The doctrine I don't want to believe-eternal fire

[Butch5]

Psalm 90:2 (KJV) [SUP]2 [/SUP] Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Another local Bible teacher emailed this to me as a suggestion, so this was not my idea. I appreciate knowing local peers are examining my activities here and elsewhere. That verse says God is everlasting past and future. The Hebrew owlam ("everlasting" in English) there is defined in terms of how long God was God and will be God. Sometimes the word is used to express short periods concerning the things of men, the context of the verse(s) around the word determining the extent of time or timelessness.

The earth will someday have no sun, like as it is in Heaven now. God will be the light of it. "Keeping time" will have passed away, there being simply perpetual existence in His light.

Hi WS,

This passage is a good example to show how translators mistranslate the word owlam. They can look at a passage like this and determine that since God is everlasting and the passage says God is owlam , it must be that owlam means evelasting. That's not the proper way to determine what a word means. One must look at every occurance of a word to determine it's meaning. Once you give the word owlam the definition of everlasting, it no longer means a finite period of time. However, the Scriptures use it many time for a finite period of time.

Consider if said, I'm going out in the yard for a while and I stayed out there 10 minutes. Do we now define a while as 10 minutes? If someone goes out for 15 minutes can that not be a while? If someone else says they are going out for a while must they come back in in 10 minutes? The answer is obviously no. A while is an undefined short period of time. 10 minutes could be a while, an hour could be a while etc. The point is once you define it as a certain amount of time that becomes it's definition. So, once you define owlam as everlasting that becomes it's definition.

Now consider the word "age". An age is an undefined, long, period of time. It can be one's life time or it could be hundreds or thousands of years. There are other factors outside of the definition that determine the length of an age. Scientist will use terms like the Bronze age or the Iron age. These are periods of time that are defined by how long certain type of metal was predominately used. The word age is defined by outside factors, not the definition of age. If one is to determine that an age is 1000 years then every age has to be one thousand years. Since aion is defined as an age the same thing applies to it. So, we cannot define aion as everlasting and then say it is a finite period of time, that is contradictory. Since the Scriptures use aion of finite periods of time we cannot define the word as everlasting. If we had Scripture that spoke of an unending age then we could say that age is eternal, but that determination is made from the word unending, not from the definition of the word age.

The same thing applies to owlam, literally it means what is beyond the horizon. What is beyond the horizon cannot be seen. The very definition of owlam precludes a definition of eternity since one cannot see what is beyond the horizon.

So, when translators backwards engineer the definition of owlam and aionios to mean everlasting they are taking their interpretation of certain passages and fixing it into the definition of the words rather than letting the Scripture define the words for us.

Young's Literal translation gives a more accurate translation of the Greek text of Psalm 90:2.

YLT Psalm 90:2 Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God. (Psa 90:2 YLT)

The phrase, "from age unto age" could possibly mean eternity, if those ages never stop. However. the passage doesn't say that. So, when translators translate this as everlasting or eternity they are fixing their theological belief into the passage rather than letting the reader determine for himself or herself if the passage is referring to eternity or not. This is how so much false doctrine gets into the faith. You have translators fixing their beliefs into the translations rather than translating as literally as possible and letting the reader determine what the passage is saying.

The passages I've pointed out prove the confusion that is cause by this method of translation. As I've shown there are a lot of passages translated in the English Bible that speak of ordinances of the Mosaic Law that say those ordinances are everlasting and yet Scripture tells us that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled and came to an end. So, this method of translation creates contradictory passages in the Scriptures that leave many readers confused and wondering why they can't make sense of what they are reading in the Scriptures. HOw can an ordinance be everlasting and yet come to an end, that's a contradiction. Not only do this confuse the reader it also give fodder to those who would oppose the Scriptures. They argue how can the Bible be without error when you has one passage that says an ordinance is everlasting and another passage that says it ended?

This issue is much more serious than simply the definitions of words, this fixing one's belief into the Scriptures have the potential over time to lead many astray and more and more erroneous ideas get fixed into the translations. I believe the translators should translate as close as possible and as literal as possible to the original texts and let the reader decide what a passage says. Even if some don't understand, at least we don't have error being fixed into the translations.

 

[Jason0047]

Yes, but "destroyed" does not mean annihilation or loss of being, it means ruin, loss of well-being, like a car that is totaled.

