# Eternal Judgement?



## newnature

A parable is designed to teach a fundamental truth, and the details do not have a literal meaning, unless the context indicates otherwise. Out of this principle another grows, namely, only the fundamental teaching of a parable, confirmedly the general tenor of Scripture, may be legitimately used for defining doctrine. 

Unfortunately, these two fundamental principles are ignored by those who wish to use the details of a parable to support their views. To interpret Lazarus and the rich man as representative of what will happen to the saved and the unsaved immediately after death, means to milk the parable for lessons foreign to its original intent. If the narrative is an actual description of the intermediate state, then it must be true in fact and consistent in detail. But if the parable is figurative, then only the moral truth to be conveyed need concern us. â€¨

Contenders for literalism suppose that the rich man and Lazarus were disembodied souls, destitute of bodies. Yet the rich man is described as having eyes that see and a tongue that speaks, as well as seeking relief from the finger of Lazarus, all real body parts. 

Taken literally, this means that Heaven and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored are within geographical speaking and seeing distance from each other, so that saints and sinners eternally can see and communicate with one another. Ponder for a moment the case of parents in Heaven seeing their children agonizing in hades for all eternity. It is unthinkable that the saved will see and converse with their unsaved loved ones for all eternity across a dividing gulf.â€¨

Jesus met people on their own ground, capitalizing on what was familiar to them, to teach them vital truths. Many of his hearers had come to believe in a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection, though such a belief is foreign to Scripture. 

Jesus capitalized on the popular understanding of the condition of the dead in ‘hades,’ not to endorse such views, but to drive home the importance of heeding in this present life the teachings of Moses and the prophets, because this determines bliss or misery to come for an Israelite.


----------



## gemcgrew

newnature said:


> It is unthinkable that the saved will see and converse with their unsaved loved ones for all eternity across a dividing gulf.


It is unthinkable that a God hater would be a loved one.


----------



## newnature

gemcgrew said:


> It is unthinkable that a God hater would be a loved one.




God's haters seem to be "Poe Trolls?" But here is thought, remember how Yahweh stations the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword to guard the way back to the tree of life, once Adam and Eve were banished from the garden. The tree of life is now inaccessible; no humans have access to immortality, and the pursuit of immortality is futile.


----------



## gemcgrew

newnature said:


> God's haters seem to be "Poe Trolls?"


Some prefer to be called "Christians".


newnature said:


> But here is thought, remember how Yahweh stations the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword to guard the way back to the tree of life, once Adam and Eve were banished from the garden.


In order "to keep the way of of the tree life". This is an act of grace.


newnature said:


> The tree of life is now inaccessible; no humans have access to immortality, and the pursuit of immortality is futile.


The cross of Christ is inaccessible by human effort. It is a gift of God. The believer possesses immortality. This is why death, to a believer, is a very good thing.


----------



## newnature

gemcgrew said:


> Some prefer to be called "Christians".
> 
> In order "to keep the way of of the tree life". This is an act of grace.
> 
> The cross of Christ is inaccessible by human effort. It is a gift of God. The believer possesses immortality. This is why death, to a believer, is a very good thing.



The reason is that for Paul, those who die in Christ, their relationship with Christ is one of immediacy, because they have not awareness of the passing of time between their death and resurrection.


----------



## gemcgrew

newnature said:


> The reason is that for Paul, those who die in Christ, their relationship with Christ is one of immediacy, because they have not awareness of the passing of time between their death and resurrection.


I see spiritual thievery. For the believer, to die is gain and not a deficiency.


----------



## newnature

gemcgrew said:


> I see spiritual thievery. For the believer, to die is gain and not a deficiency.



But Paul never alluded to the conscious survival of the soul and its reattachment to the body at the resurrection, that is a notion totally foreign to Paul and to Scripture as a whole. Paul did not think the question of the status of the person between death and resurrection was a question that needed to be considered.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> God's haters seem to be "Poe Trolls?" But here is thought, remember how Yahweh stations the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword to guard the way back to the tree of life, once Adam and Eve were banished from the garden. The tree of life is now inaccessible; no humans have access to immortality, and the pursuit of immortality is futile.



The tree of life was inaccessible. It has been made accessible through the Cross.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> The tree of life was inaccessible. It has been made accessible through the Cross.



It is interesting the Greek word used for “the cross” on which Jesus was put to death is “stauros,” which denotes an upright pale or stake. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. There is nothing in the Greek of the New Testament even to imply two pieces of timber. 

But you are right, because every person who has believed Paul’s good news, from the point of Paul’s conversion onward has been made a member of the Body of Christ by being joined to Christ through the baptizing work of God’s power from on high, which takes place at the point of a person’s belief, no one prior to the apostle Paul ever became a member of the Body of Christ.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> It is interesting the Greek word used for “the cross” on which Jesus was put to death is “stauros,” which denotes an upright pale or stake. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. There is nothing in the Greek of the New Testament even to imply two pieces of timber.
> 
> But you are right, because every person who has believed Paul’s good news, from the point of Paul’s conversion onward has been made a member of the Body of Christ by being joined to Christ through the baptizing work of God’s power from on high, which takes place at the point of a person’s belief, no one prior to the apostle Paul ever became a member of the Body of Christ.



The only thing I understand is where you correctly said I am right. The rest is just incomprehensible.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> The only thing I understand is where you correctly said I am right. The rest is just incomprehensible.



Jesus capitalized on the popular understanding of the condition of the dead in ‘hades,’ not to endorse such views, but to drive home the importance of heeding in this present life the teachings of Moses and the prophets, because this determines bliss or misery to come for an Israelite. This is for the Israelite, the messiah raised from among the dead to sit on the throne of David. 


But you are in the age of grace, and the issue is not our sins today, most people think sin is the issue, so they are looking for ways to keep short accounts. The issue is: In order to dwell with God in eternity future; we have to be as righteous as God, his justice will not allow nothing other, and until you believe what happened to the sins Christ died for concerning yourself, you are not placed into Christ.


----------



## hobbs27

Imputed sin is covered by Christ's blood. Those that were in Hades have been released and Hades is no more. They were in Hades because of imputed sin that separated them from God. Christ covered that, and now all in Covenant have eternal life.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Imputed sin is covered by Christ's blood. Those that were in Hades have been released and Hades is no more. They were in Hades because of imputed sin that separated them from God. Christ covered that, and now all in Covenant have eternal life.



But according to Hellenistic Israelites, ‘hades’ is divided into two regions. One is the region of light, where the souls of the righteous dead are brought by angels to the place known as the bosom of Abraham.” The second region is in perpetual darkness, and the souls of the ungodly are dragged by force by the angels allotted for punishment. 

These angels drag the ungodly into the neighborhood of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored itself, so that they can see and feel the heat of the flames, but they are not thrown into CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored itself, until after the final judgment. But a chaos deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that has compassion upon them, cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust, if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it.

But most of references to the resurrection mention its ‘fact’ rather than its ‘phases.’ The terror of the doomed as they begin to truly realize that God has thrown them out as worthless and as they anticipate the execution of his sentence. The meaning of the phrase ‘second death’ must be determined on the basis of the book of Revelation and Jewish literature and Paul, rather than on the basis of Greek dualism, foreign to the Bible.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> But according to Hellenistic Israelites, ‘hades’ is divided into two regions. One is the region of light, where the souls of the righteous dead are brought by angels to the place known as the bosom of Abraham.” The second region is in perpetual darkness, and the souls of the ungodly are dragged by force by the angels allotted for punishment.
> 
> These angels drag the ungodly into the neighborhood of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored itself, so that they can see and feel the heat of the flames, but they are not thrown into CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored itself, until after the final judgment. But a chaos deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that has compassion upon them, cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust, if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it.
> 
> But most of references to the resurrection mention its ‘fact’ rather than its ‘phases.’ The terror of the doomed as they begin to truly realize that God has thrown them out as worthless and as they anticipate the execution of his sentence. The meaning of the phrase ‘second death’ must be determined on the basis of the book of Revelation and Jewish literature and Paul, rather than on the basis of Greek dualism, foreign to the Bible.



I know about the different compartments of the late Hades which has now been cast into the lake of fire. It was a necessary abode under the old covenant of sin and death.

We are in the new covenant of grace and eternal life. No need for a Hades with eternal life.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> I know about the different compartments of the late Hades which has now been cast into the lake of fire. It was a necessary abode under the old covenant of sin and death.
> 
> We are in the new covenant of grace and eternal life. No need for a Hades with eternal life.



The immortality of the soul is a form of escapism, which allows the person to evade death, but the separation of the immortal soul from the mortal body can be traced back to Satan’s lie, “You shall not die” (Gen. 3:4). If believers are already blessed in heaven and the wicked are already tormented in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, why is the final judgment still necessary?


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> The immortality of the soul is a form of escapism, which allows the person to evade death, but the separation of the immortal soul from the mortal body can be traced back to Satan’s lie, “You shall not die” (Gen. 3:4). If believers are already blessed in heaven and the wicked are already tormented in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, why is the final judgment still necessary?



It's not, it came already.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

newnature said:


> It is interesting the Greek word used for “the cross” on which Jesus was put to death is “stauros,” which denotes an upright pale or stake.



That is the nice thing about the old Greek language, the subtleties in spelling that make the difference in meaning. 
When the actual etymology of the word is traced the actual Greek transliteration is "stavros" not "stauros".

Funny how one silly little letter changes the entire ballgame.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> It's not, it came already.



This challenge to the traditional view of death as the separation of the soul from the body has been long over due, because for most of its history, Christianity by and large has held to a view of human death and destiny which has been largely influenced by Greek thought, rather than by the teachings of Scripture. 

But, please allow me to present my case. It has to do with history. History is boring I know, but history is history. 

Basic structures are part of any kind of Greek city in the Ancient World. And what Alexander the Great and his successors did was they took that basic Greek structure, and they transplanted it all over the Eastern Mediterranean, whether they were in Egypt or Syria or Asia Minor or anyplace else. â€¨

One can travel right now to Turkey or Syria or Israel or Jordan or Egypt, and one can see excavations of towns, and it’s remarkable how they all look so much alike, because they’re all inspired by this originally Greek model of the city. â€¨

Alexander and his successors Hellenized the entire eastern Mediterranean, and that meant, every major city would have a certain commonality to it. It would have a certain koine to it; that is, a Greek overlay, over what may be also be there, the original indigenous kind of cultures and languages. â€¨â€¨

The Romans, when they came on the scene, in the East, and they gradually became more and more powerful, they destroyed Corinth in a big battle in 144BC. Pompey was the Roman general who took over Jerusalem in 63BC. So the Romans were in charge of Judah from 63BC on. 

And this is very important, because the Romans, as their power grew in the East, they simply moved increasingly into the eastern Mediterranean and they adopted the whole Greek system, the Greek world, and they didn’t even try to make it non-Greek.


----------



## hobbs27

Revelation 12 we learn of a woman bearing a male child. She is Israel and the male child was Jesus.
 We also read of a dragon with seven heads and ten horns...This was Rome...and we read of Satan which is adversary, and in this text the Satan was the High priest. 
 All which was cast out of the heavenly place (temple)  in 70ad. The end of the world ( age) old covenant age to be exact.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Revelation 12 we learn of a woman bearing a male child. She is Israel and the male child was Jesus.
> We also read of a dragon with seven heads and ten horns...This was Rome...and we read of Satan which is adversary, and in this text the Satan was the High priest.
> All which was cast out of the heavenly place (temple)  in 70ad. The end of the world ( age) old covenant age to be exact.




Please allow me to make another point, I see your point, but this must be present for my case. Thanks.

Basic structures are part of any kind of Greek city in the Ancient World. And what Alexander the Great and his successors did was they took that basic Greek structure, and they transplanted it all over the Eastern Mediterranean, whether they were in Egypt or Syria or Asia Minor or anyplace else. One can travel right now to Turkey or Syria or Israel or Jordan or Egypt, and one can see excavations of towns, and it’s remarkable how they all look so much alike, because they’re all inspired by this originally Greek model of the city. â€¨

Alexander and his successors Hellenized the entire eastern Mediterranean, and that meant, every major city would have a certain commonality to it. It would have a certain koine to it; that is, a Greek overlay, over what may be also be there, the original indigenous kind of cultures and languages. Just what was this high priest named Jason thinking, when he built a gymnasium in Jerusalem in 175BC; he also founded a Greek City structure. 


The Greek polis, which is simply the Greek word for city, had several institutions that are very important; They all practiced a certain kind of Greek education. The Greek word paideia, means education, but it also means more than simply role learning or memorization or learning to read, like we think. Paideia is the Greek word that means the formation of the young man. 


Throughout all this it was mainly young men and boys who were educated, girls could be given some education, if their families were wealthy enough, but the cities didn’t really concern themselves so much with girls’ education. Their family might, but the cities concerned themselves with the education of their boys. So paideia referred to the education of the young man, both mentally, but militarily-so one was taught to fight-and culturally; one might be taught other things about culture. â€¨

One might even have some music training or something like that. The place where this education took place was the gymnasium. Now a gymnasium doesn’t mean what it means in English, it actually comes from the Greek word for naked, gymnos. And the reason it was called ‘the naked place’ is because, of course, young Greek men always exercised in the nude and played sports in the nude. But this also became the place where one would do other kinds of learning. â€¨

So if one was learning rhetoric, for example, you might practice giving speeches at the gymnasium. But also men in town would just kind of gather there, it was kind of a place where men gathered and they had gone to school at the same place. One would meet your friends, play games; so this would all take place in the gymnasium. 

Another institution was what they called the ephebeia. When one was a young boy, one would have studied just reading and writing Homer. When one got to be 16 or 22 around their, one might enter the ephebeia; one would become an ephebe, and that just meant that one was past their sort of early secondary training and now one was being really in training to be a warrior and a citizen. â€¨

They would march together in a parade in town. They would go on military training perhaps together. They would also engage in sports together, and they would develop a camaraderie because they were expected then to be the fighting force for their city, their city-state. So the ephebeia was this institution that every boy had to go through in order then to be a full citizen of a city. â€¨

Their also was these political structures, the first political structure is the demos. Demos just means the “people,” It’s just a Greek word for “the people.” But it actually referred more politically to all of the male citizens, and in Greek cities, by tradition, only men were citizens of a city. But all the men who were citizens had a vote, and the demos referred to that political body of voting men. â€¨

Now they kept this idea that the demos=that is, the adult citizen males of a city-were a political body. And that’s when, if you had everybody come to the theater for a big debate about something, you could still have people voting in certain things that the city might decide to do, although they couldn’t rule themselves completely by themselves.   â€¨

Then they had a smaller council that might be 50 people. It varied the size, according to the city. The council was called the boule, and that referred to a smaller council of older men, usually, who made decisions that they then would put before the whole the demos the whole voting population. These are the basic structures that are part of a Greek City, and Jason just brought Alexander’s dream to Jerusalem. â€¨

Their was a group of former high priests, who have been dislocated and other priestly families withdrawing from Jerusalem, and apparently going out in the desert, and maybe building a community out there, and we find out about them in the twentieth century when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in the late 1940’s. So that may have been another way to respond to this increasing Hellenization in Jerusalem, to just pull away and from a different community.


