaven. Esther because of her position in the kingdom of Persia was able to influence the salvation of her people.

In essence we would need to weigh the situation. If one believes that God has called him or her to be in a position at that point in time, then God will enable those. When Paul wrote in Romans 13 about the "powers that be", he was referring to the Roman government. He made it clear that it was God who raised it up to function as His minister, despite the fact that Rome at the time under Nero was a terror to christians.

Just my thoughts.

I couldn't agree with you more. Besides, what is holy about Thursday, Friday, Sunday, or Monday for that matter? Who declared them holy, and by whose or what authority?

So far I have not heard a reliable offering on the matter.

I have nothing against JWs. I wouldn't take it that seriously if I were you.

@ ademiife

"For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone." can someone explain this verses?
what about these:

It means that Christ, who is also Himself fullyGod, who became fully man for us will always be in a position of submission to His Father. That was always the plan from the foundation of eternity. However, some have taught that this proves that Christ is inferior to the Father. Nothing is further fom the truth. Christ and His Father are co-eternal and co-equal. From eternity they stood side by side, until it was time for the Son to play the forever role of a humility, even after He is exalted as King of kings and Lord of Lords.

5 Then the Devil took him along into the holy city, and he stationed him upon the battlement of the temple 6 and said to him: “If you are a son of God, hurl yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels a charge concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone.’” 7 Jesus said to him: “Again it is written, ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’”

All the text is saying is that the Devil transported Christ from one point to another. Its very straightforward. I must hasten to say that your translation is not correct when it says: "if you are a son of God" The correct translation is "the son of God" and not "a son of God"

8 Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.”

Just as it said. How clearer can you get it?

Bibi has raised a good point in that it is God who has ultimate control. Yes the bible has said that Satan is the god of this world, but what exactly does it mean by that? Does it mean that God will allow Satan to do as he pleases? Certainly not!

Originally Adam was given dominion over the earth, but when Satan came and decieved the woman, Adam had the opportunity to stand up for God, but instead he chose the woman. In deliberately sinning he gave up that right of rulership.

Satan through deception claims the world, and which is brought out by the scripture. No one can deny that. Bear in mind however, that satan can only be a god if we choose to let him, or if we worship him. He is the god of this world but not the god of the christians. There lies the difference. He is the god of this world because the world worships him whetehr or not they realise it.

Christians have been called out of the world, which is the enemy of God, at least as far as its principles are concerned. How the world views things is different from how we as christians should view things.

@ seun

Jehovah Witnesses are allowed to have boyfriends. They are actually more flexible than most Christian denominations (except for their preaching exercises, bible study, and certain things they don't believe in like blood transfusions and celebration of birthdays).

Flexible? Are you sure about that? I am yet to meet with one who is willing to participate in social activities, much less religious ones. They generally tend to shy away from such gatherings if its not their organization that is promoting it. They have been so insulated that they don't even know how to socialise without feeling guilty.

How is that for flexibility Seun?

Trust me, they can be really friendly and accepting if you relate with them without the consciousness that they are Jehovah's Witnesses.

But as soon as you begin to question them you'll notice the change of attitude.

@

You guys should understand my english : i meant "advancement" of christianity. not who "founded" it!

I figure that was what you meant, but I believe its the word credit that is posing a problem. Your statement suggests it is either one or the other that deserves the credit, when in truth and in fact both can be credited. I do believe though that Paul was more extensive in his ministry and evangelism.

Regards.

The problem with all these holidays, festivals, is that they were man-made. The sad thing is that we prefer what man has made and have rejected what God has made. Strange isn't it?

Secondly these days weren't initiated by the apostles either, but by the Roman catholic church. In its attempt to highlight the fact that it as a church had the power to initiate religious festivals, and apply whatever meaning it felt like to those days, really shows the contempt it had for God and His word.

The apostle Paul spoke of the man of sin that would appear before Christ's return. He saw the falling away before it started in the 3rd and 4th century, when paganism found its way in the church. Hence the observance of Sunday the day assigned to the sun god, and the other festivals with their pagan attachments as well.

Revelation 18:4 says "And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."

God is calling back His people to pure and un-adulterated worship as seen in Revelation 14. He warns us not to recieve the beast's mark. If we fail to heed the warning then the plauges of Revelation 16 will fall on all those who recieve that mark.

Interesting thread I must say. I too have had my contacts with the Mormans. I have read but not entirely the book of Mormons. They believe that the American Indians are descendants of Abraham. It is believed that Christ appeared to the Indians after His resurrection.

They have some really weird doctrines however. They teach, although I am not sure if they still do, that there is a higher god than the one we serve. They teach that one day we will become as God, and that God was once a man who evolved into the present god.

Apart from that I admire their missionary zeal. I have never really chased them away as such, but I have taken the opportunity to ask them questions and to find out what they believe. The same approach I have had with the Witnesses.

On the question of judging. Don't confuse the meaning of the word judge. It carries two meaning in scriptures. When Jesus says "judge not lest ye be judged" He is saying don't right off anyone or condemn them.

The other meaning has to do with making the correct decisions. In other words we must judge righteously according to Jesus.

Proverbs 31:9 says, Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Jesus says, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” John 7:24

So there you have it. Our judgments must be fair and should be based on facts.

@ Horus

As you can see the Sabbath was not established for man as religion as you believe, but it was Gods’ (Eloheem) personal holiday. Man stole it to make it a part of his religion.