Matthew 12:14 says the Pharisees took council so that they might destroy him. This means to kill or murder him. When people die, they return to dust. Their bones and bodies decay over time unless they are preserved either naturally and or intentionally by man. For Adam was told he would return into the dust from which he came. So no. It means utter annihilation (Which is also what Matthew 21:41 says, too).

Also, I asked others this and I do not seem to be getting an answer by anyone. If the ECT proponent believes Revelation 14:9-11 is teaching eternal torment, then they must also believe that the Lamb (Jesus) will physically be there along with his holy angels watching countless of souls suffer for all eternity. In other words, how can the Lamb be on the Eternal New Earth with His people physically in his flesh and blood body and yet also be present in Hell for all eternity? Doesn't make sense.

 

[Jason0047]

(Which is also what Matthew 21:41 says, too).

In relation to the topic of "death" I mean.

 

[Jason0047]

Matthew 12:14 says the Pharisees took council so that they might destroy him. This means to kill or murder him. When people die, they return to dust. Their bones and bodies decay over time unless they are preserved either naturally and or intentionally by man. For Adam was told he would return into the dust from which he came. So no. It means utter annihilation (Which is also what Matthew 21:41 says, too).

Also, I asked others this and I do not seem to be getting an answer by anyone. If the ECT proponent believes Revelation 14:9-11 is teaching eternal torment, then they must also believe that the Lamb (Jesus) will physically be there along with his holy angels watching countless of souls suffer for all eternity. In other words, how can the Lamb be on the Eternal New Earth with His people physically in his flesh and blood body and yet also be present in Hell for all eternity? Doesn't make sense.

Also, calling the Lake of Fire... the "Second Death" would not be true if it was not related to the "First Death' (Which is physical).

 

[Elin]

Matthew 12:14 says the Pharisees took council so that they might destroy him. This means kill or murder him. When people die, they return to dust. Their bones and bodies decay over time unless they are preserved either naturally and or intentionally by man. For Adam was told he would return into the dust from which he came. So no.
It means utter annihilation. Matthew 21:41 also speaks of death (Which means
a person will no longer exist physically in enough time; They will just be dust).

But man's spirit continues to exist, as do the spirits of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
which is why God, who "is not the God of the dead, but of the living," could say (Ex 3:6)
"I am (present tense, not "I was") the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"
(Lk 20:37-38), because their spirits are still living.

 

[Jason0047]

But man's spirit continues to exist, as did the spirits of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
which is why God, who "is not the God of the dead, but of the living," could say (Ex 3:6)
"I am (present tense, not "I was") the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"
(Lk 20:37-38), because their spirits are still living.

In John chapter 8, Jesus Christ declares Himself to be the same " I AM " from Exodus chapter 3. Jesus Christ is not a mere mortal with a created soul. Jesus is the Word made flesh. Christ is the Eternal Son of God who is from everlasting (Micah 5:2) and who had no beginning (Hebrews 7:3) and who shared in a glory with the Father before the world (John 17:5).

I am also do not believe in the immediate annihialation of the wicked's spirit and soul when they die. They go to Hell for a temporary time and then they will be destroyed both body and soul in the Lake of Fire.

God's people only have eternal life. That was one of the major things Jesus was preaching. That they will never die. But nowhere in Scripture do we see the wicked ever having the promise of eternal life.

 

[Jason0047]

Doesn't Revelation tell us that people who take the mark of the beast will have no rest day or night?

Yes, they will indeed have "no rest," but when will this happen? It will be during the tribulation period while on this earth. It is important to note that in the previous verse, John wrote in the Greek future tense and refers to the Great White Throne Judgment where the lost will be tormented "in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb" on Judgment Day. This is a future event for John. The Greek tense is in the future.In this verse, John changes tenses. It is in the Greek present tense. This cannot be stressed enough. In his literal translation of the scriptures, Robert Young, compiler of the Analytical Concordance that bears his name, translates it into a perfect English translation-as John wrote it:

"And they have no rest day and night, who are bowing before the beast and his image." (Young's Literal Translation–Revelation 14:11)


​

The apostle John writes this word "proskuneo" (worship/bowing) in the Greek present tense. The present tense is the tense he chooses to use to describe the rest of the events of Revelation that occur on the earth. So this must be while on earth since it is in the same Greek tense. Look at verse 9 in which the unsaved "worship" (also in the Greek present tense) the beast "and receive his mark." This is very important because it clearly occurs while on this earth. So, if the receiving of this mark (whatever it may be) is on this earth, then the worshipping in 14:11 must also be on this earth. Hence, the "no rest day or night" must occur on this earth as well.