----------



## hobbs27

But there was a huge event in history you seem to be ignoring. The Romans traveled through the northern cities of Israel destroying cities , enslaving and murdering Jews all the way to Jerusalem. 3 1/2 years or 42 months there was a great tribulation the world had never known before. Jewish women were slaughtering their own infants for food, the killing inside the walls of Jerusalem were so numerous blood flowed through the streets ankle deep at times, and this was Jew upon Jew while the Romans were working on penetrating the wall. Finally they broke through in 70 ad and slaughtered 1.2 million Jews. The Temple caught fire and burned. They enslaved the healthiest and best looking and killed the rest. 
 There were so many rotting corpses in the streets they had to load them up and haul them to a landfill nearby..a place known as Gehenna is where they cast those bodies.
When the Temple was destroyed all genealogical records were also destroyed, and the surviving Jews were scattered out around the known world, mixing in with Europeans.. So even if there was a pure blooded Jew today, they would have no record of their genealogy to know if they were from the Levite's, or Judah, or etc. They can't prove their lineage goes back to Abraham....therefore they have been annihilated in a biblical sense and they have one Savior as all of us do..Jesus Christ! They have one way to Him as we all do, Faith.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> But there was a huge event in history you seem to be ignoring. The Romans traveled through the northern cities of Israel destroying cities , enslaving and murdering Jews all the way to Jerusalem. 3 1/2 years or 42 months there was a great tribulation the world had never known before. Jewish women were slaughtering their own infants for food, the killing inside the walls of Jerusalem were so numerous blood flowed through the streets ankle deep at times, and this was Jew upon Jew while the Romans were working on penetrating the wall. Finally they broke through in 70 ad and slaughtered 1.2 million Jews. The Temple caught fire and burned. They enslaved the healthiest and best looking and killed the rest.
> There were so many rotting corpses in the streets they had to load them up and haul them to a landfill nearby..a place known as Gehenna is where they cast those bodies.
> When the Temple was destroyed all genealogical records were also destroyed, and the surviving Jews were scattered out around the known world, mixing in with Europeans.. So even if there was a pure blooded Jew today, they would have no record of their genealogy to know if they were from the Levite's, or Judah, or etc. They can't prove their lineage goes back to Abraham....therefore they have been annihilated in a biblical sense and they have one Savior as all of us do..Jesus Christ! They have one way to Him as we all do, Faith.



Interesting point, but please allow me to show this point, because what you are saying could be the roots of this?   The moral and social bankruptcy of Israel at the end of the period of the judges at the dawn, or on the eve, of the monarchy, is Israel’s continued infidelity. A kingdom in which Yahweh is the king and the community is led by inspired judges in times of crisis-that structure, that institutional structure failed to establish stability, a stable continuous government. â€¨

It failed to provide leadership against Israel’s enemies within and without. In their search for a new political order, the people turn to the prophet Samuel. Samuel warns of the tyranny of kings, the rapaciousness of kings, the service and the sacrifice they will require of the people in order to support their luxurious court life and their large harem, their bureaucracy and their army. â€¨

The day will come, Samuel warns, when you cry out because of the king whom you yourselves have chosen; and Yahweh will not answer you on that day. The people won’t listen to Samuel, and they say quite significantly, no, we must have a king over us, that we may be like all the other nations, let our king rule over us and go out at our head and fight our battles. This is an explicit and ominous rejection, not only of Yahweh, but of Israel’s distinctiveness from other nations. â€¨


----------



## hobbs27

Jerusalem was the great Harlot. She fornicated against God with Rome. She was destroyed by God, and resurrected as the Bride of Christ..the church. There is no Israel in Gods eyes, only those in Covenant through the blood of Christ. Israel is no more and never ever will be Gods Bride in a physical sense. The Bride having died in a physical body was raised a spiritual body.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Jerusalem was the great Harlot. She fornicated against God with Rome. She was destroyed by God, and resurrected as the Bride of Christ..the church. There is no Israel in Gods eyes, only those in Covenant through the blood of Christ. Israel is no more and never ever will be Gods Bride in a physical sense. The Bride having died in a physical body was raised a spiritual body.



I see what you are saying, but this isn’t the first time Israel would not believe. The fall of Jerusalem shattered the national and territorial basis of Israel’s culture and religion. The Babylonians had burned the temple to the ground, they carried away most of the people to exile, to life in exile in Babylon, leaving behind mostly members of the lower classes to eke out a living as best they could. And it was the completion of the tragedy that had begun centuries earlier, and it was interpreted as a fulfillment of the covenant curses. â€¨

It was the end of the Davidic monarchy, although the son of Jeholakim was alive and living in Babylon, kind of holding out hope that the line hadn’t actually been killed out, hadn’t been completely wiped out. But the institution seemed to have come to an end for now. It was the end of the temple, the end of the priesthood, the end of Israel as a nation; as an autonomous nation, the Israelites were confronted with a great test. â€¨

One could see in these events a signal that Yahweh had abandoned Israel to, or had been defeated by the god of the Babylonians, and Marduk would replace Yahweh, as the Israelites assimilated themselves into their new home. And certainly there were Israelites who went that route, but others who were firmly rooted in exclusive Yahwism did not. â€¨

Yahweh hadn’t been defeated, the nations’s calamities were not disproof of Yahweh’s power and covenant, they were proof of it. Yahweh’s desire for morality as expressed in the ancient covenant, the prophets had spoken truly when they had said that destruction would follow, if the people didn’t turn from their moral and religious violations of Yahweh’s law. The defeat and the exile had the potential to convince Israelites of the need to show absolute and undivided devotion to Yahweh and his commandments.


----------



## hobbs27

It happened before ,but never like 70ad. God was done with her. She died, and is now resurrected as the Bride of Christ and we are the children, not Jews.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> It happened before ,but never like 70ad. God was done with her. She died, and is now resurrected as the Bride of Christ and we are the children, not Jews.



I see what you are saying, I need to answer another question you ask before this one. Please allow me to build my case. Thanks

So the vehement denunciation moral decay and social injustice of the period, leading up to the fall of the northern kingdom and southern kingdom of Israel. A prophet criticizes the sins of the nation, he is critical of everyone, the middle class, the government, the king, the establishment, the priesthood; they’re all plagued by a superficial kind of piety. Amos, and all the prophets, the idea of covenant prescribes a particular relationship with Yahweh, but not only with Yahweh; also with one’s fellow human beings. â€¨

The two are interlinked. It is a sign of closeness to Yahweh that one is concerned for Israel’s poor and needy. The two are completely interlinked. Amos denounces the wealthy. He denounces the powerful and the way they treat the poor. The crimes that are denounced, are crimes that are prevalent in any society in any era. The crimes that are denounced as being utterly unacceptable to Yahweh, infuriating Yahweh to the point of destruction of the nation, are the kinds of crimes we see around us everyday, taking bribes, improper weights and balances, lack of charity to the poor, indifference to the plight of the debtor. â€¨

Injustice is sacrilege, the ideals of the covenant are of utmost importance. These prophets are called the standard bearers of the covenant, harking back to the covenant obligations. And without these, without the ideals of the covenant, the fulfillment of ritual obligations in and of itself is a farce. Morality is not just an obligation equal in importance to the cult or religious obligations, but that morality is perhaps superior to the cult. â€¨

What Yahweh requires of Israel is morality and not cultic service. The prophets raised morality to the level of an absolute religious value, and they did so because they saw morality as essentially divine. The essence of Yahweh is his moral nature. Moral attributes are the essence of Yahweh himself, one strives to be Yahweh-like by imitating his moral actions. The prophets insisted that morality was a decisive, if not the decisive factor in the nations’ history; Israel’s acceptance of Yahweh’s covenant placed certain religious and moral demands on her.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Galatians 3:28-29
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> But there was a huge event in history you seem to be ignoring. The Romans traveled through the northern cities of Israel destroying cities , enslaving and murdering Jews all the way to Jerusalem. 3 1/2 years or 42 months there was a great tribulation the world had never known before. Jewish women were slaughtering their own infants for food, the killing inside the walls of Jerusalem were so numerous blood flowed through the streets ankle deep at times, and this was Jew upon Jew while the Romans were working on penetrating the wall. Finally they broke through in 70 ad and slaughtered 1.2 million Jews. The Temple caught fire and burned. They enslaved the healthiest and best looking and killed the rest.
> There were so many rotting corpses in the streets they had to load them up and haul them to a landfill nearby..a place known as Gehenna is where they cast those bodies.
> When the Temple was destroyed all genealogical records were also destroyed, and the surviving Jews were scattered out around the known world, mixing in with Europeans.. So even if there was a pure blooded Jew today, they would have no record of their genealogy to know if they were from the Levite's, or Judah, or etc. They can't prove their lineage goes back to Abraham....therefore they have been annihilated in a biblical sense and they have one Savior as all of us do..Jesus Christ! They have one way to Him as we all do, Faith.



I tried to show how the Israelites wrong behavior under the law contract is what destroyed the first temple and we see the same thing which led to the destruction of the second temple. Located south of Jerusalem, this valley apparently became a gigantic pyre for burning the 185, 000 corpses of Assyrian soldiers. 

Jeremiah predicted the place would be called the valley of Slaughter, because it would be filled with the corpses of the Israelites when God judged them for their sins. This same valley was heaped with the dead bodies of the Israelites following the A.D. 70 siege of Jerusalem. The imagery of this valley became the place of final punishment, and was called the accursed valley.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Galatians 3:28-29
> 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.



But the stern punishment awaiting the enemies of righteousness, whose temporary resurrection results only in a return to death and its punishment, their full and final defeat. The wicked will be resurrected mortal in order to receive their punishment which will result in their ultimate annihilation.


----------



## apoint

hobbs27 said:


> It happened before ,but never like 70ad. God was done with her. She died, and is now resurrected as the Bride of Christ and we are the children, not Jews.



Hobbs and newbs, You two would argue with a dead dog and still be wrong.
  I don't know where you both get your spiritual enlightenment but fire that joker.
   Israel will always be Gods land and the Jews His beloved people, born again is grafted into...  Gods timing to us is what happens to Israel. 
 You both try to be so intelligent you make nonsense.
   It would be funny if it was not so tragic.
  I don't mean this as a personal attack but please seek a different place for enlightenment.


----------



## newnature

apoint said:


> Hobbs and newbs, You two would argue with a dead dog and still be wrong.
> I don't know where you both get your spiritual enlightenment but fire that joker.
> Israel will always be Gods land and the Jews His beloved people, born again is grafted into...  Gods timing to us is what happens to Israel.
> You both try to be so intelligent you make nonsense.
> It would be funny if it was not so tragic.
> I don't mean this as a personal attack but please seek a different place for enlightenment.



I thought I had a thread for you to present your case, born anew. This thread is for those who want to down the rabbit hole about CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored.


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> But the stern punishment awaiting the enemies of righteousness, whose temporary resurrection results only in a return to death and its punishment, their full and final defeat. The wicked will be resurrected mortal in order to receive their punishment which will result in their ultimate annihilation.



The wicked or the unsaved? Which is it? I thought the wicked or unsaved died when they died and the saved inherited everlasting life through grace.
Why resurrect a dead mortal whose only punishment is eternal death?
That's like waking up a sleeping seaman to tell him he doesn't need to wake up to go on watch.If salvation is from death then let the poor wicked person's soul end with his death. Let death be his punishment.
Let the person saved by grace resurrect to everlasting life.


----------



## Artfuldodger

apoint said:


> Hobbs and newbs, You two would argue with a dead dog and still be wrong.
> I don't know where you both get your spiritual enlightenment but fire that joker.
> Israel will always be Gods land and the Jews His beloved people, born again is grafted into...  Gods timing to us is what happens to Israel.
> You both try to be so intelligent you make nonsense.
> It would be funny if it was not so tragic.
> I don't mean this as a personal attack but please seek a different place for enlightenment.



I'm going to have to agree with you on Israel. I've read through Romans 11 a few times recently and it always points to the grafting in of Gentiles to the Jewish Olive Tree. I don't see how anyone can read Romans 11 and not see Israel.


----------



## apoint

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm going to have to agree with you on Israel. I've read through Romans 11 a few times recently and it always points to the grafting in of Gentiles to the Jewish Olive Tree. I don't see how anyone can read Romans 11 and not see Israel.



Its called replacement theology practiced by many churches, the Presbyterian for one.
  People love to change Gods word and then explain it by most intelligent rhetoric gobble de gook that would give 
Einstein a migraine. I think some just like to hear them selves talk.


----------



## hayseed_theology

apoint said:


> Its called replacement theology practiced by many churches, the Presbyterian for one.
> People love to change Gods word and then explain it by most intelligent rhetoric gobble de gook that would give
> Einstein a migraine. I think some just like to hear them selves talk.



It's not called "Replacement Theology."  That term is a pejorative.


----------



## Artfuldodger

My issue with scripture as it pertains to the Church or Israel, or Jerusalem's destruction and end times, etc., etc. is, 
"how do we know which scripture is about what? 
We've got earthly kingdoms, heavenly kingdoms, earthly salvation, salvation from death, end of Jerusalem, end of the world, grafting in to Israel, grafting in to the Church, etc.
Then we have Promises, worldly and eternal. To Israel and to the Church. 
Scripture goes on an on. The God of Abraham. The Seed of Abraham. Inheriting. Inheritance. Becoming Jews by adoption, having the same inheritance as Jews. 
Heirs to the world and heirs with Jesus in a Heavenly Kingdom.

So one tells me in reading particular scripture it changes at verse ___ from the destruction of Jerusalem to  the destruction at "end times." I'm not sure I see these changes or "replacements."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Example;
Galatians 3:28-29
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. 

Now in order to tie this in with Romans 11, don't we have to be grafted in to the Jewish Olive Tree? Wasn't Israel blinded so that the full number of Gentiles could be grafted in?
Doesn't this refer to a nation? When or at what verse in Romans 11 does it change to Israel being the Church?

Why were the Gentiles at one time;
"having no hope and without God in the world."
"remember that you were at that time separate from Christ"
"strangers to the covenants of promise"
"you who formerly were far off have been brought near"

How does this relate to them finally being given the opportunity to be "grafted in" to the tree of Israel if this tree is the Church and not a nation? And only after Israel was blinded if Israel is a Church. We know that the nation of Israel was blinded and not the Church, so when does Romans change to being the Church and not the nation when it refers to Israel?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 11:11
Now if their transgression means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full restoration bring?

