Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]But we're not dealing with Greek paganism and Jewish philosophies aka personal opinions aka traditions of men, now are we? We, as Christians, don't have to fumble around in the dark trying to figure anything out, unlike Greek and Jewish philosophers who ignored the scriptures and presented their personal speculations instead. Our Creator provided us with his guidelines:his inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. So if a certain doctrine is not in the Bible, we must accept that it is nothing more than traditions of men; don't you think?

I believe I provided the proof. This is cultural background, only to prove that it made sense to Paul's audience, and the early Christians who assembled the Bible.

You never did answer my first question about why you got interested in such very specific matters. Now, I don't know, and it does not really matter, because as you say, we are here to discuss Scripture. But unless you do tell me, one option may be that someone you know has asked you some questions and you want our help to figure out how to get them closer to Jesus. People who are on the fence often do not benefit from the Bible without additional help. Such opinions are sometimes of benefit to such people. Read 2 Tim 3:16-17 very closely: scripture benefits the man of God. It does not say it benefits everyone.

At the worst, all it did was waste a few minutes to read and respond to. At best, it might have helped an unsaved person listen more closely to what you had to say.

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
Believing you presented proof and actually presenting proof are two entirely different things. At Post 2 on Page 1 of this thread, you presented a verse of scripture from the book of Revelations, which is a book in the Bible overrun with symbolic/figurative speech. Then to top it off, at Post 71 on Page 4 of this thread, you presented several verses from the gospels in which Jesus Christ was presenting parables/illustrations--none of which is literal.

The formula for all parables/illustrations is that they include symbolic/figurative speech. Symbolic language should never be taken at face value aka as literal because it has a deeper meaning. It is never literal.

Below, from Post 71 is your "proof" that hellfire torment is supposedly a Bible teaching. This "proof" consists of verses of scriptures that are taken from Jesus' parables/illustrations, which are not literal and are filled with symbolic language. Directly below is the weblink to Page 4 where you will find Post 71.

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/50569-bible-teachings-traditions-men-4.html

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
There are no scriptures anywhere in the Bible that speaks of literal fiery torment. You said Jesus spoke several times of eternal torment. Please provide a few examples of this and then explain why you feel he was speaking of literal fiery torment. The key word is "literal." Keep that in mind when you are quoting Jesus Christ.

All Scriptures below come from the mouth of Jesus:

Matt. 5:22, Matt. 18:9 , Mark 9:43, Mark 9:45, Mark 9;47 are several Scriptures that could cause confusion. They use the Greek word pur, which means fire, either literal or figurative. These Scriptures prove that either one or the other is waiting for people after death. Since the Greek word can mean either, they do not tell us which is meant with certainty.

Luke 16:23 uses the word "flame". Now this passage is only a story, so it does not prove the place exists. However, the use of the word "flame" shows that Jesus and probably most of the Jews understood which of the two meanings was meant by the other passages. If they accepted the story as reasonable, they must have thought it reasonable that the afterlife could have people in a place with flame that was hot.

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
Notice in my post within your quotation that I said "literal" fiery torment. I went so far as to underline the word "literal" so you wouldn't miss it. Yet and still, you responded by presenting gospel accounts in which Jesus Christ is using parables/illustrations.


QUESTION #2 to KENISYES: Since when did symbolic speech found within parables/illustration rise to the level of anything that is literal?

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- JIMMY DIGGS:
Again, this is not about what I or anybody else "believes." One's manner of worship should be based strictly upon what the Creator provides in his inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. So whenever you ask what I believe, I will always let the Bible answer your questions as this is not about me.


"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (Colossians 1:15 -- King James Version)


"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." (Colossians 1:15 -- New American Standard Bible)


DEFINITION OF "BORN": Born means having been given life.
Born | Easy to understand definition of born by Your Dictionary

You are misusing the term "firstborn" concerning it's usage in scripture.

Here are some examples from the NWT:

Psalm 89
20I have found David my servant;
With my holy oil I have anointed him,
21With whom my own hand will be firm,
Whom my own arm also will strengthen.

22No enemy will make exactions upon him,
Neither will any son of unrighteousness afflict him.

23And from before him I crushed his adversaries to pieces,
And to those intensely hating him I kept dealing out blows.