The "no resting day or night" occurs while they are "bowing" and "worshipping" (present tense) the beast. This occurs during the time on earth when the book of Revelation events are being unfolded. These are people who are forced to receive the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:16). John also tells us that painful sores break out on their body, "And there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image." (Revelation 16:2) This is while they are on the earth.

Additionally–the very next verse states "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Revelation 14:12). Why is this important? Because "keeping" is in the very same tense! John's statement of those "who keep (present tense) the commandments" must be at the same time as those who have "no rest" and are "worshipping (present tense) the beast." Therefore–this is conclusive proof that these both occur on the earth. Need more proof? Well, the same Greek word and tense of "worship" (of God this time) is also used in Revelation 11:1 where it is absolutely clear that the "worship" is going on in the present tense upon this earth. Let me repeat–Revelation 11:1, 14:11, 16:2, all have the same Greek tense! You have to make them all be acts of "worship" while upon this earth.

Therefore, how can anyone "rest day or night" when they have painful such sores on their body and are forced to worship the beast? (Revelation 14:11 & 16:2). And John specifically tells us when this worshipping shall occur-it is when they "dwell upon the earth." "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him..." (Revelation 13:8) So the worshipping and the no resting both occur while upon this earth.

Source:
Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is True and Biblical
(Note: I do not hold to all views or beliefs by this author; Especially their false view of "soul sleep" and their false view that the Richman and Lazarus is just a parable).

 

[Butch5]

Actually, Hades (fire) is a part of Sheol, as is Paradise (blessing of Abraham's bosom),
as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Lk 16:19-31.

It's not, You shouldn't get your afterlife doctrine from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, it's not about a person's afterlife, It's parable about the death of the priesthood. Look at the details, a literal understanding doesn't work. If "spirits" have left their body at death, how do they have fingers and tongues and eys, etc? How can they speak, etc. all of these require a body. Note also that the Rich Man was dressed in fine linen and purple, so were the Priests, Notice the rich man had five brothers, so did the Levi, the tribe of the Priests. Note that the rich man was cast away from Abraham and Lazarus was accepted, consider Jesus' words,

10 When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!
11 "And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
12 "But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Mat 8:10-12 NKJ)

The Rich man was a Jew as can be seen in his calling Abraham, father. Teh rich man was suffering, Jesus said the sons of the kingdom would be cast into outer darkness where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth, that's pain and sorrow.

If you continue to look at the details you'll see more.

There is nothing remotely relating to the priesthood in the parable.
Read it, and show where it is about the priesthood.

I have, I've given just a bit of it above. I'll post more in a separate post on the parable. However, think about this, the parable is spoken to the Pharisees. For one thing why would Jesus be teaching the Pharisses who rejected Him? Secondly, in the three chapters Jesus nowhere says anything about the afterlife, one has to wonder if this parable is about the afterlife why out of the clear blue would Jesus start talking about the afterlife? He's been chiding the Pharisees and at times rebukes them, it doesn't seem logical that He would all of a sudden stop that and begin a lesson on the afterlife to people who rejected Him. Also, look at the preceding parables, The Prodigal Son, that refers to Israel who what God gave them squandered it only to realize it later and return to God, then you have the unfaithful steward. Who would be the unfaithful steward? Would it not be those who God put in charge of His things. The Priests and leadership. Then He says the Law and the prophets were until John. That statement right there says that the Priesthood is done. The Law and the Prophets have reached a fulfillment, the Priesthood is over. Then He says, 'he who divorces his wife and marries another committs adultery. This passage doesn't seem to have a connection to anything and seems random. However, when you consider that the Priesthood was guilty of divorcing their wives for younger women it fits perfectly with what Jesus is saying. I believe He was alluding to Malachi 2.