How could this be the Church and not the nation of Israel? Maybe this was before the replacement. When in the chronology of scripture was the nation of Israel replaced with the Church?


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 11:11
> Now if their transgression means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full restoration bring?
> 
> How could this be the Church and not the nation of Israel? Maybe this was before the replacement. When in the chronology of scripture was the nation of Israel replaced with the Church?



So the everybody today in this age of grace has HAD there sin debt paid for, but does that mean that everyone is save, NO. So who is graft into this tree, those who learn about what God’s justification is all about. So the body of Christ is grafted into this tree. 

But on the other hand, what if the everybody is grafted into this tree because there sin debt has been paid for, but those who don't want to learn about what God's justification is all about, they get cut out.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Example;
> Galatians 3:28-29
> 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
> 
> Now in order to tie this in with Romans 11, don't we have to be grafted in to the Jewish Olive Tree? Wasn't Israel blinded so that the full number of Gentiles could be grafted in?
> Doesn't this refer to a nation? When or at what verse in Romans 11 does it change to Israel being the Church?
> 
> Why were the Gentiles at one time;
> "having no hope and without God in the world."
> "remember that you were at that time separate from Christ"
> "strangers to the covenants of promise"
> "you who formerly were far off have been brought near"
> 
> How does this relate to them finally being given the opportunity to be "grafted in" to the tree of Israel if this tree is the Church and not a nation? And only after Israel was blinded if Israel is a Church. We know that the nation of Israel was blinded and not the Church, so when does Romans change to being the Church and not the nation when it refers to Israel?



The secret is that everyone ever born during this age of grace as been grift into that tree. But there are those who mistakenly suppose that reconciliation is the same thing as justification. 

These people have jumped to the conclusion that Jesus Christ taking the sin issue off the table of God’s justice through his becoming sin for the human race is that which makes a person as righteous as God; they have mistaken reconciliation for justification.

As a result they are cut off this tree. Those who get cut off because they refuse the free gift God has offered will stand at the Great White Throne Judgment standing in there own righteousness, there Adam, Adam in rebellion, identity.


----------



## newnature

hayseed_theology said:


> It's not called "Replacement Theology."  That term is a pejorative.



So this tree makes these statement true then, God has kept the fingerprints of the guilt-worthy off of the righteousness he designed for the guilt-worthy.


----------



## newnature

apoint said:


> Its called replacement theology practiced by many churches, the Presbyterian for one.
> People love to change Gods word and then explain it by most intelligent rhetoric gobble de gook that would give
> Einstein a migraine. I think some just like to hear them selves talk.



So this tree make this statement true, God has kept the fingerprints of the guilt-worthy off of the righteousness he designed for the guilt-worthy.

But Paul tells us that being justified, judicially in the mind of God through our union with his son, we are made right with God at the point of that union through the avenue of our faith in Christ’s faithful performance on our behalf, rather than peace based upon our performance toward God, results in an unchanging attitude of peace with God for every believer. 

But there are those who are going to get cut out of this tree because of their unbelief about justification.


----------



## welderguy

newnature said:


> The secret is that everyone ever born during this age of grace as been grift into that tree. But there are those who mistakenly suppose that reconciliation is the same thing as justification.
> 
> These people have jumped to the conclusion that Jesus Christ taking the sin issue off the table of God’s justice through his becoming sin for the human race is that which makes a person as righteous as God; they have mistaken reconciliation for justification.
> 
> As a result they are cut off this tree. Those who get cut off because they refuse the free gift God has offered will stand at the Great White Throne Judgment standing in there own righteousness, there Adam, Adam in rebellion, identity.



Jesus did not die for everyone.Only "all that the Father giveth".
Those that He died for,He foreknew before the foundation of the world.But there will be those who are told "depart,for I NEVER knew you".

You are telling us that salvation depends on something we do.I say it's ALL of grace.HE foreknew us,HE predestined us,HE called us,He justified us,and HE glorified us. HE did it ALL.We are the clay,He is the Potter.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

welderguy said:


> But there will be those who are told "depart,for I NEVER knew you".



Yes, and a lot of those sit in church every single Sunday without fail.


----------



## hobbs27

apoint said:


> Its called replacement theology practiced by many churches, the Presbyterian for one.
> People love to change Gods word and then explain it by most intelligent rhetoric gobble de gook that would give
> Einstein a migraine. I think some just like to hear them selves talk.



I do not adhere to replacement theology. I believe Israel in the old covenant played the Harlot was put to death physically in 70 ad and raised again spiritually. 
 So theres the continuation of Israel not a replacement, she is now a spiritual Bride not a physical one.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 11:11
> Now if their transgression means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full restoration bring?
> 
> How could this be the Church and not the nation of Israel? Maybe this was before the replacement. When in the chronology of scripture was the nation of Israel replaced with the Church?



There is no physical Israel and there is no church separate from Israel 

 The church began with Jews, it was mostly Jews. They were the remaining righteous of what evil had overcome Israel. They were saved from the destruction, just like lot was saved. Peter, John, the men of Galilee on Pentecost were the remnant..they were all about to take a ride on an ark ( Jesus) to save them from the coming of the day of the Lord.


----------



## apoint

hayseed_theology said:


> It's not called "Replacement Theology."  That term is a pejorative.



Pejorative= Expressing contempt or slanderous.

 "Replacement theology" is changing the Bible,. 
 Last verse in the Bible,. Rev 22,19.
If any man takes away from the words of this book, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.


----------



## hobbs27

apoint said:


> Last verse in the Bible,. Rev 22,19.
> If any man takes away from the words of this book, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.



 Then surely you agree with me and the first verse of Revelation that those things in Revelation was shortly to come to pass at the time of its writing?
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> There is no physical Israel and there is no church separate from Israel
> 
> The church began with Jews, it was mostly Jews. They were the remaining righteous of what evil had overcome Israel. They were saved from the destruction, just like lot was saved. Peter, John, the men of Galilee on Pentecost were the remnant..they were all about to take a ride on an ark ( Jesus) to save them from the coming of the day of the Lord.



Many Christians see two destructions and two salvations. One being physical Jerusalem/Israel and one being the end of the world. Thus they also see two Israels, one being the nation and one being the Church.

When you read Romans 11 about the tree and the grafting in of Gentiles, do you think Paul is talking about a nation or the Church? If Romans 11 is about the nation as it appears to be, when does scripture change from Israel being a nation to being the Church?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Then surely you agree with me and the first verse of Revelation that those things in Revelation was shortly to come to pass at the time of its writing?
> The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:



Hey that could be called "Replacement Revelation" theology. 
When revelation describes something that has already happened but people use it to describe a future event.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> There is no physical Israel and there is no church separate from Israel
> 
> The church began with Jews, it was mostly Jews. They were the remaining righteous of what evil had overcome Israel. They were saved from the destruction, just like lot was saved. Peter, John, the men of Galilee on Pentecost were the remnant..they were all about to take a ride on an ark ( Jesus) to save them from the coming of the day of the Lord.



The Day of Yahweh will be a prolonged period; it must not be confined to “seven years,” as is so often done. These events may occupy a period of thirty-three years; and if to these we add the seven years of the last week of Daniel, we have a period of forty years. Matt. Chapter 24, “What shall be the sign of your coming, and of the sunteleia of the age?”


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Many Christians see two destructions and two salvations. One being physical Jerusalem/Israel and one being the end of the world. Thus they also see two Israels, one being the nation and one being the Church.
> 
> When you read Romans 11 about the tree and the grafting in of Gentiles, do you think Paul is talking about a nation or the Church? If Romans 11 is about the nation as it appears to be, when does scripture change from Israel being a nation to being the Church?



I see Israel as the Bride. She was the nation in old covenant made up of a people and a physical temple.
 The New Covenant she is Spiritual made up of Gods elect ( Christians from the ministry of Christ to 70ad)  and a spiritual temple found within man.

 The Nation was made up of Abraham and Isaac and so on. The people were children of God through that Covenant born into it or could come into covenant as an Israelite.

 The Spiritual Israel is made up and founded on Peter, John , Paul, etc.  They being born into old Israel had to be born again into the new. She is Wed to the Son of God and we are the children of that Covenant wedding contract.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> Matt. Chapter 24, “What shall be the sign of your coming, and of the sunteleia of the age?”



Matthew 24 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Matthew 24 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.



After the Body of Christ is lifted off the earth, the whole period of the Day of Yahweh is called the final meeting of the ages, or the Greek word “sunteleia”; but, the crisis in which it culminates is called the end of the age, or the Greek word “telos.” These two Greek words are rendered “end” in the New Testament, but the use of these two words must be carefully distinguished. 

Sunteleia denotes a finishing or ending together, or in conjunction with other things. It implies that several things meet together, and reach their end during the same period; whereas telos is the point of time at the end of that period. The sign of the telos is the setting up of “the abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel the prophet. 

Thus the telos, those who endure to this, the same shall be saved, and will be among the overcomers specially referred to in these seven letters in Rev. during the Great Tribulation; to whom these promises are made, and to whom they peculiarly refer.


----------



## hayseed_theology

apoint said:


> Pejorative= Expressing contempt or slanderous.
> 
> "Replacement theology" is changing the Bible,.
> Last verse in the Bible,. Rev 22,19.
> If any man takes away from the words of this book, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.



If you are interested in dialoging with your brothers in a gracious and intellectually honest manner, then drop the "replacement theology" label.    If you are more interested in grossly oversimplifying and misrepresenting someone else's position, then carry on...


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> I see Israel as the Bride. She was the nation in old covenant made up of a people and a physical temple.
> The New Covenant she is Spiritual made up of Gods elect ( Christians from the ministry of Christ to 70ad)  and a spiritual temple found within man.
> 
> The Nation was made up of Abraham and Isaac and so on. The people were children of God through that Covenant born into it or could come into covenant as an Israelite.
> 
> The Spiritual Israel is made up and founded on Peter, John , Paul, etc.  They being born into old Israel had to be born again into the new. She is Wed to the Son of God and we are the children of that Covenant wedding contract.



When reading Romans 11, when does the Bride change from Israel to the Church or does that happen some where past chapter 11?
In chapter 15 we still read of Jews and Gentiles;

Romans 15: 8-11
8For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, 9and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, "THEREFORE I WILL GIVE PRAISE TO YOU AMONG THE GENTILES, AND I WILL SING TO YOUR NAME."
10Again he says, "REJOICE, O GENTILES, WITH HIS PEOPLE." 11And again, "PRAISE THE LORD ALL YOU GENTILES, AND LET ALL THE PEOPLES PRAISE HIM."…


----------



## Artfuldodger

Side note:
Romans 15:20-22
20And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man's foundation; 21but as it is written, "THEY WHO HAD NO NEWS OF HIM SHALL SEE, AND THEY WHO HAVE NOT HEARD SHALL UNDERSTAND." 22For this reason I have often been prevented from coming to you;

Those who had no news of him or have not heard shall understand.

Was this necessary for their effectual calling?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 15:27
27Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.

Paul still talking about physical Israel in relation to Gentiles. Finally the Gentiles have shared in Israel's spiritual things and are now expected to return this blessing with offering physical Israel physical things.


----------



## hobbs27

Art, I think most of Romans is speaking to the Gentile in a time of the 40 year transition between the old and new covenant. Paul converted these Gentiles to Christianity, but he also sent them into the Temple to worship. The    Jewish council was amazed at the conversions of these Gentiles by Paul.
 Christianity was a lot different during the time of the Temple, Paul himself continued to follow the law and worship in the Temple as they awaited the Lord's coming and the destruction of the old covenant in its fullness.


----------



## apoint

hayseed_theology said:


> If you are interested in dialoging with your brothers in a gracious and intellectually honest manner, then drop the "replacement theology" label.    If you are more interested in grossly oversimplifying and misrepresenting someone else's position, then carry on...



I realize Im not near as "intellectual" as you and I don't care to impress folks with big words like you try to do. 
   If you are offended with my "honesty" about "Replacement Theology" then I guess you don't like the truth either. I don't misrepresent anyone but seems more like your taking offence when I state the truth and your welcome to just carry on as you put it.
 My quotes were straight from the Bible and the Webster dictionary. Apparently you have a problem with that, not me. 
Maybe you could rewrite those books to your liking as in "Replacement Theology"... You could call it hayseed_theology, has a nice sound to it huh.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Art, I think most of Romans is speaking to the Gentile in a time of the 40 year transition between the old and new covenant. Paul converted these Gentiles to Christianity, but he also sent them into the Temple to worship. The    Jewish council was amazed at the conversions of these Gentiles by Paul.
> Christianity was a lot different during the time of the Temple, Paul himself continued to follow the law and worship in the Temple as they awaited the Lord's coming and the destruction of the old covenant in its fullness.



Romans talks about which man are you related to. Adam in rebellion or the last Adam.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> Romans talks about which man are you related to. Adam in rebellion or the last Adam.



Romans talks about a lot of things and I don't think I'm alone when I say it's one of the most difficult letters to understand in its entirety.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Romans talks about a lot of things and I don't think I'm alone when I say it's one of the most difficult letters to understand in its entirety.



Romans isn't that hard, because God knew what it would take to save us, he knew what it would take to have us dwell with him through eternity future and that dwelling with him should require that we would measure up to his degree of rightness, and measuring up to his degree of rightness would only come one way. 

This is what Romans is about. We are figuring out the rest of Romans thanks to our friends we have here.


----------



## hobbs27

apoint said:


> I realize Im not near as "intellectual" as you and I don't care to impress folks with big words like you try to do.
> If you are offended with my "honesty" about "Replacement Theology" then I guess you don't like the truth either. I don't misrepresent anyone but seems more like your taking offence when I state the truth and your welcome to just carry on as you put it.
> My quotes were straight from the Bible and the Webster dictionary. Apparently you have a problem with that, not me.
> Maybe you could rewrite those books to your liking as in "Replacement Theology"... You could call it hayseed_theology, has a nice sound to it huh.



Apoint, a very old preacher friend of mine that has pastored many churches once said, it's OK to be hard in preaching and teaching, but don't be so hard that you can't bend, or else you will break.

 No one has a monopoly on knowledge or wisdom and we all learn from each other..sometimes being proven wrong is a good way of learning, sometimes being proven right just cements your belief, and sometimes you just have to accept what you know is true and allow others to believe what they want to, but we do have a good time here.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> Romans isn't that hard, because God knew what it would take to save us, he knew what it would take to have us dwell with him through eternity future and that dwelling with him should require that we would measure up to his degree of rightness, and measuring up to his degree of rightness would only come one way.
> 
> This is what Romans is about. We are figuring out the rest of Romans thanks to our friends we have here.