24And my faithfulness and my loving

‐kindness are with him,
And in my name his horn is exalted.

25And on the sea I have put his hand
And on the rivers his right hand.

26He himself calls out to me, ‘You are my Father,
My God and the Rock of my salvation.’

27Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn,
The most high of the kings of the earth.


Was David the first child of his parents? No.

ALTER2EGO -to- JIMMY DIGGS:
In case you didn't notice, I bolded, underlined, and used reverse color on the word "born" to indicate that that is the focus point. If you don't believe me, go back and take a look at my original response at Post 38, on Page 2 of this thread. Below is the weblink that will get you there quickly.
http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...le-teachings-traditions-men-2.html#post809517


In other words, semantics will get you nowhere. The word "born" is the issue here. The verse I quoted above from Colossians 1:15 clearly states that Jesus Christ is the firstBORN of all creation. For good measure, I gave the definition of the word "born".


BTW: You do understand the meaning of the words "all creation"; do you not? It means that out of everyone and everything that was created, the pre-human Jesus was the first of them all. In other words, the pre-human Jesus had a beginning. He was created by Almighty God YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh/Yehovah. That's what the Bible says at Colossians 1:15. Arguing with me over it will not change what the Bible says; now will it?

 

[Alter2Ego]

DEFINITION OF "BEGOTTEN": Begotten means something created something else or someone fathered a child.
Begotten | Easy to understand definition of begotten by Your Dictionary


"So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-BEGOTTEN son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth." (John 1:14 -- New World Translation)


"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only BEGOTTEN of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14 -- King James Version)

You are misusing the word "Begotten". You are taking a modern definition and placing it into a word that was not used with the modern definition in mind back in 1611. The usage of the word Begotten has continued to be used as a tradition of translation (using familiar phrases).

If you are going to argue that Jesus is the "only begotten" Son of God in the sense that "he is the only Son God has made for himself", then you are going to have to deny that Abraham had more than one son.

Here's why.

From the NWT.

Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up [his] only‐begotten [son],18although it had been said to him: “What will be called ‘your seed’ will be through Isaac.”19But he reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; and from there he did receive him also in an illustrative way.

Galatians 4:22 from the NWT
For example, it is written that Abraham acquired two sons, one by the servant girl and one by the free woman

Abraham sired two sons.

Jesus existed for eternity.

ALTER2EGO -to- JIMMY DIGGS:
Your argument is trumped by Colossians 1:15 which states Jesus Christ was "born" aka created aka begotten. We know he was literally the "firstborn" aka the very first of everything created by Almighty God YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh because Colossians chapter 1 goes on to expand on that, as follows.

"{15} He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; {16}because by means of him [Jesus] all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. {17} Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist." (Colossians 1:15-17 -- New World Translation)


"{15} The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. {16} For by him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether they are kings, lords, rulers, or powers. All things have been created through him and for him. {17} He himself existed before anything else did, and he holds all things together." (Colossians 1:15-17 -- International Standard Version)


"{15} Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, {16} for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see--such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him. {17} He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together." (Colossians 1:15-17 -- New Living Translation)



QUESTION #6 to JIMMY DIGGS: Since you claim "firstborn" as in all creation does not apply to Jesus, explain to this forum how the pre-human Jesus Christ could possibly have been the means through which Almighty God created all other things, as stated at Colossians 1:16?


In case you haven't figured it out, your argument about David and others not being literally the first son and that therefore Jesus Christ was not really the firstborn does not fly. The pre-human Jesus Christ had to have been literally the first of all God's creations in order for Colossians 1:16 to make logical sense. Not only that, Colossians 1:17 says point blank that the pre-human Jesus existed before everything else that was created.

 

[Alter2Ego]

DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL": Eternal means not having a beginning or an end.
Eternal | Easy to understand definition of eternal by Your Dictionary

QUESTION #4 to JIMMY DIGGS: According to Colossians 1:15 and John 1:14, did Jesus exist for eternity or was he created?

Jesus existed for eternity.

ALTER2EGO -to- JIMMY DIGGS:
The definition of "eternal" says the person has no beginning and no end. When Jesus died, his life ended, albeit temporarily. But the instant he died, he lost all claims to being eternal.