To the contrary. Jesus said that the sabbath was made for man (the generic term for mankind and womankind). The scriptures are very clear on that. Listen:

Gen. 2:2-3, And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

My question to you is this. Did God sanctify the day for Himself, or did He sanctify the day for mankind? Secondly, what does the word sanctify means in that context?

Now Jesus clarified the Genesis account by saying in Mark 2:27, 27 And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”

Because the Jewish leaders had a mis-understanding of the purpose of the sabbath oftentimes they would seek to make an issue of it as it related ot Christ. So even though it wan't Christ, but His disciples who plucked the hairs of the corn, they saught to blame Him. They made the keeping of the sabbath a burden to the people by their traditions which were many. To have rubbed the corn in hand would have been considered work under their rules. One couldn't even spittle on the sabbath lest it be seen as an act of performing agricultural work.

It is in this context that Jesus saught to provide meaning re the sabbath and its true purpose. He took them back to the very beginning when the sabbath was first made for mankind, including Adam and Eve. If Adam weren't apart of mankind then who was? He and Eve were the pro-genitors of mankind.

While the OT scriptures do not give a direct statement as to their keeping it, Mark 2:27 does. When one section of the bible is silent, other sections bring clarification.

@ babaearly

While no credit belongs to anyone in delivering the gospel, I do believe that the apostle Paul accomplished more because the Lord used him more. Despite that fact neither Paul, nor Peter would have wanted us to think that either's ministry was to be more credited. His ministry was far different from that of the apostle Peter only in terrms of its extensiveness.

I believe you already know that much.

Bless.

@ 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.

@ 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?

@ ChrisD

Praying to Mary and the Saints

I will talk about the Catholic practice of asking Mary, saints and angels to pray for us. The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us.

The bible does no such thing.

Thus in Psalm 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21).

And in Psalm 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2)

Be honest now where in these texts do we see anything suggesting that we invoke angels or saints, assuming that sainsts are to be found in heaven anyway. What these texts are indeed saying is that angels should bless or praise the Lord. The phrase "O you his angels" is saying that the angels should praise God.

Let me give you an example of what an angel told John when he was in vision on the isle of Patmos not to do, and in no uncertain terms either. In Revelation 19:10 we read: 10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, Do not do it! I am a fellow- servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:. Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

Stop reading into the scriptures to suit your beliefs! The 24 elders were specially redeemed from the earth, but not for the purpose to which you are advocating. No way did the scripture say they were offering any prayers. They simply held bowls. Besides, all those persons that were canonised into saints supposedly by the RCC are in their graves and not in heaven as believed by catholics.

Angels do the same thing: "An angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

MOst of this is symbolic language and every effort should be made to interpret correctly. There is no connection here whatsoever.

Jesus himself warned us not to mess with small children because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 18:10).

So because angels have previleged access makes them our subject of adoration or invoking?

Because he is the only God-man, Jesus is the only Mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1-4), including those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).

Apart from Moses and Elijah that appeared to Christ on the mount, what proof do you have that christians are in heaven? If christians were in heaven then why would there be a need for the resurrection. Paul says the "dead in Christ shall rise first" Since there has not been a resurrection as yet, how then can a person other than being translated enter heaven?

I would be willing to bet they do not even examine the prayers we use to 'petition' Mary. Have you ever heard of the word 'intercession'? It is when we ask someone to pray for us. Lets look at a few Bible verses,

Rom 15:30, ", help me by your prayers to GOD for me."
Col 1:9, "This is why we too have been praying for you unceasingly."
1Thes 3:10, "Night and day we pray more and more, "
2Thes 1:11, "To this end we pray always for you."
2Thes 3:1, "In conclusion brethren, pray for us, "
Jam 5:16, ", and pray for one another that you may be saved."
Rev 8:3-4 ", that he may offer it with the prayers of all the saints, "

All these requests were centered around live people, and not those who were dead and went to heaven supposedly. Don't confuse my asking for a brother or sister to intercede for me in prayrers, with our asking for canonised dead people to pray for us. Until you are in a position to prove that any of those "saints" are really in heaven, aside from the 24 elders, then your argument is shaky.

The Bible is asking you to pray for one another. Have you ever asked someone to pray for you? Have you ever told someone you will pray for them? Why then, when the name of Mary is introduced, is it not to be asked of her?

Because Mary is dead and buried thats why! And please don't tell me that Mary appeared to several people as proof that she is somehow alive. As much as you might not believe this, all those apparitions are not from Mary, but from demons themselves who are setting the stage for the final great universal deception. And the sad thing is innocent christians are being decieved.

Was she not a created being like all the rest of us? Why can we ask everyone else to pray for us, but we can't ask it of Mary? Does it not stand to reason that her Son would listen to her and grant her requests?

He turned water into wine at Cana just by Mary making a remark, "They have no wine", Jn 2:3. He was subjected to her in Lk 2:51, and no doubt for many years until His ministry started at age 30. He listens to her now, just as He did then. She must have a lot more influence with Him than any of us do, since she is His mother.

Using the argument that Christ's granting Mary's request for converting water into wine is proof that He was subject to her is no proof at all, and neither is it a basis to teach that she now intercedes for us. The fact is if that were so important a matter to be appreciated by the church now, how come the bible didn't stress her having gone to heaven to fulfil such. No hint has been supplied by scripture.

The truth is the assumption-of-Mary-to-heaven teaching was started later by the catholic church. Its a RC doctrine and has become part of the church's traditonal beliefs, but there is nothing biblical about it.

@ 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.

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.