DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Things of the Mind
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8499--------------------------------------------------
Annihilation, Eternal Torment, Universal Reconciliation.
By: Mike Date: July 12, 2014, 2:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=comic sans ms]I’m not a one to hold many views with such
dogmatic rigidity that I have a mental block to the open
consideration of other views from whatever source.
And I have recently encountered a view that all those whose
names are not written in the Lambs book of life will be thrown
into the ‘Lake of Fire’ to suffer eternal experiences that range
from relatively mild through to extremely severe, depending on
the degree of evil that might have characterised their mortal
lives.
In consequence I have been re-examining my understanding of the
‘Lake of Fire’; which in turn has led to my reconsideration of
the two words Gehenna and Hades.
I am led to believe that Gehenna (or the Valley of Hinnom) was
one of the two principal valleys surrounding the Old City of
Jerusalem, where idolatrous Jews sacrificed their children to
the god Molech, and where the dead bodies of animals and of
criminals, and rubbish, were all thrown and consumed by a
constant fire (possibly the combustive heat of decomposition
although it is said by some that it was kept alight by being fed
with sulphur).
And that eventually in Jewish tradition Gehenna became the image
of the place of everlasting destruction with a 'gate' which led
down into a permanently molten lake of fire.
As I have said before John, when receiving his visions as
recorded in Revelation, was a Jew whose subconscious would
almost certainly would have been deeply entrenched in Jewish
tradition, and surely was influenced by the tradition of Gehenna
when he visualised his ‘Lake of Fire”. And this I borne out by
his use of the term “thrown into”.
Hades is a different thing altogether being simply ‘the grave in
which dead bodies returned back to the dust from which they
originated’.
In Revelation it seems clear to me that the Lake of Fire and
Gehenna are synonymously places of final (second death)
destructive extinction for the spirits of all those whose names
were not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, plus ‘hades’ and
death itself (which was designated to ‘be no more’), and
everything else that was destined to pass away.
The Devil, the Beast, and the False Prophet being the only
exception in that they appear to be destined to suffer an
eternal living death in the Lake of Fire.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have some interesting thoughts on that
and I believe that Amadeus has some regarding the Devil and the
Beast (maybe also regarding the False Prophet).[/font]
#Post#: 8500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Annihilation, Eternal Torment, Universal Reconciliation.
By: Kerry Date: July 12, 2014, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gehinnom is a Jewish term. In the Bible, it's used by Jews
speaking to other Jews. So what do Jews say it is? Certainly
not a place of eternal torment!
HTML http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm
They also teach there are two kinds of judgment. One type
follows the death of the physical body. (This agrees with the
passage, "once to die and after that the judgment." There is
also the "Last Judgment."
The heavenly court does accounting work, but the soul really
passes judgment on itself. Even the most wicked of souls
doesn't spend more than a year in Gehinnom. There is no need
for it.
The Lake of Fire is something else -- a future version of
gehinnom. So far as I know, it is not in existence at the
present time. I would guess myself that both "body and soul"
could perish in it after the sinful are resurrected and judged
in the Last Judgment. We should indeed fear Him Who can destroy
both body and soul in gehinnom.
The gehinnom around now serves to burn away only the "dead wood"
so new wood can grow. Its purpose is completely benevolent.
Whatever is of value can pass through the flames of gehinnom
without harm, like gold in a fire. It affects only the dross.
So I believe.
Yes, there is a spot outside Jerusalem that was called Gehinnom
where things were burned; the spiritual place is there also.
The Holy City John saw is also there.
#Post#: 8501--------------------------------------------------
Re: Annihilation, Eternal Torment, Universal Reconciliation.
By: Mike Date: July 12, 2014, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=comic sans ms]Is it not the case that the entire New
Testament was written by Jews?
And what percentage of what they wrote was written other than to
Jews.
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles but you cast doubt on much
of what he writes.
Should the New Testament as ultimately put together have been
reorganised into two....one part for the Gentiles and one part
for the likes of those who lean in favour of Judaism rather than
'Gentile Christianity'?
Makes ya think, don't you think?[/font]
#Post#: 8502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Annihilation, Eternal Torment, Universal Reconciliation.
By: Kerry Date: July 12, 2014, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Mike link=topic=829.msg8501#msg8501
date=1405179613]
[font=comic sans ms]Is it not the case that the entire New
Testament was written by Jews?
And what percentage of what they wrote was written other than to
Jews.
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles but you cast doubt on much
of what he writes.
Should the New Testament as ultimately put together have been
reorganised into two....one part for the Gentiles and one part
for the likes of those who lean in favour of Judaism rather than
'Gentile Christianity'?
Makes ya think, don't you think?[/font]
[/quote]When Paul quotes the Talmud in a typical Jewish manner,
that leads me to believe the passages are authentic. Those
passages click together with the his assertion that he had
studied with Gamaliel. Also, what Jesus taught about the
"letter" and the "spirit" of the Law is still typical Jewish
thought. Anyone who understands what Jews actually believe
about the letter and spirit of the Law can see what Jesus means
easily.