QUESTION #5 to JIMMY DIGGS: An eternal person cannot die. Didn't Jesus Christ literally die?

Yes, he died, but he did not cease to exist as a being.

Then he was physically raised:

ALTER2EGO -to- JIMMY DIGGS:
There is no such thing as "Yes, but" when it comes to being dead. Either the person is stone cold dead, or else the person is alive. There's no two ways about it. Dead means dead.


QUESTION #7 to JIMMY DIGGS: Since when did dead people continue to exist?


QUESTION #8 to JIMMY DIGGS: At death, a person's body aka their remains continue to exist perhaps, but the person's life force ceases; therefore, the person no longer exists. The Bible says Jesus Christ was dead for three days. Are you saying the Bible is lying?


QUESTION #9 to JIMMY DIGGS: The Bible distinctly says Jesus Christ was dead and that he was resurrected on the third day. Are you telling this forum that a living person was resurrected?

 

[chesser]

Just wondering...did the New World Translation remove:

the word Lord from these verses?

Matthew 13:51, Mark 9:24, Mark 11:10, Luke 9:57, Luke 23:42, Acts 7:30, Romans 1:3, Romans 6:11, 1 Corinthians 10:28, 1 Corinthians 15:47, 2 Corinthians 4:10, Galatians 6:17, Ephesians 3:14, Colossians 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:1, 1 Timothy 5:21, 2 Timothy 4:1, 2 John 1:3

And the word Jesus from these verses?:

Matthew 8:29, Matthew 16:20, Romans 1:3, Romans 15:8, 1 Corinthians 16:22, 2 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Corinthians 5:18, Galatians 6:15, Ephesians 3:9, Ephesians 3:14, Colossians 1:2, Colossians 1:28, 2 Timothy 4:22, 1 Peter 5:10, 1 Peter 5:14

And the word hell from these verse?:

Matthew 11:23, Matthew 16:18, Luke 10:15, Acts 2:31, Revelation 1:18, Revelation 6:8, Revelation 20:13, Revelation 20:14

And the word Christ from these verses?:

Luke 4:41, John 4:42, John 6:69, Acts 2:30, Acts 15:11, Acts 16:31, Acts 20:21, Romans 1:3, Romans 1:16, Romans 14:10, 1 Corinthians 5:4, 1 Corinthians 9:1, 1 Corinthians 16:22, 1 Corinthians 16:23, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Galatians 3:17, Galatians 4:7, Galatians 6:15, Ephesians 3:9, Ephesians 3:14, Philippians 4:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:19, 1 Thessalonians 3:11, 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 1 Timothy 2:7, 2 Timothy 4:22, Hebrews 3:1, 1 John 1:7, 1 John 4:3, Revelation 1:9, Revelation 12:17

And simply removed these verses?:

Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24

I'm no JW, but if you look at all the translations, many(mostly newer) versions do do that. Search the verses at Online Parallel Bible: Weaving God's Word into the Web and it will show you all the translations.

 

[chesser]

There is no such thing as "Yes, but" when it comes to being dead. Either the person is stone cold dead, or else the person is alive. There's no two ways about it. Dead means dead.

Ok, then what about Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison? 1 Peter 3:19-20

 

[kenisyes]

ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
Believing you presented proof and actually presenting proof are two entirely different things. At Post 2 on Page 1 of this thread, you presented a verse of scripture from the book of Revelations, which is a book in the Bible overrun with symbolic/figurative speech. Then to top it off, at Post 71 on Page 4 of this thread, you presented several verses from the gospels in which Jesus Christ was presenting parables/illustrations--none of which is literal.

The formula for all parables/illustrations is that they include symbolic/figurative speech. Symbolic language should never be taken at face value aka as literal because it has a deeper meaning. It is never literal.

Below, from Post 71 is your "proof" that hellfire torment is supposedly a Bible teaching. This "proof" consists of verses of scriptures that are taken from Jesus' parables/illustrations, which are not literal and are filled with symbolic language. Directly below is the weblink to Page 4 where you will find Post 71.