Then you understand per Romans 5:14 that death reigned from Adam to Moses, and death is no more.


----------



## apoint

hobbs27 said:


> Apoint, a very old preacher friend of mine that has pastored many churches once said, it's OK to be hard in preaching and teaching, but don't be so hard that you can't bend, or else you will break.
> 
> No one has a monopoly on knowledge or wisdom and we all learn from each other..sometimes being proven wrong is a good way of learning, sometimes being proven right just cements your belief, and sometimes you just have to accept what you know is true and allow others to believe what they want to, but we do have a good time here.



 Nicely stated Mr Hobbs, no argument there.  I am not a Biblical scholar and I am not long winded and don't write 10 paragraphs to ask or answer a question.
  If I wanted to read a book I would just open the Bible and that may very well be my fault.
   No offence intended but I am a straight talker of the truth and that makes some upset.   Blessings to all.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Then you understand per Romans 5:14 that death reigned from Adam to Moses, and death is no more.



Sin entering into the human race through Adam’s transgression brought about more than one type of death, or one type of separation. We can suffer functional death; an inability, separated from the capacity to serve or to please God, this is a functional death. â€¨

Then, there’s a relational death, sin brings relational death. Sin, or coming short of the measure of who God is, is that which stood in the way or stood between God and the human race. Sin, coming short of who God is, is something that is true of our lives every second of every day we live. â€¨

So, it is not a question of getting new forgiveness for new sin, we had to have someone take care of that sin issue for us, and thank God that he had his son take care of that issue for us. God’s attitude towards a believer, does not fluctuate in response to action, it is not condition on our behavior. â€¨

Paul tells us that being justified, judicially in the mind of God through our union with his son, we are made right with God at the point of that union through the avenue of our faith in Christ’s faithful performance on our behalf, rather than peace based upon our performance toward God, results in an unchanging attitude of peace with God for every believer.


----------



## hobbs27

New nature, I see I'm quoted above your response, but I don't think your response is to me. Death reigned from Adam to Moses, this means throughout the old covenant. Death reigns no more. Jesus has given us the gift of everlasting life, we , through His grace are in relationship with God once again, Adams curse is reversed.


----------



## hayseed_theology

apoint said:


> I realize Im not near as "intellectual" as you and I don't care to impress folks with big words like you try to do.



I did not say that you were not intellectual, and I made no comparison regarding intelligence.  I simply pointed out that the particular term you were using is not considered theologically accurate or helpful when discussion doctrinal differences.

I seriously doubt anyone was impressed by my choice of words.  If they were, they shouldn't be.  Your post and mine should not be judged on the length of the words but the merits of their content.  



apoint said:


> If you are offended with my "honesty" about "Replacement Theology" then I guess you don't like the truth either.



I don't have a problem with your position.  I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me.  I don't have a problem with you presenting a well-reasoned argument from Scripture demonstrating that my interpretation is incorrect.

I simply took issue with the label being used.  

You mentioned that Presbyterians hold to this "replacement theology."  I've never heard a Presbyterian claim such.  They call their perspective "covenant theology."  And, while I strongly disagree with several points of covenant theology, I don't think we should use a pejorative to describe it.  The only people that I hear use the term "Replacement Theology" are dispensationalist who are attacking covenant theology.  I have never heard anyone describe themselves as holding to "replacement theology."  I believe, in the interest of honest dialogue, we should use the terms people prefer to describe for describing their own position rather than putting words in their mouth.

By the way, I love the truth and hope to walk in it day by day.



apoint said:


> I don't misrepresent anyone but seems more like your taking offence when I state the truth and your welcome to just carry on as you put it.



Once again, that term is an oversimplification of what covenant theologians believe.  Their perspective is far more nuanced than to be described as "replacement." 



apoint said:


> My quotes were straight from the Bible and the Webster dictionary. Apparently you have a problem with that, not me.



I love the Bible, and I have great respect for Noah Webster.  I don't have a problem with either of them.  I don't have a problem with you, but I am pretty sure "Replacement theology is changing the Bible" is not found in the Bible or Webster's dictionary.



apoint said:


> Maybe you could rewrite those books to your liking as in "Replacement Theology"



The Word of God stands alone as inspired and inerrant.  It doesn't need to be changed by me; I need to be changed by it.

I think it is helpful to make a distinction between what the Word of God says and our interpretation of it.  God's Word is always correct; our interpretation of it may not always be correct.  God's Word is infallible; our interpretations are subject to error. Our interpretations of the relationship between Israel and the church are not infallible.  Many godly men have disagreed over that relationship.  Many eminent Bible scholars have disagreed over that relationship.  I doubt it will be hashed out on this forum.



apoint said:


> hayseed_theology, has a nice sound to it huh.



On that point, we are in total agreement!


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> New nature, I see I'm quoted above your response, but I don't think your response is to me. Death reigned from Adam to Moses, this means throughout the old covenant. Death reigns no more. Jesus has given us the gift of everlasting life, we , through His grace are in relationship with God once again, Adams curse is reversed.



People who lived before the time of the law, as well as the nations who were never under the law, people today who are not under law, the Mosaic Law will not be cited against these people. The law itself was proof that Israel was unable to earn righteousness through their performance. Israel had a problem when it came to learning the lesson of their inability and the futility to gain righteousness through performance. They trusted in themselves that they were righteous. 

The law was given to Israel and that condemned the entire world. â€¨Everyone has done exactly like Israel, it condemned the entire human race according to Paul, for all have sinned. God alone decided to make peace with the human race, while the human race is an active enemy to God. 

God purchased the human race out of sins dominion, never to be returned to the market place of sin again. â€¨By removing the sin issue from the table of God’s justice, God effectively canceled Satan’s ownership of all the human race. Satan can lay claim to no person based on that persons sinfulness.


----------



## hummerpoo

Name calling shows a lot more about the caller than about the one called.

http://replacementtheology.org/

is an easy read for those not to lazy to put forth a little effort.

It's easy to check too.  Every theology and every denomination that I know of has a "statement of faith" or a"doctrinal statement" of some kind online, as well as pages and pages explaining there position, or sometimes positions, on about any doctrinal issue of interest.

I'm a member of no denomination, and I am lazy; but not so lazy that I form opinions without doing a little work.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> People who lived before the time of the law, as well as the nations who were never under the law, people today who are not under law, the Mosaic Law will not be cited against these people. The law itself was proof that Israel was unable to earn righteousness through their performance. Israel had a problem when it came to learning the lesson of their inability and the futility to gain righteousness through performance. They trusted in themselves that they were righteous.
> 
> The law was given to Israel and that condemned the entire world. â€¨Everyone has done exactly like Israel, it condemned the entire human race according to Paul, for all have sinned. God alone decided to make peace with the human race, while the human race is an active enemy to God.
> 
> God purchased the human race out of sins dominion, never to be returned to the market place of sin again. â€¨By removing the sin issue from the table of God’s justice, God effectively canceled Satan’s ownership of all the human race. Satan can lay claim to no person based on that persons sinfulness.



You're on the right track.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> You're on the right track.



Do we sin? But, we are dead to sin! Are we supposed to stop sinning? If we understand what the word “sin” means, coming short of God’s Glory. Now that we are dead to sin, can we now measure up to God’s Glory? Identity truth, we were dead in sins, because we had our identity in Adam, Adam in rebellion. â€¨

We now have a brand new identity, “dead to sin” identity, but those who would die in their sins were those who would continue to have their identity in Adam, Adam in rebellion, understanding identity is key! Failing to understand identity truth will cause much confusion, because we want to go back to practical reality.


----------



## apoint

hummerpoo said:


> Name calling shows a lot more about the caller than about the one called.
> 
> http://replacementtheology.org/
> 
> is an easy read for those not to lazy to put forth a little effort.
> 
> It's easy to check too.  Every theology and every denomination that I know of has a "statement of faith" or a"doctrinal statement" of some kind online, as well as pages and pages explaining there position, or sometimes positions, on about any doctrinal issue of interest.
> 
> I'm a member of no denomination, and I am lazy; but not so lazy that I form opinions without doing a little work.



 Stating the truth is not name calling..........

Summary

A typical definition of “Replacement Theology” can be paraphrased as such: “Israel has been replaced by the Christian Church, so the promises and prominent position once held by God’s chosen people are now held exclusively by the Church.” Such a view is false.

That is the exact "Replacement Theology" that is used in some churches and other forms of it exist everywhere.
 So since the Bible is being misquoted and changed, the term "Replacement Theology " is proper to use if you like it or not.  Of coarse Church's and people don't like the term because it points out their fallacies......


----------



## apoint

newnature said:


> People who lived before the time of the law, as well as the nations who were never under the law, people today who are not under law, the Mosaic Law will not be cited against these people. The law itself was proof that Israel was unable to earn righteousness through their performance. Israel had a problem when it came to learning the lesson of their inability and the futility to gain righteousness through performance. They trusted in themselves that they were righteous.
> 
> The law was given to Israel and that condemned the entire world.  Everyone has done exactly like Israel, it condemned the entire human race according to Paul, for all have sinned. God alone decided to make peace with the human race, while the human race is an active enemy to God.
> 
> God purchased the human race out of sins dominion, never to be returned to the market place of sin again.  By removing the sin issue from the table of God’s justice, God effectively canceled Satan’s ownership of all the human race. Satan can lay claim to no person based on that persons sinfulness.




Satan can not lay claim to No person That is "born again".


----------



## newnature

apoint said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Satan can not lay claim to No person That is "born again".



God’s grace has abounded and therefore, the gift has abounded unto the many who were affected by Adam’s sin. Adam’s sin brought sin and death to all, Christ’s righteousness brings the gift of grace to all. â€¨

God provided the free gift of justification, because that one sin, provoked the many sins of the human race, but God provided a sufficient gift to solve the dilemma of humankind. To be justified means to receive that gift that came to all; by the one sin, to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses, unto justification. â€¨

The receiving that must be done as Paul goes on to say, God’s grace has abounded and therefore, the gift has abounded unto the many who were affected by the first Adam’s sin. Being placed into the last Adam, Jesus Christ, joined to Christ is the method whereby God justifies us.


----------



## welderguy

newnature said:


> God’s grace has abounded and therefore, the gift has abounded unto the many who were affected by Adam’s sin. Adam’s sin brought sin and death to all, Christ’s righteousness brings the gift of grace to all. â€¨
> 
> God provided the free gift of justification, because that one sin, provoked the many sins of the human race, but God provided a sufficient gift to solve the dilemma of humankind. To be justified means to receive that gift that came to all; by the one sin, to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses, unto justification. â€¨
> 
> The receiving that must be done as Paul goes on to say, God’s grace has abounded and therefore, the gift has abounded unto the many who were affected by the first Adam’s sin. Being placed into the last Adam, Jesus Christ, joined to Christ is the method whereby God justifies us.



It sounds like you are stating here that the entire human race has been justified by Jesus.When you said "the many who were affected by Adam's sin", would you agree that is the entire human race?


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> Do we sin? But, we are dead to sin! Are we supposed to stop sinning? If we understand what the word “sin” means, coming short of God’s Glory. Now that we are dead to sin, can we now measure up to God’s Glory? Identity truth, we were dead in sins, because we had our identity in Adam, Adam in rebellion. â€¨
> 
> We now have a brand new identity, “dead to sin” identity, but those who would die in their sins were those who would continue to have their identity in Adam, Adam in rebellion, understanding identity is key! Failing to understand identity truth will cause much confusion, because we want to go back to practical reality.



In Adam is flesh. In Christ is Spirit. Old covenant is flesh. New covenant is Spirit.


----------



## hummerpoo

apoint said:


> stating the truth is not name calling..........
> 
> Summary
> 
> a typical definition of “replacement theology” can be paraphrased as such: “israel has been replaced by the christian church, so the promises and prominent position once held by god’s chosen people are now held exclusively by the church.” such a view is false.
> 
> That is the exact "replacement theology" that is used in some churches and other forms of it exist everywhere.
> So since the bible is being misquoted and changed, the term "replacement theology " is proper to use if you like it or not.  Of coarse church's and people don't like the term because it points out their fallacies......



â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†‘â†“â†“



hummerpoo said:


> name calling shows a lot more about the caller than about the one called.
> 
> http://replacementtheology.org/
> 
> is an easy read for those not to lazy to put forth a little effort.
> 
> It's easy to check too.  Every theology and every denomination that i know of has a "statement of faith" or a"doctrinal statement" of some kind online, as well as pages and pages explaining there position, or sometimes positions, on about any doctrinal issue of interest.
> 
> I'm a member of no denomination, and i am lazy; but not so lazy that i form opinions without doing a little work.



<<<edit>>>
Such are discussions with those who only read summaries.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> In Adam is flesh. In Christ is Spirit. Old covenant is flesh. New covenant is Spirit.



Just understand, there is no additional sin question in the mind of God when it comes to his forgiveness or his righteous justice, the sin issue has been taken care of. Beware, a clever counterfeit being conducted by good people who have your best interest in mind, they want the best for you, but they will be deceiving, because they themselves have been deceived.


----------



## apoint

hummerpoo said:


> ↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↓
> 
> 
> 
> <<<edit>>>
> Such are discussions with those who only read summaries.


   Poo Poo,
 Summary: You know what they say about assuming..


----------



## hummerpoo

apoint said:


> Poo Poo,
> Summary: You know what they say about assuming..



All you need do is produce the authenticated quote from the recognized groups your talking about that show them to hold to the belief that "Israel has been replaced by the Christian church, so the promises and prominent position once held by god’s chosen people are now held exclusively by the church.” and that in doing so they "misquoted and changed" the bible.

Short of that, your post is just talk.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> All you need do is produce the authenticated quote from the recognized groups your talking about that show them to hold to the belief that "Israel has been replaced by the Christian church, so the promises and prominent position once held by god’s chosen people are now held exclusively by the church.” and that in doing so they "misquoted and changed" the bible.
> 
> Short of that, your post is just talk.



How is it better explained? I too have heard that the Church became Israel. Hobbs suggested the Church continued as Israel. 
If the Church continued or became Israel, why can't that be considered "replacement?"
I do understand that if it offends then we shouldn't use the term,. My mother found this out calling "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" the Mormon Church to a LDS member. He was real quick to correct her. She didn't even know it was pejorative. 

I think what most Churches believe is that since Gentiles were grafted in to the Israel tree. The root-ball is still Jewish. Thus they haven't actually replaced Israel as a nation. They have become adopted descendants of Abraham and thus are now a member of the covenant of promise. Adopted Jews if you will. Grafted in by grace, faith, and/or election.
No longer “having no hope"
No longer “strangers from the covenants of promise. ... and without God in the world"
No longer "at that time when they were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel"

Not "replacing" or "becoming" Israel but finally given the opportunity to be "grafted in" to Israel. Finally  Israel's blindness and stupor allowed for the fullness of the Gentiles to be grafted in. Hopefully causing Israel to be jealous. Their acceptance will be even more wonderful.