NKJ Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you.
2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take it to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take it to heart.
3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread refuse on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And one will take you away with it.
4 Then you shall know that I have sent this commandment to you, That My covenant with Levi may continue," Says the LORD of hosts.
5 "My covenant was with him, one of life and peace, And I gave them to him that he might fear Me; So he feared Me And was reverent before My name.
6 The law of truth1 was in his mouth, And injustice was not found on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and equity, And turned many away from iniquity.
7 "For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, And people should seek the law from his mouth; For he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
8 But you have departed from the way; You have caused many to stumble at the law. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi," Says the LORD of hosts.
9 "Therefore I also have made you contemptible and base Before all the people, Because you have not kept My ways But have shown partiality in the law."
10 Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously with one another By profaning the covenant of the fathers?
11 Judah has dealt treacherously, And an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, For Judah has profaned The LORD'S holy institution which He loves: He has married the daughter of a foreign god.
12 May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob The man who does this, being awake and aware1, Yet who brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!
13 And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the LORD with tears, With weeping and crying; So He does not regard the offering anymore, Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.
14 Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant.
15 But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
16 "For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one's garment with violence," Says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously."
17 You have wearied the LORD with your words; Yet you say, "In what way have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil Is good in the sight of the LORD, And He delights in them," Or, "Where is the God of justice?" (Mal 2:1-17 NKJ)

The Priests would be familiar with this OT passage and would understand that Jesus was rebuking them when He said, 'he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. These short statements would be readily recognized by the priests and the Pharisees.

Agreed. . .it is pretty clear that he is getting at unbelief, in parables about the unbelief of Israel, purity of heart and wholeheartedness, spiritual death and rebirth, and shrewdness in the Christian life.


Agreed. . .it is very clear that he is getting at unbelief (Lk 16:31).

His comments are aimed at a specific group of people.

It is unending when Jesus uses it to refer to hell, in his revelation that its fire is eternal (Mk 9:43, 47;
Mt 25:41), which meaning is "without end," as seen in the Biblical usage of "eternal" to describe the following:

God (Ro 16:26),
God's power (1Tim 6:16),
God's glory (1Pe 5:10).
the Holy Spirit (Heb 9:14),
redemption (Heb 9:12),
salvation (Heb 5:9),
life in Christ (Jn 3:16),
the resurrection body (2Co 5:1),
the future rule of Christ (2Pe 1:11)
which is declared to be without end (Lk 1:33),
sin that never has forgiveness (Mk 3:29),
the judgment of God (Heb 6:2),
fire, one of the instruments of God's judgment (Mt 18:8, 25:41, Jude 7).

The fire of hell is unending (aionios).


Yes, that refers to the Gehenna which was an actual place outside Jerusalem.

Jesus used its name for the eternal fire of hell.

Aionios doesn't mean eternal or everlasting. I explained how the translation is wrong in a post to SW. Aion means an age, not eternity.

Jesus didn't just use the name, that is the actual place where it will take place. Isaiah 66 explains it.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus shows both that
spirits are immortal, in the conversation between Abraham and the rich man, and
the fire of hell is the Hades of Sheol.

The parable is not about the afterlife at all. A literal understanding of the passage just doesn't work. Another thing to consider is that Jesus didn't say either man was righteous or wicked, people just assume that from what they already believe. Is it evil to be rich? Will all rich people burn in Hades? Do a search and look for other passages that speak of Hades and fire and I think you'll be surprised that you don't find but one or two. One passage is a prophecy by Moses in the Song of Moses that tells that Israel will turn away from God and how God will react.

22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. {shall burn: or, hath burned} {shall consume: or, hath consumed} (Deu 32:22 KJV)

Obviously here the fire is God's wrath. It's burning to the lowest grave. If the rich man is the priesthood and they are under God's wrath we can see the connection between this passage and Jesus' statement about the rich man being in Hades in the flame. I think it's pretty clear that Jesus was alluding to this passage in the Parable. The Priesthood would be familiar with the song of Moses.

The other passage is from Revelation and just speaks of Hades being thrown into the Lake of Fire. I think it's obvious that Hades cannot be the place of fire if it's thrown into the place of fire.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:14-15 KJV)

These are the only two passages that came up in a search that used the word Hades. I searched for verses that contained both hell and fire, all of the other passages that came up used Gehenna and fire not Hades.

 

[Jason0047]

Again, I want folks to know that I am not associated with Butch5, even though I love him. I believe in the Trinity. I believe Jesus is the Eternal Son of God who had no beginning. I believe one being born again is in reference to a spiritual re-birth. I believe the wicked being instantly annihilated at death is unbiblical. The wicked will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire after the Judgment.