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/50569-bible-teachings-traditions-men-4.html



ALTER2EGO -to- KENISYES:
Notice in my post within your quotation that I said "literal" fiery torment. I went so far as to underline the word "literal" so you wouldn't miss it. Yet and still, you responded by presenting gospel accounts in which Jesus Christ is using parables/illustrations.


QUESTION #2 to KENISYES: Since when did symbolic speech found within parables/illustration rise to the level of anything that is literal?

The first five quotes are not from parables. They are from public sermons.

Yes, they are illustrations. They are illustrations of things that might make a person end up in the fires of hell.

In each of those five, Jesus states that there is hell-fire and some people could possibly end up there. He is advising them ways to avoid it. I can understand why you might feel the word "fire" is symbolic. Strong's Concordance is clear the the word used in all 5, "pur" could be either "real or symbolic". The quote from Luke is from a parable, therefore it does not prove literal fire. I gave it because what it does prove is that Jesus (who gave the parable) believes there is "flame" in hell. If He believes there is flame, then the other five Scriptures prove that He meant the word "pur" as fire capable of making flame. That is, real fire, not symbolic.

My first quote, from Revelation, was the closest statement to our idea of hell I could find. I can see why you do not believe that is literal, and I can accept that. In these five, Jesus is not giving a parable.

As I understand you now, you wish to dismiss these five on the theory that Jesus is merely using an illustration common to His listeners. If that is what you are thinking, it makes no sense. Jesus was preaching. He could have said "shall be in danger of hell" and stopped, or "be in danger of punishment after death", or many other things. In His teaching, He chose to use the word "fire of hell" or "hell fire". I can't understand where you are coming from saying these are anything but literal statements that hell-fire could be waiting for some people.

 

[angelofmercy]

I added numbers.

1. Scripture tells us the will of God. We each get different understandings because we are different. See #5.
2. I thought Jesus fulfills the law.
3. I don't know why people argue about such things. Maybe we should go every day?
4. But not from any of us who are not masters, I trust?
5. Or do we just see a diamond from different angles?
6. I'm saved, but I have to admit I see unsaved people. So why should I not see that God is also just and not just merciful?

If you really believe this, I ask again, why are you here? If you really know what you need without other people telling you, and think we are argumentative and not loving, what do you get out of it? If you can answer this for me, then perhaps we can move closer to understanding each other. Our disagreements seem to center on a desire to get different things from this forum.

I am come beloved to witness to the truth. And because I love you all so very much. Here I gain nothing as I count all as a loss to gain Christ.

1. People are not of the same mind and judgement because of pride. The will of God is to save ALL, correct? That will being carried out by Jesus. What man can stop this from happening?

2. Jesus did indeed fulfill the law, but like a race in where only one receives the crown, the other racers still complete the race. You remember the olympics some years back when then Ben Johnson was the fastest man on the planet and he wore gold running shoes? He won his races by what seemed miles compared to the other runners, BUT STILL THEY RAN TO FINISH. Jesus is our Ben Johnson, but we still must finish the race.

3. They argue because they twist scripture to fit their own agendas. He is LORD everyday of the week.

4. Everyone is not a master, but in being wise in their own eyes, they attempt it nonetheless.

5. This treasure of mine, if you were to find it, you too will sell all you have.

6. ALL belong to God, but in this evil day, all do not belong to Christ! We must be baptized into His death. God's justice and mercy meet at the cross. He declared ALL OF US in unbelief so that HE CAN HAVE MERCY ON ALL. This is seen in our deaths. Saturday church goers meet there end in the grave! So does sunday worshipers, pork eaters, vegetarians, christians, muslims, hindus, buddhists, blacks, whites, males, females, etc... You see where I'm going with this. Read about the law of the kinsman redeemer and that of jubilee. This is how the resurrection works with those being redeemed are they which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, and everyone else what you would deem "unsaved".

Remember beloved, for the truth of God (that all will be saved), LET EVERY MAN BE A LIAR!

 

[Bea22]

My respnose to this thread and question:

Trinity

The Bible makes it quite clear who Almighty God is, if you asked any christian on hear who God is 99 outta 100 of them will say its the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If you ask them whom we should be worshiping they'll also tell you "your meant to worship God" aka Father Son and Spirit But Jesus made it quite clear who we should be Worship.

