What will happen to earth after Armageddon?

Excelsior

HH- I think everything in Christianity relates back to Grace


Off topic but worthwhile nonetheless....
And wolfsbane- while we may disagree on Genesis 1, it has to be said that you are a mighty fine defender of the Scriptures. Keep running the race sir!

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime said:

What Jesus said is what historic Christianity has said, in all its various brands. Whether they are Premillenial, Postmillenial, or Amillenial, they all end up with the meek inheriting the earth. It is of course the new earth, not the present corrupted one.

Actually, I wouldn't say that. In all my time, I've only heard people talk of your spirit going to heaven or hell (or the awful doctrine of purgatory). Earth was never discussed.

I'm separating Gehenna from Hades. The confusion comes from our English word hell being used of several things. Gehenna is: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1164058369-7363.html
This is the place Christ warns of in:
Luke 12:4 “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!

From Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, in which he keeps hell to properly refer only to Gehenna:

For our discussion, Hades and Gehenna are the two places involved. Presently all the wicked dead are in Hades awaiting the Judgement. After the Judgement, all the occupants of Hades are cast into Gehenna:
Revelation 20:13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

So where was Jesus for the 3 days?

The symbolic representation of the total number of the elect Jews? Certainly there is much to learn, and we need to be aware of the possibility of 'baggage' when we come to interpretating Scripture. But that does not mean that most of what we know is suspect. It is fairly clear and well-thought through.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the 144,000 means the number of elect Jews? And what do you mean by 'elect' jews?

The picture of the New Jerusalem is symbolic of the Church, that much is evident. The elect of God, made up of the faithful of both Old and New Testament ages, represented by the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles

How is it evident? Are you speaking about 'the church' being all denominations of Christendom, or one in particular?

And just to be clear. I do understand that we don't have to throw out everything we know, but I find much corruption in the world of christendom. I try throw out the bathwater and keep the baby, so I do thread carefully. I look around at the people who just say, 'look what religion has caused', 'the wars, the oppression'. Those same people in turn shut their minds to the thought of God. I then see the crusades, the troubles in Northern Ireland (while I accept that it is republican and unionist, Religious groups have not helped, and certainly not been Christian), the oppressive rule of the RC Church among others, and think, 'One of the biggest contributors to the stumbling of people is the corruption of God through the world of christendom'. As I said before, and this is not up for debate with me as my conclusions are solid, Hell, the trinity and the bible being the literal 'Word of God' for me are corruptions. I know that these are things that most would dis-agree with me on, and even deride me as not being a 'proper' christian for not believing, but there in lies the extent of the corruption. This principal that I work from is the same principal that stops me quoting scientists which are for or against creation. I don't know them, or the science, so why would I trust them?

BrianCalgary

Medina wrote:

Can you post the verse where Jesus informs someone of this please?

JimiTime wrote:

So where was Jesus for the 3 days?

Ephesians 4:9-10
What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote:

Actually, I wouldn't say that. In all my time, I've only heard people talk of your spirit going to heaven or hell (or the awful doctrine of purgatory). Earth was never discussed.

Probably because the emphasis is put on being reconciled to God and communion with Him for eternity. Whether or not Earth is involved is pretty minor.

JimiTime wrote:

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the 144,000 means the number of elect Jews? And what do you mean by 'elect' jews?

Revelation 7:4-8
4Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
5From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
6from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
7from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
8from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

It is pretty clear that they come from the tribes of Israel and have been elected by God for a particular purpose.

JimiTime wrote:

As I said before, and this is not up for debate with me as my conclusions are solid, Hell, the trinity and the bible being the literal 'Word of God' for me are corruptions.

Where can you garner the support that these doctrines are corrupted?

Medina

Just to throw something into the mix, in Genesis 8 the following verse is to be found:

20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

22 "As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."


This doesn't really tally with the 'end of the world' we're told of.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote:

Probably because the emphasis is put on being reconciled to God and communion with Him for eternity. Whether or not Earth is involved is pretty minor.

Not really that minor when you consider that most people believe they'll be floating off to heaven. Why is that doctrine never corrected or clarified. If what you are saying is true, then you should not be preaching that the good go to heaven, for you don't know.

Revelation 7:4-8
4Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
5From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
6from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
7from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
8from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

It is pretty clear that they come from the tribes of Israel and have been elected by God for a particular purpose.

Once again Brian, I thank you for that clarification.

Where can you garner the support that these doctrines are corrupted?