 

[Elin]

You shouldn't get your afterlife doctrine from
the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, it's
not about a person's afterlife, It's parable
about the death of the priesthood.

Butch, the meaning of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Lk 16:19-31, and
the use of aionios to describe things unending, such as God, the Holy Spirit, redemption, the resurrection body, etc.
are self-evident and speak for themselves.

Each can decide for himself the truth of the matter.

 

[Butch5]

This does a lot to locate your error.

Yes, the problem is assumptions.

You assume that Jesus' teaching to Paul changed nothing he believed as a Jew.

No, I've not assumed anything. Nothing I've said is based on assumption. The passages you've quoted could mean that Paul would be with Christ immediately, or there could be a span of time in between. However, Paul doesn't say which so that will have to be determined from other criteria. Your premise is that it is immediate based on the idea that man is spirit that can live apart from the body. My premise is that he can't. In order to prove your interpretation is correct you need to establish that man is a spirit that can live outside of the body. So far you've only presented passage from which you have inferred that idea. Your inference from a passage is not proof that a passage means what you've inferred.

On the other hand, my premise is that man cannot live apart from the body. I've given Gen 2:7 as a starting point to show what a man is. According to that passage he is composed of the elements of the earth and until God breathed something from Himself into the man the man did not live. This indicates that whatever give life to man came from God and is not inherent in the man. I gave Ecclesiastes as evidence of what happens to man when he dies. The body returns to dust and God's spirit returns to Him. That is all there is, there is nothing left to live on after death. I gave also a picture of the resurrection from Ezekiel 37 where God put the bodies back together but they were not alive, then God puts "His" breath into them and they live. This is the same thing we saw Him do in Gen 2:7. It should be clear from this that man requires the breath of God to live and without it he cannot. I also gave the example of the apostles thinking they had seen a spirit and Jesus states plainly that a spirit does not have flesh and bone. Therefore is man has flesh and bone he cannot be a spirit. John said that in the resurrection believers would be like Jesus. Well, His words clearly indicate that He was not a spirit.

So, you see, I've not assumed anything. I've drawn my conclusions straight from concepts that are plainly stated in Scripture. God plainly stated what man consists of. It is plainly stated what happens when he dies. It's plainly stated where his component parts go. It's plainly stated how God will resurrect the Israelites and put His breath in them. Jesus plainly stated that a spirit does not have flesh and bone. So, the position I've taken is solidly backed by clear statements of Scripture, there are no inferences.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, the meaning of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Lk 16:19-31, and
the use of aionios to describe things unending, such as God, the Holy Spirit, redemption, the resurrection body, etc.
are self-evident and speak for themselves.

Each can decide for himself the truth of the matter.

How can each decide for themselves on the matter if they are not given accurate information? When translators, commentators and dictionaries inject their own theological bias on the text and don't give the information needed to make an accurate decision, they are essentially indoctrinating people without the people even knowing it.

I mean, being serious, how do you deal with the contradiction created by the theologians? How does one even know they exist without the proper information. For instance, the passages I posted, in the English translation say the ordinances of the Mosaic Law are everlasting. If you're a new Christian and see that what do you do? Do you go and get circumcised to please God? This is a real serious issue the should be address by Christians across the board. If we are truly seeking the truth we should demand that absolute utmost in accuracy and honesty from theologians, yet we don't we let them speculate till the cows come home.

In all seriousness, what do you do with those ordinances?

 

[Butch5]

Again, I want folks to know that I am not associated with Butch5, even though I love him. I believe in the Trinity. I believe Jesus is the Eternal Son of God who had no beginning. I believe one being born again is in reference to a spiritual re-birth. I believe the wicked being instantly annihilated at death is unbiblical. The wicked will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire after the Judgment.

Jason, I've already stated many times that I believe in the Trinity. Our difference is based in the definition of the Trinity. As I stated, I hold to the original teachings of the Christian faith, the Nicene Creed, not what came later in the Anthanasian Creed.

 

[JesusLives]

Just remember that death is death. There is no degrees or levels of lifelessness. Plus do not neglect the sufferings we're going through now. And again I state that if we're dying and going to the grave with knowledge and belief of a risen savior, then WE are receiving the greater punishment! Those on the other side of Christ have been risen with Him such as Sodom or Capernaum.