(Luke 4:8) In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

Christians unknowingly go against Jesus own words!!

Look also what Jesus said Here (John 17:1,3) “..Jesus spoke these things...he said: “Father (Jehovah)...This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God..”

Here Jesus refers to the Father Jehovah as the "ONLY" true God, it would be contradictory for Jesus to be God, the Holy Spirit to be God but then the Father to be the ONLY true God, so its evedent that the Bible doesn't teach a trinty.

Its clear of Jesus origins as the Bible says this about him, (Revelation 3:14) “..These are the things that the Amen (Jesus) says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."

Jesus was blatantly created by Jehovah who created all things - Hebrews 3:4

So then, according to you, Jesus was just a creation / man and not God?

 

[weakness]

So then, according to you, Jesus was just a creation / man and not God?

The priesthood of Melchizedek .Heb;7:2 Speaks of him"first of all by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that king of Salem, which is King of peace.3 without father without mother,without decent ,neither having beginning of days or end of life; but made like unto the son of God: abideth a priest continual Who is made not after the law of carnal commandment ,but after the power of an endless life. Prov;22 the lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.23 I was set up from everlasting,30 Then I was by him,as one brought up with him I was daily his delight,rejoicing always before him, Doesn't sound like Jesus(speaking here) was created ,but always was with the father

 

[weakness]

ALTER2EGO -to- GRANDPA:
Something cannot be symbolic and literal at the same time. Just because that's what you choose to believe, that does not make it so in the real world.

For instance, the statement "I did a killing in on Wall Street" is symbolic/figurative speech. It means the investor got a good cash return for his or her investment in the stock market. If one were to take the words "a killing in on Wall Street " at face value, it would literally mean someone got murdered on the literal Wall Street.

Symbolic language is representative of something else and cannot be taken at face value. However, if it makes you feel good to apply literal meanings to figurative speech in the Judeo-Christian Bible, be my guest.

Scripture is almost always literal and symbolic at the same time else how could we get the symbolic or spiritual meaning if the literal isn't true. actually the spiritual may have many multifaceted meaning, but all true and non opposing. but these are things of the office of a prophet, not the gift of prophesy.and usually not meant to be rambled out as a talebearer revealeth secrets ,but used in intercession and ministering to the lord . And especially not to sell a new book as most of the "enlightened" do ,making merchandise of you.God told Danial to seal up the words of the prophesy till the end. and that knowledge would increase and many would run to and fro.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

ALTER2EGO -to- JIMMY DIGGS:
The definition of "eternal" says the person has no beginning and no end. When Jesus died, his life ended, albeit temporarily. But the instant he died, he lost all claims to being eternal.



ALTER2EGO -to- JIMMY DIGGS:
There is no such thing as "Yes, but" when it comes to being dead. Either the person is stone cold dead, or else the person is alive. There's no two ways about it. Dead means dead.


QUESTION #7 to JIMMY DIGGS: Since when did dead people continue to exist?


QUESTION #8 to JIMMY DIGGS: At death, a person's body aka their remains continue to exist perhaps, but the person's life force ceases; therefore, the person no longer exists. The Bible says Jesus Christ was dead for three days. Are you saying the Bible is lying?


QUESTION #9 to JIMMY DIGGS: The Bible distinctly says Jesus Christ was dead and that he was resurrected on the third day. Are you telling this forum that a living person was resurrected?

Behind the arguments of various proponents of the of annihilationism, one finds the assumption that life and existence are synonymous terms. In light of the central role that this assumption plays in the arguments put forward by annihilationists, we must ask: Is it really the case that life and existence are synonymous terms?

While you concede that this assumption helps explain how it is that an annihilationist can equate death with nonexistence, as the assumption is logically incoherent and without biblical foundation it is an assumption that I am under obligation to reject. For if the Scriptures are the very Word of God, then they are Truth; and if they are Truth, then they are necessarily free of any logical incoherence whatsoever; and if they are free of any logical incoherence whatsoever, then they are free of logically incoherent assumptions; and if they are free of logically incoherent assumptions, then they are free of the logically incoherent assumption that life and existence are synonymous. Thus, prior to examining the Scriptures I am under obligation to reject the assumption that life and existence are synonymous terms. As we turn to the Scriptures, however, we will see that they explicitly contradict the assumption that life and existence are synonymous terms.