There probably is a dire need to understand the Jewish context
of words as they were used then. Take what Paul writes (in
Romans 3) about the "oracles" given to the Jews. He teaches
there something that could have come straight from the mouth of
Gamaliel.
The account in Acts about what rules of Moses Gentiles should
follow also needs to be understood in the proper Jewish context.
The Apostles did not make up anything new. They said Gentiles
were not bound by those rules which is something a Jew today
would also tell you. The prohibition against consuming blood
goes back to the Covenant with Noah. People should know without
being told that drinking blood or eating limbs from live animals
is wrong. This is written in their hearts as Paul puts it --
another authentic passage since the proper context and ideas are
present.
It is true that for many years, the Christian church preserved
this truth faithfully. Most Orthodox churches
HTML http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/786/
still teach this.
The "Canons of the Apostles", perhaps a dubious document, is
still of ancient origin and reflects much of early Christianity.
The Catholic Church veered way off course as the result of
complete ignorance under Eugene IV whom an ecumenical council
tried to depose but failed. This Pope then dismissed the
council and got rid of many the Bishops and called another
council. He packed this new council with ignorant men. From
Wikipedia
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Basel#Composition_of_the_council:
The democratic character of the assembly at Basel was a result
of both its composition and its organization. Doctors of
theology, masters and representatives of chapters, monks and
clerks of inferior orders constantly outnumbered the prelates in
it, and the influence of the superior clergy had less weight
because, instead of being separated into "nations", as at
Constance, the fathers divided themselves according to their
tastes or aptitudes into four large committees or "deputations"
(deputationes). One was concerned with questions of faith
(fidei), another with negotiations for peace (pacis), the third
with reform (reformatorii), and the fourth with what they called
"common concerns" (pro communibus). Every decision made by three
of these "deputations" — and in each of them the lower clergy
formed the majority — received ratification for the sake of form
in general congregation, and if necessary led to decrees
promulgated in session. For this reason papal critics termed the
council "an assembly of copyists" or even "a set of grooms and
scullions". However, some prelates, although absent, were
represented by their proxies.
This was the council that decreed it was fine for Christians to
drink blood if they wanted or eat blood puddings. This was the
council that said slavery was fine if the slaves weren't
Christian. This was also the council that "clarified" the dogma
of papal supremacy.
"We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman
Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that
the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the
chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he
is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of
all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed
Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the
universal Church."
Eugene IV tended to get what he wanted, even if he had to
dissolve an "ecumenical council" that said it had the right to
depose him. He could always call another council to invent a
new doctrine that gave him "primacy throughout the whole world"
-- even over ecumenical councils.
But look how far he veered off course. He defied the "law
written on the hearts" at the time of Noah, defied the oracles
of the Jews, defied the Canons of the Apostles and defied the
Book of Acts. The Catholic Commentary, Haydock's, still defends
this decision in its section on Acts:
Ver. 20. Things strangled and from blood. In these prohibitions,
the Church indulged the particular feelings of the Jews, that
the bond of union between them and the Gentiles might be more
closely united; the latter in these two instances giving way to
the prejudices of the former, who in their turn gave up much, by
submitting to the abolition of the ceremonial law of Moses. This
prohibition was of course only temporary, and to cease with the
reasons, which gave rise to it. (Menochius) --- The Jews had
such a horror of blood, that they considered those who eat it as
defiled, and violators of the law of nature. The Lord had in
effect from the beginning forbidden the use of blood to Noe
[Noah], (Genesis ix. 4.) which he likewise reported in the
strongest terms in Leviticus viii. 26.[vii. 26.?] By this we see
the great authority of God's Church, and Councils which may make
permanent or temporary decrees, such as are fitting for the
state of the times or peoples, without any express Scripture at
all, and by this authoritative exaction, things become of strict
obligation, which previous to it, were in themselves
indifferent. (Bristow)
No authority exists on this earth that can set aside the
Covenant of Noah since that is the law written in the heart of
all men.
Another truly curious case of the context being lost is the word
"messiah" in the book of Daniel. Translators capitalized it in
several translations; and people are convinced it must mean
Jesus. It actually means two "anointed" ones. First it means
Darius who is also called messiah explicitly by Isaiah. Is it
not clear that Darius was the messiah involved in building the
new temple? I think it should be. The second time the word is
used, it applies to Herod Agrippa II. Christians, not
perceiving this, have invented all kinds of theories about this
prophecy not believing it was already fulfilled right on
schedule as predicted by Jesus who told people hearing him that
some of them would see it happen.
We should not need a holy book to tell us that God would not
punish anyone eternally in hellfire. The concept is not worth
considering. If a man were to torture a person for a day, we'd
call him a monster; but somehow we can believe God could do such
a thing eternally. What we should be able to believe is that
God is like a benevolent parent whose discipline sometimes seems
hateful to the child.
*****************************************************