Romans 11:27-28
 27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." 28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;…29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,…

Grace, election or however you believe it's going down, God's mercy is a wonderful thing.  

God's choice! For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.


----------



## hobbs27

Art, maybe if I explain it this way. Israel was not Gods finished work, therefore he did not replace her with the church, he fulfilled her into the church which is his finished work and the promises of all old covenant prophecy.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Art, maybe if I explain it this way. Israel was not Gods finished work, therefore he did not replace her with the church, he fulfilled her into the church which is his finished work and the promises of all old covenant prophecy.



I've heard it explained this way; the Jews were never God's chosen people. They were chosen to crucify Jesus thus to allow salvation to his chosen who in reality were the Gentiles all along. The Jews were chosen to be hardened by a spirit of stupor to allow for the true chosen to be grafted in.

I don't follow this as I do believe the Jews were God's chosen. I do believe God gave them a stupor of blindness to allow the Gentiles to be grafted in. This is the mystery revealed to Paul. That Gentiles could now be grafted in to the vine or tree of Israel. To No longer be strangers from the covenants of promise and without God in the world.
No longer in that time when they were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.
They were finally adopted in as children of Abraham and part of the commonwealth of Israel.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Art, maybe if I explain it this way. Israel was not Gods finished work, therefore he did not replace her with the church, he fulfilled her into the church which is his finished work and the promises of all old covenant prophecy.



In relation to no replacement I'm reminded of 
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

If the Church "continued" as Israel, why is that different from the Church "replaced" Israel?

In what way did the Church "fulfill" Israel without replacing it? Meaning beyond the Bride analogy.
If the Church didn't replace and we don't like that word, how do we explain why Israel is now Church?

Why doesn't Romans explain this fulfillment, becoming, continuation?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> How is it better explained? I too have heard that the Church became Israel. Hobbs suggested the Church continued as Israel.
> If the Church continued or became Israel, why can't that be considered "replacement?"
> I do understand that if it offends then we shouldn't use the term,. My mother found this out calling "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" the Mormon Church to a LDS member. He was real quick to correct her. She didn't even know it was pejorative.
> 
> I think what most Churches believe is that since Gentiles were grafted in to the Israel tree. The root-ball is still Jewish. Thus they haven't actually replaced Israel as a nation. They have become adopted descendants of Abraham and thus are now a member of the covenant of promise. Adopted Jews if you will. Grafted in by grace, faith, and/or election.
> No longer “having no hope"
> No longer “strangers from the covenants of promise. ... and without God in the world"
> No longer "at that time when they were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel"
> 
> Not "replacing" or "becoming" Israel but finally given the opportunity to be "grafted in" to Israel. Finally  Israel's blindness and stupor allowed for the fullness of the Gentiles to be grafted in. Hopefully causing Israel to be jealous. Their acceptance will be even more wonderful.
> 
> Romans 11:27-28
> 27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." 28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;…29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,…
> 
> Grace, election or however you believe it's going down, God's mercy is a wonderful thing.
> 
> God's choice! For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.



There are things touched on here (Rm. 11) that I see, but not clearly, so I shouldn’t talk about them.  Rather, I feel called here for other reasons.  I think that if you concentrate on 11:1-5 and get it firmly set in your mind, (I don’t think of anything after that that modifies the idea); then go to the webpage I linked to and read all of it again, zeroing in on the second flow chart, you will then have a basis for the remainder of Ch. 11.  Thinking  Abram forward makes it somewhat easier.

Here’s a little brain teaser to go along with it: “Were Joshua and Caleb the only ones?”  BTW, I don’t know the answer because scripture doesn’t say either yes or no, but if we think about the totality of redemptive history there are some pretty good hints.
One more interesting thing is Paul’s closing of this thought:
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I've heard it explained this way; the Jews were never God's chosen people. They were chosen to crucify Jesus thus to allow salvation to his chosen who in reality were the Gentiles all along. The Jews were chosen to be hardened by a spirit of stupor to allow for the true chosen to be grafted in.
> 
> I don't follow this as I do believe the Jews were God's chosen. I do believe God gave them a stupor of blindness to allow the Gentiles to be grafted in. This is the mystery revealed to Paul. That Gentiles could now be grafted in to the vine or tree of Israel. To No longer be strangers from the covenants of promise and without God in the world.
> No longer in that time when they were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.
> They were finally adopted in as children of Abraham and part of the commonwealth of Israel.



I don't mind if you go along with it or not, I'm just trying to show you the difference in continuation and replacement... Which is odd Dispensationalist are the ones always throwing that term out there and they believe the church is soon to be raptured away and then another temple will be rebuilt and the Jews will replace the church...Now that's replacement theology, if there ever was.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> In relation to no replacement I'm reminded of
> Matthew 5:17
> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
> 
> If the Church "continued" as Israel, why is that different from the Church "replaced" Israel?
> 
> In what way did the Church "fulfill" Israel without replacing it? Meaning beyond the Bride analogy.
> If the Church didn't replace and we don't like that word, how do we explain why Israel is now Church?
> 
> Why doesn't Romans explain this fulfillment, becoming, continuation?



Do you see anywhere that Peter or Paul said that you must reject Judaism and accept Christianity? 
 On the contrary, they were Jews in Christ, they were the true Jews, the true Israel. While the High priest and scribes were the wicked Israel.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Do you see anywhere that Peter or Paul said that you must reject Judaism and accept Christianity?
> On the contrary, they were Jews in Christ, they were the true Jews, the true Israel. While the High priest and scribes were the wicked Israel.



Israel as a nation was still the focus in Acts chapter 2, as they were given a taste of their promised earthly kingdom there with Yahweh’s empowerments for The Tribulation endurance and for the earthly kingdom entrance. Focus is still that land and the attempt to get Israel’s leadership to change their minds about the source of their righteousness and accept Jesus as indeed their Messiah.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> Israel as a nation was still the focus in Acts chapter 2, as they were given a taste of their promised earthly kingdom there with Yahweh’s empowerments for The Tribulation endurance and for the earthly kingdom entrance. Focus is still that land and the attempt to get Israel’s leadership to change their minds about the source of their righteousness and accept Jesus as indeed their Messiah.


Thats nuts.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> There are things touched on here (Rm. 11) that I see, but not clearly, so I shouldn’t talk about them.  Rather, I feel called here for other reasons.  I think that if you concentrate on 11:1-5 and get it firmly set in your mind, (I don’t think of anything after that that modifies the idea); then go to the webpage I linked to and read all of it again, zeroing in on the second flow chart, you will then have a basis for the remainder of Ch. 11.  Thinking  Abram forward makes it somewhat easier.
> 
> Here’s a little brain teaser to go along with it: “Were Joshua and Caleb the only ones?”  BTW, I don’t know the answer because scripture doesn’t say either yes or no, but if we think about the totality of redemptive history there are some pretty good hints.
> One more interesting thing is Paul’s closing of this thought:
> 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.



From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

In regards to his ways, we really don't know. If election is true then God can have mercy on every Jew adopted or not or he can harden every Jew, adopted or not.  With all of the procreation performed by the lost tribes, we might all be blood Jews by now. If not then grafted in Jews. Regardless God can harden whom he wants and elect who he wants, Jew or Gentile.

Way back in the day, the Jews were enemies for our sake but from God's standpoint, they are loved.
Maybe between procreation by the lost tribes and the grafting in of Gentiles, all of God's elect will be called.
Still it took the hardening of the Jews to allow the grafting of the Gentiles. God's plan, not mine.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Thats nuts.



Let's look at how Israelites prayed before Acts. We see the “prayer of faith” Israel walked by sight, Yahweh allowed their prayer life to work in connection with sight as that earthly kingdom was on their doorstep. Yahweh worked in connection with the sign nation, the healings that were performed and the power resident in the prayer of faith. 

When the kingdom program was ongoing and Jesus was ready to rule and reign right here on earth, a troubled believer could pray the prayer of faith, when presented with suffering circumstances and those circumstance would disappear. Yahweh provided that prayer of faith, because that kingdom was at hand and the time for troubling circumstances had come to an end. It was time to put an end to pain and suffering, because it was time for the King to rule and reign on this earth.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> I don't mind if you go along with it or not, I'm just trying to show you the difference in continuation and replacement... Which is odd Dispensationalist are the ones always throwing that term out there and they believe the church is soon to be raptured away and then another temple will be rebuilt and the Jews will replace the church...Now that's replacement theology, if there ever was.



Do you not consider yourself a Dispensationalist? You believe in the Old Testament time, the in between covenant times that overlapped, and the New Covenant time starting at 70AD with all three having different requirements. 
Isn't that the same as dispensations or "times" where salvation was granted based on grace plus works vs grace?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
> 
> In regards to his ways, we really don't know. If election is true then God can have mercy on every Jew adopted or not or he can harden every Jew, adopted or not.  With all of the procreation performed by the lost tribes, we might all be blood Jews by now. If not then grafted in Jews. Regardless God can harden whom he wants and elect who he wants, Jew or Gentile.
> 
> Way back in the day, the Jews were enemies for our sake but from God's standpoint, they are loved.
> Maybe between procreation by the lost tribes and the grafting in of Gentiles, all of God's elect will be called.
> Still it took the hardening of the Jews to allow the grafting of the Gentiles. God's plan, not mine.



Your way past where I suggested.  I ain't talking to you about it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Why did Jesus preach so much about the Kingdom?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Your way past where I suggested.  I ain't talking to you about it.



I'll go there soon.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Why did Jesus preach so much about the Kingdom?



Leviticus 26, beginning with verse 40, is the confession Israel would be called upon to make. Israel would also have to accept the remainder of her punishment, that failure under the law contract would call for and that would be the seven year tribulation. When John the Baptizer came along, had anything new begun? He simply called upon Israel to change their minds about their righteousness.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you not consider yourself a Dispensationalist? You believe in the Old Testament time, the in between covenant times that overlapped, and the New Covenant time starting at 70AD with all three having different requirements.
> Isn't that the same as dispensations or "times" where salvation was granted based on grace plus works vs grace?



No, I don't concern myself with times, just Covenants between man and God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Covenant or time?

Acts 13:47-48
47"For so the Lord has commanded us, 'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'" 48When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

"Bring salvation to the end or the earth?" What does this mean? Wasn't salvation already abound to everyone by election and grace? To every Gentile? To every man because the Law was now in their hearts? No one is without excuse, right?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Acts 13:44-46
And the next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

Covenant or time?
Rejection or replacement?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Galatians 3:13-14
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Covenant or time?


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Why did Jesus preach so much about the Kingdom?



John the Baptizer came in connection with Yahweh’s earthly nation Israel and in accordance with an offer to confess their failure under the law contract in order to gain their promised land. That confession itself would be considered a fruit of righteousness in the eyes of Yahweh.


----------



## apoint

hummerpoo said:


> All you need do is produce the authenticated quote from the recognized groups your talking about that show them to hold to the belief that "Israel has been replaced by the Christian church, so the promises and prominent position once held by god’s chosen people are now held exclusively by the church.” and that in doing so they "misquoted and changed" the bible.
> 
> Short of that, your post is just talk.



Back at ya, just talk Poo. Read the bottom of the page for the list of Churches....
http://truthfortoday.net/page195.php


----------



## hayseed_theology

apoint said:


> Back at ya, just talk Poo. Read the bottom of the page for the list of Churches....
> http://truthfortoday.net/page195.php



That is written by dispensationalist, not any of those churches on that list.  That's not what he was asking for.  HP is asking for you to produce material from one of those churches where they claim to espouse "replacement theology."

That was my point as well.  No one self-identifies as holding to "replacement theology."  Only dispensationalist use that term, and it's used as a pejorative.


----------



## hummerpoo

apoint said:


> Back at ya, just talk Poo. Read the bottom of the page for the list of Churches....
> http://truthfortoday.net/page195.php



I see that Hayseed has already said it, but.

I had read the Got Questions article before, it's right out of your Scofield Reference Bible, and Got Questions does not include the list of churches (not that Got Questions or Bible Truth for today can "authenticate" a statement for any of those churches).  So which of the list of churches are you going to first?  I'm familiar enough with about half of them to know that they won't pan out for you, but, hey, I'm just talk, right?


----------



## apoint

hummerpoo said:


> I see that Hayseed has already said it, but.
> 
> I had read the Got Questions article before, it's right out of your Scofield Reference Bible, and Got Questions does not include the list of churches (not that Got Questions or Bible Truth for today can "authenticate" a statement for any of those churches).  So which of the list of churches are you going to first?  I'm familiar enough with about half of them to know that they won't pan out for you, but, hey, I'm just talk, right?



You 2 are funnier than a bucket of monkeys.
  You want me to find a church that it admits to it's false teaching..


----------



## hummerpoo

apoint said:


> You 2 are funnier than a bucket of monkeys.
> You want me to find a church that it admits to it's false teaching..



OH, You didn't say that it was a secret teaching.  Who is privy to the teaching?  Maybe they only teach it to mud slingers like the website that you dug up.  BTW, you did a good job of finding exactly the drivel that is being spread.


----------



## hayseed_theology

apoint said:


> You 2 are funnier than a bucket of monkeys.
> You want me to find a church that it admits to it's false teaching..



"Replacement Theology" = Straw Man Fallacy


----------



## newnature

Many Christians will be sorely disappointed to discover that their beliefs in the afterlife are a delusion. When this happens, it will cause personal crisis to Christians accustom to believing that at death their souls break loose from their bodies and continue to exist either in Heaven or in the torment of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Well at least we know that Newnature isn't a JW.

Is Dispensationalism pejorative? Perhaps only if the prefix "hyper" or "ultra" are used.


----------



## newnature

Redemption is the restoration of the whole person, and not the salvation of the soul apart from the body. If at death the soul of the believer goes up immediately to Heaven to be with Jesus, one hardly can have any real sense of expectation for Jesus to come down to raise the dead believers that were in Jesus, and transform the living believers that are in Christ.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Well at least we know that Newnature isn't a JW.
> 
> Is Dispensationalism pejorative? Perhaps only if the prefix "hyper" or "ultra" are used.



Telling the story about what Lucifer did to the earth while it was in the first heaven, blows all religion teaching about heaven out of the water. 

Dualism has done such a serious harm in weakening our blessed hope of Christ‘s appearing and in distorting our understanding of our citizenship in heaven.


----------



## hayseed_theology

Artfuldodger said:


> Well at least we know that Newnature isn't a JW.
> 
> Is Dispensationalism pejorative? Perhaps only if the prefix "hyper" or "ultra" are used.