I haven't read forward and maybe some one else has already typed this but Abraham mediated with God over Sodom and he got the number agreed on with God down to 10 righteous people and if there were that many then God said He would not destroy the city. Well the cities burned and even Lots wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt so in my Blond way of thinking there were only 3 righteous people that left the city.

So would you not think that everyone else there were not righteous and therefore how could anyone from Sodom be in heaven? At least the destroyed Sodom? Just asking?

 

[Butch5]

The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man



The rich man is in Hades suffering in flames. Let’s look at the rich man, firstly, we know he is a Jew because he calls Abraham his father. Secondly we see that he was dressed if purple and fine linen. What is the significance of the purple and fine linen. Purple was the color of royalty and fine linen was what the priests wore. During Jesus’ time there was no king but rather the priests served as a sort of priest king. What was the chief sin of the Sadducees and the Pharisees? Was it not their rejection of Jesus? Look at the parable of the rich man and Lazarus who was Jesus speaking to? In the end of chapter 15 He tells the parable of the prodigal son, then He relates to His disciples the parable of the unfaithful steward. Who were the unfaithful stewards? They were the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Notice in the parable the stewardship is being taken away from the steward. After the parable Luke records this,

[SUP]14[/SUP] And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. (Luk 16:14 KJV)
Jesus replied to them saying they justified themselves before men, then He says,
[SUP]16[/SUP] The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. (Luk 16:16 KJV)
He’s telling them that their reign is over, the Law and the prophets were until John. John has come the Law and the prophets are done. The priesthood is done.

Then He says anyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery, the very thing He had accused them of earlier. So again, He calls them unfaithful. The book a Malachi deals with the adulterous priesthood and their demise.
So, so far we have Jesus giving two parables the prodigal son and the unfaithful steward which upon hearing the Pharisees derided Him. So Jesus turned His attention to them and calls them adulterers and said that the Law and the prophets were until John. That’s the end of the priesthood. Then He says to them there was a certain rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen who fared sumptuously. That’s them. Here they are presently rejecting Christ. So, Jesus tells them this parable, the details of which He draws from the OT. Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom, what is that? It’s not a location. It means to be in a close relationship with Abraham. Abraham’s bosom is mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures and it’s not where dead people are.

[SUP]5[/SUP] And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. (Gen 16:5 KJV)

Sarai’s handmaid was in close relations with Abraham, that’s what it means to be in Abraham’s bosom. The rich man, however, wasn’t in Abraham’s bosom where he expected to be, he was in Hades, in the flame. What does this mean? This rich man, the Pharisees and Sadducees were rejecting Christ and God and because of that were suffering. Jesus is drawing on an OT passage that they would be familiar with since their rejection was prophesied.

[SUP]9[/SUP] For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
[SUP]10[/SUP] He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.
[SUP]11[/SUP] As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings:
[SUP]12[/SUP] So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.
[SUP]13[/SUP] He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
[SUP]14[/SUP] Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.
[SUP]15[/SUP] But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
[SUP]16[/SUP] They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger.
[SUP]17[/SUP] They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
[SUP]18[/SUP] Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
[SUP]19[/SUP] And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.
[SUP]20[/SUP] And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.
[SUP]21[/SUP] They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
[SUP]22[/SUP] For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
[SUP]23[/SUP] I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.
[SUP]24[/SUP] They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.
[SUP]25[/SUP] The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.
[SUP]26[/SUP] I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men:
[SUP]27[/SUP] Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high, and the LORD hath not done all this.
[SUP]28[/SUP] For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them.
[SUP]29[/SUP] O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!
[SUP]30[/SUP] How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up? (Deu 32:9-30 KJV)

Verse 22 is the fire in Hades, it is God’s anger. It’s not that there is literally fire burning in the grave, it’s God’s anger. The rich man represents the priesthood that is being rejected as the Law and the prophets are ending and God is bringing His justice on the priesthood for their abuse of His Law (read the book of Malachi) and their rejection of Christ. Notice the prophecy says that they were unmindful of the Rock that begot them. They turned away from their Rock, who was their Rock? Paul tells us who their Rock was.