Let us begin by stating a very simple proposition, viz.: Existence is not a predicate. It is logically impossible to predicate non-existence of a logical subject, for that logical subject must already be in order for one to have anything predicated of it. To simplify what I am saying here, take the proposition “John exists.” The statement does not tell us anything about John. What does it mean for John to have existence? Could John have non-existence? Would this not be equivalent to saying, “This existent thing has the quality of not-existing”? This is a clear contradiction and, therefore, a false statement. It is impossible for an existent thing to have the quality of not-existing. Therefore, any proposition that predicates non-existence of a logical subject is a self-contradictory proposition and, ipsofacto, false. Thus, it is not possible for death to be synonymous with non-existence, for death is predicable of logical subjects, whereas non-existence is not. Likewise, it is not possible for life to be synonymous with existence, for life is predicable of a logical subject, whereas existence is not a predicate. Life and Death, then, cannot be synonymous with existence and non-existence, for whereas lifeand death are predicable of existing things, to state that “A exists” is a tautology, and to say that “A does not exist” is a contradiction. This shows us the logically incoherent nature of the assumption that life and existence are synonymous terms and, conversely, that death and non-existence are also synonymous terms.

Firstly, let us turn to the creation of man in Genesis 2, “...the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground.” And by this we know with certainty that there was a creature named Adam whom God had made. However, what is of importance to note here is that there is a particular man Adam, but he is neither alive nor dead. For in the first place, the Word tells us that the Lord God “...breathed into [man's] nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature;” and in the second place, we are told by God that “...sin came into the world through [Adam], and death through sin...” Thus, prior to the Lord God breathing the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, Adam was not alive, for the breath of God imparted life to him; nor was Adam dead, for sin brought about death and sin can only be committed by already living beings. Adam was neither alive nor dead, he simply was. The Scriptures refute the annihilationist assumption, again, in that they show quite clearly that life and death, as they are only predicable of logical subjects (like Adam, for instance), cannot be synonymous terms for existence and non-existence.

 

[loveme1]

loveme1 to ALTER2EGO


Where did you learn your beliefs?

 

[Abiding]

Behind the arguments of various proponents of the of annihilationism, one finds the assumption that life and existence are synonymous terms. In light of the central role that this assumption plays in the arguments put forward by annihilationists, we must ask: Is it really the case that life and existence are synonymous terms?

While you concede that this assumption helps explain how it is that an annihilationist can equate death with nonexistence, as the assumption is logically incoherent and without biblical foundation it is an assumption that I am under obligation to reject. For if the Scriptures are the very Word of God, then they are Truth; and if they are Truth, then they are necessarily free of any logical incoherence whatsoever; and if they are free of any logical incoherence whatsoever, then they are free of logically incoherent assumptions; and if they are free of logically incoherent assumptions, then they are free of the logically incoherent assumption that life and existence are synonymous. Thus, prior to examining the Scriptures I am under obligation to reject the assumption that life and existence are synonymous terms. As we turn to the Scriptures, however, we will see that they explicitly contradict the assumption that life and existence are synonymous terms.

Let us begin by stating a very simple proposition, viz.: Existence is not a predicate. It is logically impossible to predicate non-existence of a logical subject, for that logical subject must already be in order for one to have anything predicated of it. To simplify what I am saying here, take the proposition “John exists.” The statement does not tell us anything about John. What does it mean for John to have existence? Could John have non-existence? Would this not be equivalent to saying, “This existent thing has the quality of not-existing”? This is a clear contradiction and, therefore, a false statement. It is impossible for an existent thing to have the quality of not-existing. Therefore, any proposition that predicates non-existence of a logical subject is a self-contradictory proposition and, ipsofacto, false. Thus, it is not possible for death to be synonymous with non-existence, for death is predicable of logical subjects, whereas non-existence is not. Likewise, it is not possible for life to be synonymous with existence, for life is predicable of a logical subject, whereas existence is not a predicate. Life and Death, then, cannot be synonymous with existence and non-existence, for whereas lifeand death are predicable of existing things, to state that “A exists” is a tautology, and to say that “A does not exist” is a contradiction. This shows us the logically incoherent nature of the assumption that life and existence are synonymous terms and, conversely, that death and non-existence are also synonymous terms.