Dispensationalism is a widely recognized theological persuasion.  Dispensationalists use the term to describe themselves, so it is not a pejorative.

I've never considered "hyper-dispensationalist" or "ultra-dispensationalist" to be a pejorative because it correctly highlights the fact that they include extra divisions that most dispensationalists do not.  The perspective is further distinguished from classic dispensationalism by a much stronger emphasis on certain aspects of theology.  I believe some do self-identify with the the term "ultra-dispensationalist," and the Dictionary of Christianity in America published by IVP even includes an entry for "Ultradispensationalism."

If anyone on this forum considers it a pejorative, I would be happy to use a different, widely-recognized label.


----------



## newnature

hayseed_theology said:


> Dispensationalism is a widely recognized theological persuasion.  Dispensationalists use the term to describe themselves, so it is not a pejorative.
> 
> I've never considered "hyper-dispensationalist" or "ultra-dispensationalist" to be a pejorative because it correctly highlights the fact that they include extra divisions that most dispensationalists do not.  The perspective is further distinguished from classic dispensationalism by a much stronger emphasis on certain aspects of theology.  I believe some do self-identify with the the term "ultra-dispensationalist," and the Dictionary of Christianity in America published by IVP even includes an entry for "Ultradispensationalism."
> 
> If anyone on this forum considers it a pejorative, I would be happy to use a different, widely-recognized label.



You see, if Israel could have their sins remitted nationally, then Israel could indeed become that holy nation and kingdom of priests. And if Israel could become that holy nation and kingdom of priests, then the Gentiles would be able to come to Yahweh through Israel’s rise. 

That is why it would be important for Jesus ‘the messiah’ to be risen, so Israel could have their sins remitted, and they could arise, and the Gentiles could come to Yahweh through the nation Israel. It was only Israel having access to that eternal life that would make it possible for the Gentiles to have that eternal life through Israel’s rise, through the nation Israel. 

Seems people with labels are of the spiritual Israel religion.


----------



## apoint

hayseed_theology said:


> "Replacement Theology" = Straw Man Fallacy



Well that explains everything, hayseed gets his theology from PBS, a government funded liberal brainwash....
   Think I am done here.
 Last American here please bring the flag


----------



## hayseed_theology

apoint said:


> Well that explains everything, hayseed gets his theology from PBS, a government funded liberal brainwash....
> Think I am done here.
> Last American here please bring the flag



I don't appreciate the mud slinging.


----------



## welderguy

apoint said:


> Well that explains everything, hayseed gets his theology from PBS, a government funded liberal brainwash....
> Think I am done here.
> Last American here please bring the flag




I ,for one, am gonna miss that guy.


----------



## centerpin fan

hayseed_theology said:


> I don't appreciate the mud slinging.



This forum should just be shut down.  What isn't mud slinging is just 24/7 nonsense.  

Keep the prayer requests and the AAA forums open and shut down the rest.

Consider it a mercy killing.


----------



## gemcgrew

hayseed_theology said:


> I don't appreciate the mud slinging.


I appreciate it for what it is and what it shows. I believe that most of us are paying attention.


----------



## newnature

centerpin fan said:


> This forum should just be shut down.  What isn't mud slinging is just 24/7 nonsense.
> 
> Keep the prayer requests and the AAA forums open and shut down the rest.
> 
> Consider it a mercy killing.



I wish the labels would go away. It is taking away from the discussion, and I already proved these people do not have a case on this label matter on another thread. Why people would want to derail a thread?


----------



## hayseed_theology

newnature said:


> I wish the labels would go away. It is taking away from the discussion, and I always proved these people do not have a case on this label matter on another thread. Why people would want to derail a thread?



Labels can be very helpful when they are accurate and widely-recognized.  Labels help us understand the background and framework that others are coming from.  Without labels, one has to explain the entirety of their perspective in virtually every post.  While I do agree that, at times, labels can hinder discussion, I believe they are useful for the most part.

I believe I have been a primary participant in derailing your thread.  For that, I apologize.


----------



## newnature

hayseed_theology said:


> Labels can be very helpful when they are accurate and widely-recognized.  Labels help us understand the background and framework that others are coming from.  Without labels, one has to explain the entirety of their perspective in virtually every post.  While I do agree that, at times, labels can hinder discussion, I believe they are useful for the most part.
> 
> I believe I have been a primary participant in derailing your thread.  For that, I apologize.



What are your thoughts about the moral implications of the traditional view of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, which depicts God as a cruel torturer who torments the wicked throughout all eternity. The thought of such a torment being deliberately inflicted by divine decree, is totally incompatible with the idea of God as infinite love.


----------



## newnature

hayseed_theology said:


> Labels can be very helpful when they are accurate and widely-recognized.  Labels help us understand the background and framework that others are coming from.  Without labels, one has to explain the entirety of their perspective in virtually every post.  While I do agree that, at times, labels can hinder discussion, I believe they are useful for the most part.
> 
> I believe I have been a primary participant in derailing your thread.  For that, I apologize.



That's cool, but I clearly showed the kingdom program. I clearly showed the heaven program (Paul). Labels seem to just mix up the programs. I know these programs.


----------



## hummerpoo

centerpin fan said:


> This forum should just be shut down.  What isn't mud slinging is just 24/7 nonsense.
> 
> Keep the prayer requests and the AAA forums open and shut down the rest.
> 
> Consider it a mercy killing.



The delegation from the great state of Missouri, "The Show Me State", pledges its full support to the "Prayer Requests Only"proposition; that proposition being the only proposition that has been shown, or can be shown, to be grounded on a proven track record of benefit to the Kingdom of God, through exposition of scripture, understanding of relationships defined by scripture, and greater clarity of the attributes and nature of our God and His economy; which clarity can and will do nothing, I say nothing, but bring glory to His name.   All other propositions being shown by recent history, as recorded in the achieves, to promote discord in the body, display divergence in the community to the whole world, and in a word "blaspheme" the name of God, we, the members of the Missouri Delegation do hereby declare that our stake is driven corner post deep in the hill top which is the rock on which we stand and we shall not be moved.  So say we all (except Harley, he went to bathroom and got lost)


----------



## welderguy

newnature said:


> That's cool, but I clearly showed the kingdom program. I clearly showed the heaven program (Paul). Labels seem to just mix up the programs. I know these programs.



You did not clearly show the kingdom program.Both times that I showed contradictions, you ignored them like it wasn't there and kept on going.Your discussion seems a little one-sided when there's a disagreement.


----------



## newnature

welderguy said:


> You did not clearly show the kingdom program.Both times that I showed contradictions, you ignored them like it wasn't there and kept on going.Your discussion seems a little one-sided when there's a disagreement.



What is your beef?


----------



## apoint

Hayseed, you are the one that posted the PBS stuff and when I called you on it you call it mudslinging. 
  When I give evidence links you make fun of it. Cant have it both ways.......
   You all can go back to talking in circles and making no since, enjoy your Replacement Theology.


----------



## gemcgrew

newnature said:


> What are your thoughts about the moral implications of the traditional view of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, which depicts God as a cruel torturer who torments the wicked throughout all eternity. The thought of such a torment being deliberately inflicted by divine decree, is totally incompatible with the idea of God as infinite love.


It may be incompatible within your system of belief, but it is not incompatible within the Christian worldview.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> You did not clearly show the kingdom program.Both times that I showed contradictions, you ignored them like it wasn't there and kept on going.Your discussion seems a little one-sided when there's a disagreement.



His discussion is one-sided even when there's not a disagreement.


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> What are your thoughts about the moral implications of the traditional view of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, which depicts God as a cruel torturer who torments the wicked throughout all eternity. The thought of such a torment being deliberately inflicted by divine decree, is totally incompatible with the idea of God as infinite love.



What are your thoughts on this same infinite loving God not reaching every person with the gospel message?
Let's start with Israel being enemies of the Gospel benefiting the Gentiles by allowing them to hear the Gospel from Paul. Not all heard and even less converted. Not to mention all of the Gentiles born before the Age of Grace having no hope, strangers to the covenants, and without God. Do you believe an infinite loving God had a plan in place that didn't allow salvation to all? Isn't there still a plan in place that doesn't allow all to be elected or at least doesn't give each man an effectual calling for salvation?
In relation to an infinite loving God who will not punish someone constantly in He11, how can this same loving God not elect every single individual? Isn't love, love?

I do agree with you about he11 not being a constant torment.

Romans 15:20-22
20And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man's foundation; 21but as it is written, "THEY WHO HAD NO NEWS OF HIM SHALL SEE, AND THEY WHO HAVE NOT HEARD SHALL UNDERSTAND." 22For this reason I have often been prevented from coming to you;

If a person that has no news of him or those who haven't heard don't understand, then it would appear a lot of individuals living under this loving God will perish just by not  hearing. 
How can an infinite loving God do this? Even if he doesn't burn them, they won't gain everlasting life. Just because they were born in the wrong decade or the wrong Gentile nation, never seeing and never hearing. Still without excuse.


----------



## newnature

gemcgrew said:


> It may be incompatible within your system of belief, but it is not incompatible within the Christian worldview.



The notion of the eternal torment of the wicked can only be defended by accepting the Greek view of the immortality and indestructibility of the soul, a concept which is foreign to Scripture. Everlasting torture is intolerable from a moral point of view, because it pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies, whom he does not even allow to die.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> What are your thoughts on this same infinite loving God not reaching every person with the gospel message?
> Let's start with Israel being enemies of the Gospel benefiting the Gentiles by allowing them to hear the Gospel from Paul. Not all heard and even less converted.
> In relation to an infinite loving God who will not punish someone constantly in He11, how can this same loving God not elect every single individual? Isn't love, love?
> 
> I do agree with you about he11 not being a constant torment.
> 
> Romans 15:20-22
> 20And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man's foundation; 21but as it is written, "THEY WHO HAD NO NEWS OF HIM SHALL SEE, AND THEY WHO HAVE NOT HEARD SHALL UNDERSTAND." 22For this reason I have often been prevented from coming to you;
> 
> If a person that has no news of him or those who haven't heard don't understand, then it would appear a lot of individuals living under this loving God will perish just by not  hearing.
> How can an infinite loving God do this? Even if he doesn't burn them, they won't gain everlasting life. Just because they were born in the wrong decade or the wrong Gentile nation, never seeing and never hearing. Still without excuse.



I tried to show you that on the other thread.


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> What are your thoughts about the moral implications of the traditional view of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, which depicts God as a cruel torturer who torments the wicked throughout all eternity. The thought of such a torment being deliberately inflicted by divine decree, is totally incompatible with the idea of God as infinite love.



Galatians 3:13-14
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

What are your thoughts on this same loving God who could not possibly punish someone to a constant eternal punishment of pain, not have in place a plan to save Gentiles until his Son hung on a pole?
Or wait was it until after the mystery was revealed to Paul the Gentiles started receiving salvation. The mystery of the Jews being blinded so the Gentiles could be grafted in.
The mystery of  Israel's rejection to allow salvation to the Gentiles.

The heck with He11, how could a loving God punish individuals by eternal death, if he doesn't offer a way to save every one of those same individuals with everlasting life? Without providing an effectual calling to each individual? At least give each individual  in every Pagan Gentile nation in every decade through time a choice.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Galatians 3:13-14
> Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this same loving God who could not possibly punish someone to a constant eternal punishment of pain, not have in place a plan to save Gentiles until his Son hung on a pole?
> Or wait was it until after the mystery was revealed to Paul the Gentiles started receiving salvation. The mystery of the Jews being blinded so the Gentiles could be grafted in.
> The mystery of  Israel's rejection to allow salvation to the Gentiles.



Stop asking the same question over and over and over again. I showed you on the other thread, go take a look, then we can reason it out.


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> I tried to show you that on the other thread.



By showing me that God will effectually call every Gentile before and after the Age of Grace?


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> Stop asking the same question over and over and over again. I showed you on the other thread, go take a look, then we can reason it out.



Then how can a loving God do this? How does the loving God not offer salvation to everyone? If he shouldn't punish forever and ever people who were never called? 

Just give me a brief paragraph on the difference as it relates to eternal punishment not being right as related to God not electing every soul.


----------



## hayseed_theology

apoint said:


> Well that explains everything, hayseed gets his theology from PBS, a government funded liberal brainwash....
> Think I am done here.
> Last American here please bring the flag





apoint said:


> Hayseed, you are the one that posted the PBS stuff and when I called you on it you call it mudslinging.



You insinuated that I was a brainwashed liberal who gets his theology from a government-funded TV channel.  I think you also insinuated that I and perhaps some others in this thread were not true Americans.  Even if the latter was not your intention, the former was still mud slinging.

The PBS video contained no theology.  I don't get my theology from PBS.  The Straw Man Fallacy is a commonly recognized logical fallacy.  It falls broadly under the category of Philosophy and more specifically under the category of Logic and Reason, not Theology.  Why did I pick the PBS video?  Because it is clear, concise, and well-made.  I could have picked other videos or posted other links.  Google "Straw Man Fallacy" if you don't like PBS.  Why did I even post the video in the first place?  You may be familiar with the common logical fallacies, but some are not.  I thought it was helpful to offer some explanation of the term.

Rather than demonstrate why your argument is not an example of a Straw Man Fallacy, you resorted to mud slinging.



apoint said:


> When I give evidence links you make fun of it. Cant have it both ways.......



When did I make fun of your posts?  I have disagreed with several things you have posted.  I explained why your evidence did not fulfill the burden of proof asked for, but I never mocked it.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> By showing me that God will effectually call every Gentile before and after the Age of Grace?



As long as Satan was able to keep sin an issue between God and the human race, he had a hay day. Before the age of grace the Gentile are in a bad spot. They could have risen with Israel, but the leaders of Israel kill their king. Even after the leaders of Israel kill their king, God provide another way for the Gentile, but the leader of Israel stoned Stephen. So God put the program he had going on with the Israelites on hold. Along come Paul, the tree in Romans. 

The only component of Paul’s good news Satan needs to focus on today to keep people in a lost condition, is the reality of reconciliation, he does not need to go any further than that. â€¨

If Satan and his clan can keep that glorious truth hidden by blinding people’s eyes to it through a message that keeps sin on the table of God’s justice, the other components of Paul’s good news will have no bearing whatsoever for that individual. 

The Gentile before the age of grace will be standing at the Great White Throne Judgement. God knows whether there is a hidden motivation even to ourselves, hidden by our pride nature to look good before others, to appear knowledgeable before others, to somehow elevate self in relation to others to gain the praise of others, God knows the motivations of the human heart. Their name will be in the book of life or face the second death. 

Let's reason this out.