KJV 1 Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
[SUP]2[/SUP] And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
[SUP]3[/SUP] And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
[SUP]4[/SUP] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1Co 10:1-4 KJV)

Just as those Jews in the wilderness had rejected Christ so too were the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus day still rejecting Him.

Notice that the rich man is speaking from Hades. Jesus is alluding to Isaiah.
[SUP]NKJ [/SUP]Isaiah 28:1 Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, Whose glorious beauty is a fading flower Which is at the head of the verdant valleys, To those who are overcome with wine!
[SUP]2[/SUP] Behold, the Lord has a mighty and strong one, Like a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, Like a flood of mighty waters overflowing, Who will bring them down to the earth with His hand.
[SUP]3[/SUP] The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, Will be trampled underfoot;
[SUP]4[/SUP] And the glorious beauty is a fading flower Which is at the head of the verdant valley, Like the first fruit before the summer, Which an observer sees; He eats it up while it is still in his hand.
[SUP]5[/SUP] In that day the LORD of hosts will be For a crown of glory and a diadem of beauty To the remnant of His people,
[SUP]6[/SUP] For a spirit of justice to him who sits in judgment, And for strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate.
[SUP]7[/SUP] But they also have erred through wine, And through intoxicating drink are out of the way; The priest and the prophet have erred through intoxicating drink, They are swallowed up by wine, They are out of the way through intoxicating drink; They err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
[SUP]8[/SUP] For all tables are full of vomit and filth; No place is clean.
[SUP]9[/SUP] "Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts?
[SUP]10[/SUP] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little."
[SUP]11[/SUP] For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people,
[SUP]12[/SUP] To whom He said, "This is the rest with which You may cause the weary to rest," And, "This is the refreshing"; Yet they would not hear.
[SUP]13[/SUP] But the word of the LORD was to them, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little," That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught.
[SUP]14[/SUP] Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,
[SUP]15[/SUP] Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we are in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, It will not come to us, For we have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves."
[SUP]16[/SUP] Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily.
[SUP]17[/SUP] Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place.
[SUP]18[/SUP] Your covenant with death will be annulled, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing scourge passes through, Then you will be trampled down by it.
[SUP]19[/SUP] As often as it goes out it will take you; For morning by morning it will pass over, And by day and by night; It will be a terror just to understand the report."
[SUP]20[/SUP] For the bed is too short to stretch out on, And the covering so narrow that one cannot wrap himself in it.
[SUP]21[/SUP] For the LORD will rise up as at Mount Perazim, He will be angry as in the Valley of Gibeon-- That He may do His work, His awesome work, And bring to pass His act, His unusual act.
[SUP]22[/SUP] Now therefore, do not be mockers, Lest your bonds be made strong; For I have heard from the Lord GOD of hosts, A destruction determined even upon the whole earth.
[SUP]23[/SUP] Give ear and hear my voice, Listen and hear my speech.
[SUP]24[/SUP] Does the plowman keep plowing all day to sow? Does he keep turning his soil and breaking the clods?
[SUP]25[/SUP] When he has leveled its surface, Does he not sow the black cummin And scatter the cummin, Plant the wheat in rows, The barley in the appointed place, And the spelt in its place?
[SUP]26[/SUP] For He instructs him in right judgment, His God teaches him.
[SUP]27[/SUP] For the black cummin is not threshed with a threshing sledge, Nor is a cartwheel rolled over the cummin; But the black cummin is beaten out with a stick, And the cummin with a rod.
[SUP]28[/SUP] Bread flour must be ground; Therefore he does not thresh it forever, Break it with his cartwheel, Or crush it with his horsemen.
[SUP]29[/SUP] This also comes from the LORD of hosts, Who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in guidance.

This passage from Isaiah speaks of judgment against Israel at the time of Christ. Paul alludes to this passage when telling the Corinthians the reason for tongues and this passage from Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament and applied to Christ.

[SUP]16[/SUP] Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily. God tells Israel that their covenant with death will not stand and neither will their agreement with Hades.