Firstly, let us turn to the creation of man in Genesis 2, “...the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground.” And by this we know with certainty that there was a creature named Adam whom God had made. However, what is of importance to note here is that there is a particular man Adam, but he is neither alive nor dead. For in the first place, the Word tells us that the Lord God “...breathed into [man's] nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature;” and in the second place, we are told by God that “...sin came into the world through [Adam], and death through sin...” Thus, prior to the Lord God breathing the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, Adam was not alive, for the breath of God imparted life to him; nor was Adam dead, for sin brought about death and sin can only be committed by already living beings. Adam was neither alive nor dead, he simply was. The Scriptures refute the annihilationist assumption, again, in that they show quite clearly that life and death, as they are only predicable of logical subjects (like Adam, for instance), cannot be synonymous terms for existence and non-existence.

Seemed as enjoyable as a page from Thomas Equanis.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Seemed as enjoyable as a page from Thomas Equanis.

There will be a part two to this post that will be available later during the day, which will be entitled, "Death is Not Equal to Lifelessness."

 

[psychomom]

There will be a part two to this post that will be available later during the day, which will be entitled, "Death is Not Equal to Lifelessness."

Tenterhooks are not comfortable, and so I hope it won't be too long.
-ellie

 

[NWL]

So then, according to you, Jesus was just a creation / man and not God?

Let scripture answer that question for you.

(Hebrews 3:4, Rev 3:14) "..Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.."

So if Jesus was created part of creation then how can he be God, since it's God that created all things. Its contradictory for Jesus to be God and yet part of creation.

Scriptures that Indicate Jesus is created are below, remember that God has no beginning, only things that are created have a beginning.

(Revelation 3:14) “..These are the things that the Amen [Jesus] says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."

(Micah 5:2) “..And you, O Beth′le·hem.. from you there will come out to me the one [Jesus] who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.."

(Colossians 1:15) "..He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."

(Proverbs 8:22) “..Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.."

Even John 1:1 supports Jesus being created, it says "..In [the] beginning the Word was..", remember Almighty God wasn't created so had no beginning, but here Jesus clearly does.

 

[weakness]

(1) The issue of this entire post is that you're guilty of anarchronism. You are applying 21st century English definitions to an ancient language.

(2) When Paul speaks of Christ as the “Firstborn,” he is not depicting Christ as the first-created of God’s created order. Of course, “Firstborn,” as it is used throughout the Old Testament is often used in reference to the preeminence of an individual, and is clearly seen in the highly Messianic Psalm, in which David (who here is a typification of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ), the youngest amongst the sons of Jesse (1 Samuel 16.11-13), is described and appointed as God’s “firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89.27). It is Christ, as the Son of God, who is the “Firstborn” in the sense that He is the “heir” of all things, for everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son (John 16.15, 17.10). As the “firstborn” is the heir to all of his father’s estate, so too is Christ the heir of all the Heavenly Father’s estate, namely, all of creation (Colossians 1.15, Hebrews 1.2, Psalm 2.7-8), and the overall context of Colossians really does demand this view.

Sure, we could discuss partitive genitives (“one of the students of the class”), genitives of subordination (“King over Israel”), and its correlative analogous genitive (“King of Israel”), but instead I’d like to direct attention to the preposition found in v. 16, ὅτι (“He is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation, because…”). The reason for Christ being called the “Firstborn of all creation” is “because all things were made in Him… through Him… and for Him.” This statement of course makes little or no sense if πρωτότοκος here means something in the sense of “first-created,” and/or if the phrase “Firstborn of all creation” is taken as a partitive genitive. How is it that Christ is the first-created of all creation, because all things were created in, through, and for Him? However, when considering the Orthodox interpretation of this passage this makes much better sense, fits the overall context, and is consistent with the testimony of Scripture: Christ is the Firstborn, the heir of all creation, because all things were created in Him, through Him, and for Him.