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> As long as Satan was able to keep sin an issue between God and the human race, he had a hay day. Before the age of grace the Gentile are in a bad spot. They could have risen with Israel, but the leaders of Israel kill their king. Even after the leaders of Israel kill their king, God provide another way for the Gentile, but the leader of Israel stoned Stephen. So God put the program he had going on with the Israelites on hold. Along come Paul, the tree in Romans.
> 
> The only component of Paul’s good news Satan needs to focus on today to keep people in a lost condition, is the reality of reconciliation, he does not need to go any further than that.
> 
> If Satan and his clan can keep that glorious truth hidden by blinding people’s eyes to it through a message that keeps sin on the table of God’s justice, the other components of Paul’s good news will have no bearing whatsoever for that individual.
> 
> The Gentile before the age of grace will be standing at the Great White Throne Judgement. God knows whether there is a hidden motivation even to ourselves, hidden by our pride nature to look good before others, to appear knowledgeable before others, to somehow elevate self in relation to others to gain the praise of others, God knows the motivations of the human heart. Their name will be in the book of life or face the second death.
> 
> Let's reason this out.



First, thanks for responding. Now we can reason it out. Perhaps even compare how a loving God can condemn some to everlasting death without everlasting torment. The punishment will be eternal as in "everlasting death." They'll die when they die or at least after the final judgement. Death itself will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.
I can see this in scripture but I can't see God's love having anything to do with it. I'd say it's more his wrath. 

Now relating this to the Gentile before the "Age of Grace," how could they have a hidden motivation or be motivated by pride as to stand judgement, if they had never been effectually called or given the opportunity to hear the Gospel or whatever means salvation takes?
If they were at that time foreign to the covenant of promise and without hope, having never even heard the gospel and allowed to see and understand, how could they gain salvation by not having pride and not having hidden motivations? How could they have a hidden motivation if they had never heard of Jesus either by someone spreading the Gospel or by divine intervention? 

Forget the Gentiles before the Age of Grace for a minute and look at Gentiles today who have never heard the Gospel. Are you saying God has effectually called them by knowing what's in their hearts? If not how are they to receive salvation from eternal death? How is the loving God going to give them the choice to choose Jesus?
How do they come to know Jesus? The Jesus who was cursed to hang on a pole so the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith they might receive the promise of the Spirit?

Help me reason this out. How this loving God who couldn't possibly let someone burn forever, allow everlasting death with never giving a chance at everlasting life through the blood of Jesus by repentance?
Repentance being changing one's mind and believing Jesus is the only way.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> First, thanks for responding. Now we can reason it out. Perhaps even compare how a loving God can condemn some to everlasting death without everlasting torment. The punishment will be eternal as in "everlasting death." They'll die when they die or at least after the final judgement. Death itself will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.
> I can see this in scripture but I can't see God's love having anything to do with it. I'd say it's more his wrath.
> 
> Now relating this to the Gentile before the "Age of Grace," how could they have a hidden motivation or be motivated by pride as to stand judgement, if they had never been effectually called or given the opportunity to hear the Gospel or whatever means salvation takes?
> If they were at that time foreign to the covenant of promise and without hope, having never even heard the gospel and allowed to see and understand, how could they gain salvation by not having pride and not having hidden motivations? How could they have a hidden motivation if they had never heard of Jesus either by someone spreading the Gospel or by divine intervention?
> 
> Forget the Gentiles before the Age of Grace for a minute and look at Gentiles today who have never heard the Gospel. Are you saying God has effectually called them by knowing what's in their hearts? If not how are they to receive salvation from eternal death? How is the loving God going to give them the choice to choose Jesus?
> How do they come to know Jesus? The Jesus who was cursed to hang on a pole so the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith they might receive the promise of the Spirit?



So this tree in Romans, reconciliation, everybody from Paul until God pulls the plug on this age of grace is in that tree. You are right, their's is the promise, and so on like you say. 

So a person dies in this age of age, is that the cutting off?What identity did the person die in, Adam (Adam in rebellion) or did the person die in the last Adam (Jesus Christ.)

Our understanding of the identity that Adam had before the fall (Childlike innocent,) that identity has been restored to us (Justification) that restored identity is the critical foundation for our belief structure and our behavior patterns.

Paul did not think the question of the status of the person between death and resurrection was a question that needed to be considered. The reason is that for Paul, those who die in Christ, their relationship with Christ is one of immediacy, because they have not awareness of the passing of time between their death and resurrection. 

A person dies in Adam, (Adam in rebellion) will be resurrected to this Great White Throne Judgement. But will all in tree get gather up to meet Jesus in the air? No. Those that remain in the tree are the Great Multitude (they have to wash their own robes) the rest face the Great White Throne Judgement. But their are still some in that tree that survived into that thousand years. Now this is a trip, so at the end of that thousand years Satan is let loose and all that gets burn up. No resurrection (End of Adam in rebellion.)


----------



## newnature

newnature said:


> So this tree in Romans, reconciliation, everybody from Paul until God pulls the plug on this age of grace is in that tree. You are right, their's is the promise, and so on like you say.
> 
> So a person dies in this age of age, is that the cutting off?What identity did the person die in, Adam (Adam in rebellion) or did the person die in the last Adam (Jesus Christ.)
> 
> Our understanding of the identity that Adam had before the fall (Childlike innocent,) that identity has been restored to us (Justification) that restored identity is the critical foundation for our belief structure and our behavior patterns.
> 
> Paul did not think the question of the status of the person between death and resurrection was a question that needed to be considered. The reason is that for Paul, those who die in Christ, their relationship with Christ is one of immediacy, because they have not awareness of the passing of time between their death and resurrection.
> 
> A person dies in Adam, (Adam in rebellion) will be resurrected to this Great White Throne Judgement. But will all in tree get gather up to meet Jesus in the air? No. Those that remain in the tree are the Great Multitude (they have to wash their own robes) the rest face the Great White Throne Judgement. But their are still some in that tree that survived into that thousand years. Now this is a trip, so at the end of that thousand years Satan is let loose and all that gets burn up. No resurrection (End of Adam in rebellion.)




Christianity developed the notion of original sin. 

Extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feelings that he sees himself as sinful even before birth. Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos. 

It is the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh like and having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. The very action that brought Adam and Eve a God like awareness of their mortal autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh. 

Yahweh knows that, that human beings will become like Yahweh, knowing good and bad; it’s one of the things about Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good. Human beings, and only human beings are the potential source of evil, responsibility for evil will lie in the hands of human beings. 

Evil is represented not as a physical reality, it’s not built into the structure of Eden, evil is a condition of human existence, and to assert that evil stems from human behavior.



But by virtue of being created in the image of God, human beings are capable of reflecting his character in their own life; animals possess none of these qualities. What distinguishes people from animals is the fact that human nature inherently has godlike possibilities. 

Omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence, none of these other divine attributes have been ascribed to the human race as part of the image of God. We have been created to reflect God in our thinking and actions, but the physical sustained by God and dependent upon him for our existence in this world and in the world to come. 

Developing a godly character in this present life, this will be our personal identity in the world to come. It is the character or personality that we have developed in this life, that God preserves in his memory.


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> Christianity developed the notion of original sin.
> 
> Extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feelings that he sees himself as sinful even before birth. Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos.
> 
> It is the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh like and having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. The very action that brought Adam and Eve a God like awareness of their mortal autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh.
> 
> Yahweh knows that, that human beings will become like Yahweh, knowing good and bad; it’s one of the things about Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good. Human beings, and only human beings are the potential source of evil, responsibility for evil will lie in the hands of human beings.
> 
> Evil is represented not as a physical reality, it’s not built into the structure of Eden, evil is a condition of human existence, and to assert that evil stems from human behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> But by virtue of being created in the image of God, human beings are capable of reflecting his character in their own life; animals possess none of these qualities. What distinguishes people from animals is the fact that human nature inherently has godlike possibilities.
> 
> Omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence, none of these other divine attributes have been ascribed to the human race as part of the image of God. We have been created to reflect God in our thinking and actions, but the physical sustained by God and dependent upon him for our existence in this world and in the world to come.
> 
> Developing a godly character in this present life, this will be our personal identity in the world to come. It is the character or personality that we have developed in this life, that God preserves in his memory.



I'm trying to understand how your response answered my question of how salvation will be offered to all the Gentiles worldwide. 
Do you think all of God's creation of man will become like Jesus or can become like Jesus and somehow this gives salvation through works?
Yes they know God by his creation but can they become like Jesus enough to gain salvation by what's in their hearts? Can they gain salvation by not having a hidden agenda or pride without ever hearing the Gospel?
What is your belief on how all the Pagan Gentiles are/were given the opportunity past and present to believe Jesus died for their sins?


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> So this tree in Romans, reconciliation, everybody from Paul until God pulls the plug on this age of grace is in that tree. You are right, their's is the promise, and so on like you say.
> 
> So a person dies in this age of age, is that the cutting off?What identity did the person die in, Adam (Adam in rebellion) or did the person die in the last Adam (Jesus Christ.)
> 
> Our understanding of the identity that Adam had before the fall (Childlike innocent,) that identity has been restored to us (Justification) that restored identity is the critical foundation for our belief structure and our behavior patterns.
> 
> Paul did not think the question of the status of the person between death and resurrection was a question that needed to be considered. The reason is that for Paul, those who die in Christ, their relationship with Christ is one of immediacy, because they have not awareness of the passing of time between their death and resurrection.
> 
> A person dies in Adam, (Adam in rebellion) will be resurrected to this Great White Throne Judgement. But will all in tree get gather up to meet Jesus in the air? No. Those that remain in the tree are the Great Multitude (they have to wash their own robes) the rest face the Great White Throne Judgement. But their are still some in that tree that survived into that thousand years. Now this is a trip, so at the end of that thousand years Satan is let loose and all that gets burn up. No resurrection (End of Adam in rebellion.)



I would say it like this "soul sleep."


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> I would say it like this "soul sleep."



The Bible never sees the flesh and the soul as two different forms of existence. Rather, they are manifestations of the same person, the ancient Hebrews could not conceive of one without the other.  

The two are indissolubly connected because the body is the outward form of the soul and the soul the inward life of the body. The body and soul are an indivisible unity; people are seen from two different perspectives. The body is the physical reality of human existence; the soul is the vitality and personality of human existence.


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> As long as Satan was able to keep sin an issue between God and the human race, he had a hay day. Before the age of grace the Gentile are in a bad spot. They could have risen with Israel, but the leaders of Israel kill their king. Even after the leaders of Israel kill their king, God provide another way for the Gentile, but the leader of Israel stoned Stephen. So God put the program he had going on with the Israelites on hold. Along come Paul, the tree in Romans.
> 
> The only component of Paul’s good news Satan needs to focus on today to keep people in a lost condition, is the reality of reconciliation, he does not need to go any further than that.
> 
> If Satan and his clan can keep that glorious truth hidden by blinding people’s eyes to it through a message that keeps sin on the table of God’s justice, the other components of Paul’s good news will have no bearing whatsoever for that individual.
> 
> The Gentile before the age of grace will be standing at the Great White Throne Judgement. God knows whether there is a hidden motivation even to ourselves, hidden by our pride nature to look good before others, to appear knowledgeable before others, to somehow elevate self in relation to others to gain the praise of others, God knows the motivations of the human heart. Their name will be in the book of life or face the second death.
> 
> Let's reason this out.



Satan? What does Satan have to do with Romans 11. It was God's plan to blind the Jews until the full number of Gentiles come in, not Satan. It was God's plan to have his Son hang on a pole, not Satan's.

Why were the Gentiles in a bad spot before the Age of Grace? This "bad spot" is the basis of my comparison of a LOVING God who can't constantly torment a soul.
If he can't then how can he allow Gentiles to be in a "bad spot" if that bad spot is a time they were without hope. If you can't see the comparison then there is no way I can reason this out with you.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm trying to understand how your response answered my question of how salvation will be offered to all the Gentiles worldwide.
> Do you think all of God's creation of man will become like Jesus or can become like Jesus and somehow this gives salvation through works?
> Yes they know God by his creation but can they become like Jesus enough to gain salvation by what's in their hearts? Can they gain salvation by not having a hidden agenda or pride without ever hearing the Gospel?
> What is your belief on how all the Pagan Gentiles are/were given the opportunity past and present to believe Jesus died for their sins?



The only ones who be as Jesus is, are those who are part of the body of Christ. The 24 elder in heaven right now, they have the same body and life Jesus has. The rest will eat of the tree of life. 

Seems this is a root cause as to why people get cheated out of the message. As faith gives way to feeling, people begin to base their faith on feeling, they want a God they can move to, they want a God that gets them moving, and they want teachers who can make them feel good in the process. Doctrine giving way to emotion will be the order of the day, as time goes on. â€¨

For the time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. Itching has to do with feeling with physical sensation, to make somebody pleased, or appeal to somebody’s sense of humor.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God doesn't allow each and every Pagan Gentile an opportunity to understand Jesus is the only way, then he puts all of us in a "bad spot." 
Before and after the "Age of Grace."


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> The only ones who be as Jesus is, are those who are part of the body of Christ. The 24 elder in heaven right now, they have the same body and life Jesus has. The rest will eat of the tree of life.
> 
> Seems this is a root cause as to why people get cheated out of the message. As faith gives way to feeling, people begin to base their faith on feeling, they want a God they can move to, they want a God that gets them moving, and they want teachers who can make them feel good in the process. Doctrine giving way to emotion will be the order of the day, as time goes on. â€¨
> 
> For the time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. Itching has to do with feeling with physical sensation, to make somebody pleased, or appeal to somebody’s sense of humor.



"The rest will eat of the tree of life." 
Everyone or only the ones who believe Jesus died for their sins?

How can someone not endure sound doctrine if they never heard sound doctrine?


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Satan? What does Satan have to do with Romans 11. It was God's plan to blind the Jews until the full number of Gentiles come in, not Satan. It was God's plan to have his Son hang on a pole, not Satan's.
> 
> Why were the Gentiles in a bad spot before the Age of Grace? This "bad spot" is the basis of my comparison of a LOVING God who can't constantly torment a soul.
> If he can't then how can he allow Gentiles to be in a "bad spot" if that bad spot is a time they were without hope. If you can't see the comparison then there is no way I can reason this out with you.



Bad spot meaning, those of us who are bent on satisfying the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life fall into a snare, in that we become addicted to the manner in which we satisfy those lusts. Paul does not talk about God pushing a bad button and having something bad happen to us or God taking our life.  

Paul does talk about when we pursue the satisfaction of the sinful lusts of the flesh, it is not ruination God is bringing on sinful believers, but ruination sinning believers are bringing upon themselves. Same thing happen to the Gentiles in the past. Satan has been keeping God and the human race from a loving relationship before the age of grace by using those lusts.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> "The rest will eat of the tree of life."
> Everyone or only the ones who believe Jesus died for their sins?
> 
> How can someone not endure sound doctrine if they never heard sound doctrine?