[SUP]NKJ [/SUP]Isaiah 29:1 "Woe to Ariel[SUP]1[/SUP], to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! Add year to year; Let feasts come around.
[SUP]2[/SUP] Yet I will distress Ariel; There shall be heaviness and sorrow, And it shall be to Me as Ariel.
[SUP]3[/SUP] I will encamp against you all around, I will lay siege against you with a mound, And I will raise siegeworks against you.
[SUP]4[/SUP] You shall be brought down, You shall speak out of the ground; Your speech shall be low, out of the dust; Your voice shall be like a medium's, out of the ground; And your speech shall whisper out of the dust.
[SUP]5[/SUP] "Moreover the multitude of your foes Shall be like fine dust, And the multitude of the terrible ones Like chaff that passes away; Yes, it shall be in an instant, suddenly.
[SUP]6[/SUP] You will be punished by the LORD of hosts With thunder and earthquake and great noise, With storm and tempest And the flame (Isa 28:1-6 NKJ)

In this passage Israel is said to be speaking out of the ground just as the rich man was. This passage is about judgment against Jerusalem. Who was in Jerusalem? Was it not the Priesthood?

 

[JesusLives]

Originally Posted by Elin

Actually, it is Paul who assumes it,
which is why he would rather die on the spot than continue living:

"I desire to depart and be with Christ which is better by far, but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." (Php 1:23-24)

You're grasping, Butch.

The Scriptures are clear that the human spirit is immortal.


Quote by JesusLives
1 Corinthians 15: 52-54

…52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.…

Elin my Bible must read different than your Bible as it says that this mortal must put on immortality and the it is written Death Is Swallowed Up in Victory. This does not happen until death is done away with in the very end. So until then we are mortal according to the texts above.

 

[Jason0047]

Jason, I've already stated many times that I believe in the Trinity. Our difference is based in the definition of the Trinity. As I stated, I hold to the original teachings of the Christian faith, the Nicene Creed, not what came later in the Anthanasian Creed.

You don't believe the Trinity is eternal because you don't believe the Son of God is eternal who has no beginning. In other words, you believe that God later became a Trinity. He wasn't always that way. But this is false. God does not change. At a point in time within the past, you deny the Trinity's existence. So I am not wrong.

Your God is progressive, which is unbiblical.

 

[Jason0047]

Originally Posted by Elin

Actually, it is Paul who assumes it,
which is why he would rather die on the spot than continue living:

"I desire to depart and be with Christ which is better by far, but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." (Php 1:23-24)

You're grasping, Butch.

The Scriptures are clear that the human spirit is immortal.


Quote by JesusLives
1 Corinthians 15: 52-54

…52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.…

Elin my Bible must read different than your Bible as it says that this mortal must put on immortality and the it is written Death Is Swallowed Up in Victory. This does not happen until death is done away with in the very end. So until then we are mortal according to the texts above.

Yes, this promise of putting on immortality only applies to the saints who are raised incorruptible. Nothing like this ever happens for the damned or the wicked. Nowhere does it say the wicked will put on immortality.

 

[Jason0047]

You don't believe the Trinity is eternal because you don't believe the Son of God is eternal who has no beginning. In other words, you believe that God later became a Trinity. He wasn't always that way. But this is false. God does not change. At a point in time within the past, you deny the Trinity's existence. So I am not wrong.

Your God is progressive, which is unbiblical.

For in Genesis, God refers to Himself in the plural form. Jesus says He dwells in the Father and the Father dwells in Him. 1 John 5:7 says there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

 

[Jason0047]

Butch5, you also said Jesus is deity but He is not the supreme God. This is also a false view of the Trinity.

For you said, I quote:

"I agree that Jesus is deity. My argument is that He is the Son and not the Supreme God. Paul said, for us there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is God in the sense that He is of the same essence as God the Father. However, is not God the Father. The Father is ultimately supreme. Even when the Father subjected all things to the Son Paul said that the Father was exempted for that, meaning that the Father was not under Christ's authority." ~Butch5.​

In other words, there is a part of God who is not supreme or who is not God Almighty; Which does not make any sense because the Lord our God is one God. The Lord our God is Almighty. Yes, there is a subordination within the Trinity regarding order but not substance or essence. Jesus is the Almighty just as the Father is the Almighty. In Revelation 1:8, Jesus says He is the Almighty. That sounds pretty clear to me that He is Supreme. Jesus is also called the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Again, He sounds like a supreme God to me. Also, all judgment is given to the Son. Why would the Father who reigns supreme give Judgment to the Son? Yes, the Son obeys the Father, but this is the natural order of how the Trinity functions. No one person in the Trinity is lesser in importance than another. They are all one God who exists as three distinct persons.