(3) Should the apostles had thought the Word was some part of the created order sometime before the incarnation as Arians espouse then the prologue of John would have been the place to say it. John could have easily wrote, “All other things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing else came into being that has come into being.” However, call attention to v. 3,

“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”
​

Contemplate here for a moment on John’s words, because their import is indeed striking. Everything that was created; everything that had a starting point in time; everything that has come into existence… all things that “came into being” did so through, or by means of the Word. These are not words that describe a created being, these are words that describe the active, and eternal agent of creation. The Logos is not here identified as one that “came into being,” but the One through whom all things that have “come into being” have their existence .

Even without applying 21st century definitions I find these definitions very different from my dictionary.

 

[kenisyes]

I am come beloved to witness to the truth. And because I love you all so very much. Here I gain nothing as I count all as a loss to gain Christ.

1. People are not of the same mind and judgement because of pride. The will of God is to save ALL, correct? That will being carried out by Jesus. What man can stop this from happening?

2. Jesus did indeed fulfill the law, but like a race in where only one receives the crown, the other racers still complete the race. You remember the olympics some years back when then Ben Johnson was the fastest man on the planet and he wore gold running shoes? He won his races by what seemed miles compared to the other runners, BUT STILL THEY RAN TO FINISH. Jesus is our Ben Johnson, but we still must finish the race.

3. They argue because they twist scripture to fit their own agendas. He is LORD everyday of the week.

4. Everyone is not a master, but in being wise in their own eyes, they attempt it nonetheless.

5. This treasure of mine, if you were to find it, you too will sell all you have.

6. ALL belong to God, but in this evil day, all do not belong to Christ! We must be baptized into His death. God's justice and mercy meet at the cross. He declared ALL OF US in unbelief so that HE CAN HAVE MERCY ON ALL. This is seen in our deaths. Saturday church goers meet there end in the grave! So does sunday worshipers, pork eaters, vegetarians, christians, muslims, hindus, buddhists, blacks, whites, males, females, etc... You see where I'm going with this. Read about the law of the kinsman redeemer and that of jubilee. This is how the resurrection works with those being redeemed are they which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, and everyone else what you would deem "unsaved".

Remember beloved, for the truth of God (that all will be saved), LET EVERY MAN BE A LIAR!

Your points in 1,3 and 4 may be true of some, but not necessarily of all. God is too big for any one person. We might just be sharing different perspectives.

1. Any man can stop God's plan of salvation for himself. All He has to do is refuse Jesus' invitation.

2. I agree. Neither I nor you have finished the race. If you break a shoelace and I have an extra one, I will share. Is it okay if mine is the wrong color for your shoe?

3. I would rather assume they have not yet gotten to that part of the race yet.

4. Have you ever met someone who actually is a master? If so, how did you know? If not, how would you know if you did?

5. I sold all I had a long time ago. I have found a lot of treasure. Far too much to assume that it is only things I personally can see.

6. Agreed, but all still rise and are judged. And all rise incorruptible, so they cannot die again. They have to go somewhere.

 

[angelofmercy]

Your points in 1,3 and 4 may be true of some, but not necessarily of all. God is too big for any one person. We might just be sharing different perspectives.

1. Any man can stop God's plan of salvation for himself. All He has to do is refuse Jesus' invitation.

2. I agree. Neither I nor you have finished the race. If you break a shoelace and I have an extra one, I will share. Is it okay if mine is the wrong color for your shoe?

3. I would rather assume they have not yet gotten to that part of the race yet.

4. Have you ever met someone who actually is a master? If so, how did you know? If not, how would you know if you did?

5. I sold all I had a long time ago. I have found a lot of treasure. Far too much to assume that it is only things I personally can see.

6. Agreed, but all still rise and are judged. And all rise incorruptible, so they cannot die again. They have to go somewhere.

1. If NO MAN CAN TAKE ANYTHING OUT OF JESUS' HANDS, then why believe someone CAN REMOVE THEMSELVES??? Just BELIEVE Him beloved!

2. Sure, lol.

3. They are babes in Christ and think as carnal men.

4. All things are lawful unto me, and I judge all things but am judged by no man.

5. Have you? I tell you to give up your gains accumulated by the LAW. Give them to the poor (murders and thieves and anyone else you see "unsaved") and you will store treasure in heaven!

6. Judgement is used for CORRECTION beloved, not anything else.