Only the body of Christ has been given citizenship in heaven. The rest will be living on this earth, they get to eat of the tree of life.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> "The rest will eat of the tree of life."
> Everyone or only the ones who believe Jesus died for their sins?
> 
> How can someone not endure sound doctrine if they never heard sound doctrine?




A person dies in Adam during this age of grace, (Adam in rebellion) will be resurrected to this Great White Throne Judgement. But will all in tree get gather up to meet Jesus in the air? No. Those that remain in the tree are the Great Multitude (they have to wash their own robes) the rest face the Great White Throne Judgement. But their are still some in that tree that survived into that thousand years. Now this is a trip, so at the end of that thousand years Satan is let loose and everyone involved in that rebellion gets burn up. No resurrection (End of Adam in rebellion.)


----------



## Artfuldodger

newnature said:


> Bad spot meaning, those of us who are bent on satisfying the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life fall into a snare, in that we become addicted to the manner in which we satisfy those lusts. Paul does not talk about God pushing a bad button and having something bad happen to us or God taking our life.
> 
> Paul does talk about when we pursue the satisfaction of the sinful lusts of the flesh, it is not ruination God is bringing on sinful believers, but ruination sinning believers are bringing upon themselves. Same thing happen to the Gentiles in the past. Satan has been keeping God and the human race from a loving relationship before the age of grace by using those lusts.



I thought you said salvation is from God's grace? Now it sounds like you are reverting back to how someone lives.
How can the Pagan Gentiles of the world be expected to live a life driven by the Holy Spirit it they aren't given the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit?
I don't believe even Satan is strong enough to prevent God from giving whom he wants his Spirit.
How can a Pagan Gentile be expected not to live a life of sinful lust if never given the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit?


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought you said salvation is from God's grace? Now it sounds like you are reverting back to how someone lives.
> How can the Pagan Gentiles of the world be expected to live a life driven by the Holy Spirit it they aren't given the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit?
> I don't believe even Satan is strong enough to prevent God from giving whom he wants his Spirit.
> How can a Pagan Gentile be expected not live a life of sinful lust if never given the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit?



Not spirit, why would God put his body parts on a person. It is God's power that he used to put on people. In Acts God put his power from on high into people. The age of grace people are sealed by that power from on high. 

After Yahweh gave up on the nations, Yahweh experiments with a single individual of believing; Abraham’s believing withstands many a trial. Yahweh is the owner of the land, Abraham was called to. Yahweh is empowered to set conditions or residency requirements for those who would reside in it, like a landlord. 

Yahweh is seeking replacement tenants who are going to follow the moral rules of residence that Yahweh has established for his land. Yahweh’s promise to Abraham is formalized in a ritual ceremony called a suzerainty covenant. Why did Yahweh give up on the nations?


----------



## gemcgrew

newnature said:


> The notion of the eternal torment of the wicked can only be defended by accepting the Greek view of the immortality and indestructibility of the soul, a concept which is foreign to Scripture.


The concept pervades scripture. I concede that the Greeks(heathens) held a greater biblical understanding than you, in regards to this concept.


newnature said:


> Everlasting torture is intolerable from a moral point of view, because it pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies, whom he does not even allow to die.


Auschwitz is a day at Chuck E. Cheese in comparison to what God has prepared for his enemies.


----------



## hobbs27

gemcgrew said:


> Auschwitz is a day at Chuck E. Cheese in comparison to what God has prepared for his enemies.



 Sounds scary. But didn't he make them just so He could torture them?


----------



## newnature

gemcgrew said:


> The concept pervades scripture. I concede that the Greeks(heathens) held a greater biblical understanding than you, in regards to this concept.
> 
> Auschwitz is a day at Chuck E. Cheese in comparison to what God has prepared for his enemies.



The wicked will not be passing through a process of punishment forever, but will be punished once and for all with eternal results. It is impossible to estimate the far-reaching impact that the doctrine of unending hellfire has had throughout the centuries.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Sounds scary. But didn't he make them just so He could torture them?



The image of an unquenchable fire is simply designed to convey the thought of being completely burned up or consumed. It has nothing to do with the everlasting punishment of immortal souls. “The fire shall not be quenched,” keeping a fire live to burn corpses require considerable effort, corpses do not readily burn. Worms are mentioned because they hasten the decomposition of corpses deprived of burial. Both worms and fire speak of total and final destruction; both terms also make this a loathsome scene.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I guess the "loathsome scene" is humane and justifiable as long as we know it's not constantly consuming.

The judgment is eternal, the punishment is warranted and loathsome, but it's not constantly consuming.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> I guess the "loathsome scene" is humane and justifiable as long as we know it's not constantly consuming.
> 
> The judgment is eternal, the punishment is warranted and loathsome, but it's not constantly consuming.



Traditionalists read “eternal punishment” as “eternal punishing.” When the adjective “aionios” meaning eternal or everlasting is used in the Greek with nouns of action, it has reference to the result of the action, not the process.


----------



## welderguy

One thing we know for certain,and to me it's the worst part about eternal judgement, is there will be an eternal separation from God in chains of darkness.

No one in history,except Jesus,has ever had to endure a total separation from God and the spiritual darkness that is associated with that. There are those who hate God and wish they could separate themselves from Him,but they don't understand the horror of that.

That horror of darkness and separation will be forever and ever.


----------



## newnature

welderguy said:


> One thing we know for certain,and to me it's the worst part about eternal judgement, is there will be an eternal separation from God in chains of darkness.
> 
> No one in history,except Jesus,has ever had to endure a total separation from God and the spiritual darkness that is associated with that. There are those who hate God and wish they could separate themselves from Him,but they don't understand the horror of that.
> 
> That horror of darkness and separation will be forever and ever.



The stern punishment awaiting the enemies of righteousness, whose temporary resurrection results only in a return to death and its punishment, their full and final defeat. The wicked will be resurrected mortal in order to receive their punishment which will result in their ultimate annihilation.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> The image of an unquenchable fire is simply designed to convey the thought of being completely burned up or consumed. It has nothing to do with the everlasting punishment of immortal souls. “The fire shall not be quenched,” keeping a fire live to burn corpses require considerable effort, corpses do not readily burn. Worms are mentioned because they hasten the decomposition of corpses deprived of burial. Both worms and fire speak of total and final destruction; both terms also make this a loathsome scene.



Yes , I know this quiet well. The word translated to he11 that you are referring to is Gehenna, which is an actual place, it was a landfill near Jerusalem. 
 If you've ever been around a landfill you will know that maggots and continual smoldering is common. In the last day, the Romans cast millions of corpses in that landfill. It's recorded and noted in the writings of Josephus.


----------



## centerpin fan




----------



## newnature

centerpin fan said:


>



Jesus met people on their own ground, capitalizing on what was familiar to them, to teach them vital truths. Many of his hearers had come to believe in a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection, though such a belief is foreign to Scripture. Jesus capitalized on the popular understanding of the condition of the dead in ‘hades,’ not to endorse such views, but to drive home the importance of heeding in this present life the teachings of Moses and the prophets, because this determines bliss or misery to come for an Israelite.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Revelation 20:12-14
12And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

The dead were judged according to their deeds. What about salvation by grace or is this judgment just for the unsaved? In this judgment only the dead, great & small,  are being judged. Maybe only the unsaved die and believers receive everlasting life. Believers get their rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

The sea gave up her dead as did Hades. They were judged according to their deeds, not according to being saved or unsaved.
Then death and Hades were thrown into the Lake of Fire.
What was this Hades that gave up it's dead and itself thrown into the Lake of Fire?
Finally death itself was thrown into the Lake of Fire.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Revelation 20:12-14
> 12And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
> 
> The dead were judged according to their deeds. What about salvation by grace or is this judgment just for the unsaved?
> 
> The sea gave up her dead as did Hades. They were judged according to their deeds, not according to being saved or unsaved.
> Then death and Hades were thrown into the Lake of Fire.
> What was this Hades that gave up it's dead and itself thrown into the Lake of Fire?
> Finally death itself was thrown into the Lake of Fire.



It is not CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, Fire and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredation preaching that changes people’s minds, that may scare people into making a temporary, at best, decision to do something with their lives. We are told that people need more law preaching in order to become better people, because if we preach God’s goodness, they are going to go out and sin all the more. â€¨

Paul is telling us the precise opposite, it is the goodness of God that leads a person to a change of thinking; that draws that person to adopt what God has said is true in his word. The truth is our deeds do not determine our destiny, our faith determines our destiny.


----------



## tell sackett

centerpin fan said:


>


^^^^^^^


----------



## newnature

tell sackett said:


> ^^^^^^^



This Greek conception of ‘hades’ influenced Hellenistic Israelites, because of the conscious decision of Alexander the Great. He used what is called ‘religious syncretism,’ Alexander took this tendency of syncretism, of mixing together different religious traditions from different places, and he used it as a self-conscious propaganda technique. But what Alexander and his successors did, was they made sort of a conscious, propagandistic decision to use religious syncretism to bind together their kingdoms.


----------



## tell sackett

centerpin fan said:


>


^^^^^^


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> Sounds scary. But didn't he make them just so He could torture them?


The Bible teaches that God created some for wrath and some for mercy. Recipients of wrath display his justice and power. Recipients of mercy display the riches of his mercy. This does not sound scary to a Christian.


----------



## Artfuldodger

"The sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead."

That's pretty much all of the dead people everywhere, the sea, above ground, below ground, everywhere. 
Hades, I'm not sure. Spiritual world. Anyway death and Hades are thrown into the Lake of Fire. This could be apocalyptic language meaning death and Hades will no longer be needed and are destroyed. 
Fire is apocalyptic language for destroying things.

So if a person dies an unbeliever, is resurrected, judged, and sentenced where does he go? If He!! is a literal place how can souls go there? Souls can't burn either instantly or constantly. Maybe they are destroyed. The wages of sin is death. Physical & spiritual, separation, no everlasting life.

How could death and hades be thrown into a literal lake of fire? Can death burn, can the grave burn, can a place spirits are held burn?

Now we read or some believe we will all have a physical resurrection and judgement while we are in this physically resurrected state. Where were the dead unbelievers at before this physical resurrection? Where is this physical place located for these recently resurrected to live out their eternal, everlasting punishment located? These resurrected bodies that are once again alive, having escaped death to receive everlasting punishment. A literal lake of fire that death and hades were destroyed in? Surely if their names aren't in the Book of Life, they will be thrown into this same lake of fire with death and hades.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> One thing we know for certain,and to me it's the worst part about eternal judgement, is there will be an eternal separation from God in chains of darkness.
> 
> No one in history,except Jesus,has ever had to endure a total separation from God and the spiritual darkness that is associated with that. There are those who hate God and wish they could separate themselves from Him,but they don't understand the horror of that.
> 
> That horror of darkness and separation will be forever and ever.



I thought about this when I read Revelation 20:15;

"Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

The same place death and Hades will be thrown. The sea gave up her dead along with death & Hades.  Was this unbelievers and believers?
 "And all were judged according to their deeds" throws me off if it's believers too. 

Anyway if all of these dead people are brought back to life for a judgement, what purpose is being thrown into an everlasting fire if eternal separation from God is what death is really about?
If Jesus is the only man to experience this, where are all of the dead non-elect? If they are in Hades or the grave awaiting the Lake of Fire, they will be thrown into the same place as death and Hades.
Is it possible death and hades will be destroyed by the literal fire but the un-elect will burn forever.
We do know that they aren't in this lake of fire yet. Are the dead non-elect not spiritually separated from God yet? Living somewhere in the spiritual world awaiting their Judgement? Physically dead non-elect sinners existing as "living spirits."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Then again if death means spiritual death, why did Adam and Jesus have to die physically? If Jesus' real death was separation from his Father, what was the purpose of a physical death & resurrection? Just to show or prove that he beat spiritual death? Jesus is now a spirit? We will become spirits. When Jesus returns we will see him as he is, but not until he returns. Not when we die but when Jesus returns. 

I can see how it's not easy to separate the the two deaths. We are so intertwined as humans as to experience both physical death and perhaps spiritual death, spiritual resurrection, and perhaps physical resurrection. 
If Adam experienced both or all and Jesus too, why not us? But why do we need to experience a physical resurrection to receive punishment or rewards?
Unless we will reside in a physical place for either. If that is so then I'm pretty sure we can't go there as a spirit. We will or must sleep or await somewhere else to receive our physical judgement and punishment/rewards.

The wages of sin is death. Is that physical or spiritual? If one isn't elected does he experience both? If both is he resurrected as either? Will he finally be separated from God spiritually? Why does he need to return from the dead for a judgement if his judgement is separation from God spiritually? Just let the poor soul die when he dies. The wages of sin is death. 
Death and Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire with this poor soul. It just sounds like the all of it will be destroyed, death, hades, and the un-elect. Not brought back to life.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The "Judgement." Is this a one time event? If it is then souls must wait some where for this event. You can't go to Heaven or He!! before the "Judgement."
The dead must be brought back to life first. Living souls reunited with their former dead bodies. Former dead bodies that are needed for their trip to the physical Lake of Fire. If one is going to literally burn forever, he's going to need a physical body to experience the pain of burning. 
It seems so painful that the poor soul won't be able to think about his spiritual death. His separation from God.
Unless his separation is so painful it mask the pain caused by the flames.

Honestly though, I don't have a problem with what God does with them.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Then again if death means spiritual death, why did Adam and Jesus have to die physically? If Jesus' real death was separation from his Father, what was the purpose of a physical death & resurrection? Just to show or prove that he beat spiritual death? Jesus is now a spirit? We will become spirits. When Jesus returns we will see him as he is, but not until he returns. Not when we die but when Jesus returns.
> 
> I can see how it's not easy to separate the the two deaths. We are so intertwined as humans as to experience both physical death and perhaps spiritual death, spiritual resurrection, and perhaps physical resurrection.
> If Adam experienced both or all and Jesus too, why not us? But why do we need to experience a physical resurrection to receive punishment or rewards?
> Unless we will reside in a physical place for either. If that is so then I'm pretty sure we can't go there as a spirit. We will or must sleep or await somewhere else to receive our physical judgement and punishment/rewards.
> 
> The wages of sin is death. Is that physical or spiritual? If one isn't elected does he experience both? If both is he resurrected as either? Will he finally be separated from God spiritually? Why does he need to return from the dead for a judgement if his judgement is separation from God spiritually? Just let the poor soul die when he dies. The wages of sin is death.
> Death and Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire with this poor soul. It just sounds like the all of it will be destroyed, death, hades, and the un-elect. Not brought back to life.



If physical death is the curse of Adam the Bible is inaccurate in Romans 5:14.


----------