From the same source that you would use to prove them. No satisfactory answer has been given on hell or the trinity in any thread. I have the distinct advantage that I'm not tied to the doctrines, because I'm not a member of an organisation that says I must follow this or that. I am completely free to read the bible with an open heart and mind. Free to question what I feel needs to be questioned and have nobody but God to answer to. The consequences for you discovering the doctrine of hellfire or the trinity to be false is that you will not be able to be part of your organisation. That is a huge barrier, and one that I'm happy to say I'm free of. I have no human go-between. I talk to God through his Son, and read the bible testimonies. I talk to others like yourselves to get your insights. Sometimes they help me see error in my thought, sometimes they show me the error in yours. If you see the trinity and hellfire discussions in the dogma and truth thread you'll see what I've said and shown. I assure you, these doctrines are most certainly false, but don't take my word for it, read the bible accounts with an open heart and you'll see it also. Then again, if you believe as many do, that without a belief in the trinity I'm not a real Christian, my words will mean nothing. The threat of heracy rang loud at the first council of nicea in relation to the trinity. A tree will be known by its fruit. the catholic church were certainly far from Christian in both behaviour and doctrine, so maybe it was those who didn't give into the threats that should be remembered as the real Christians. Just some food for thought.

Medina

BrianCalgary wrote:

Ephesians 4:9-10
What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.

Hi Brian,
Ephesians is written by Paul, who never met Jesus and only met Peter later in his life. Also it refers to ascending to 'earthly' regions, not hell.

Now if you can explain to me why Jesus would not refer to this during his lifetime himself, nor told the apostles when he reappeared after his death, then that might be a bit more convincing.

All the work, all the detail, all the information etc that Jesus took great pains to teach and tell the apostles and he didn't mention this??

Not sure I can believe 'it just wasn't important enough'.
And whats more, because Jesus didn't refer to it himself, I find it strange that the church would take someone else's word for such an important event that it is part of the creed and at the same time manipulate what he's saying.

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

Hi Brian,
Ephesians is written by Paul, who never met Jesus and only met Peter later in his life. Also it refers to ascending to 'earthly' regions, not hell.

Now if you can explain to me why Jesus would not refer to this during his lifetime himself, nor told the apostles when he reappeared after his death, then that might be a bit more convincing.

All the work, all the detail, all the information etc that Jesus took great pains to teach and tell the apostles and he didn't mention this??

Not sure I can believe 'it just wasn't important enough'.
And whats more, because Jesus didn't refer to it himself, I find it strange that the church would take someone else's word for such an important event that it is part of the creed and at the same time manipulate what he's saying.

Hi medina, I know this is between you and Brian, but could I just get some clarity on what you're saying? Are you arguing that Jesus didn't die and then rise again after 3 days, and then later ascend to heaven? Sorry, I'm just not getting the question you're asking.

BrianCalgary

Medina wrote:

Hi Brian,
Ephesians is written by Paul, who never met Jesus and only met Peter later in his life. Also it refers to ascending to 'earthly' regions, not hell.

Now if you can explain to me why Jesus would not refer to this during his lifetime himself, nor told the apostles when he reappeared after his death, then that might be a bit more convincing.

All the work, all the detail, all the information etc that Jesus took great pains to teach and tell the apostles and he didn't mention this??

Not sure I can believe 'it just wasn't important enough'.
And whats more, because Jesus didn't refer to it himself, I find it strange that the church would take someone else's word for such an important event that it is part of the creed and at the same time manipulate what he's saying.

Thanks for the questions Medina

There have always been two lines in teh Apostles creed that have bothered me. This and 'one baptism for the remission of sin'. (That is another discussion though.)

So i don't necessarily buy into the descent to the dead, or Hell or Hades, depending on your translation.

There are two passages that refer to it, the aforementioned Ephesians and

1 Peter 3:18-20:
18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

Apparently the line in the creed didn't appear until AD390.

The line in 1 Peter could indicate that Jesus went to the part of hades that held the good folk as described in His parable Luke 16:19-31, and took all with Him to Paradise as also promised to the thief on the cross.

In the end analysis I think that I will hold to the view that Jesus went and got the souls from that part of Hades and took them to Heaven.

Here is a link to a decent article:
http://www.girs.com/library/theology/descnd.html

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote:

Not really that minor when you consider that most people believe they'll be floating off to heaven. Why is that doctrine never corrected or clarified. If what you are saying is true, then you should not be preaching that the good go to heaven, for you don't know.

Heaven is a state where one is in complete communion with God. So I will continue to preach it.

JimiTime wrote:

Once again Brian, I thank you for that clarification..

My pleasure.

JimiTime wrote:

From the same source that you would use to prove them. No satisfactory answer has been given on hell or the trinity in any thread. I have the distinct advantage that I'm not tied to the doctrines, because I'm not a member of an organisation that says I must follow this or that. I am completely free to read the bible with an open heart and mind. Free to question what I feel needs to be questioned and have nobody but God to answer to. The consequences for you discovering the doctrine of hellfire or the trinity to be false is that you will not be able to be part of your organisation. That is a huge barrier, and one that I'm happy to say I'm free of..

I am also not tied to any one denomination. I go to the church of my choice, I am a member because I have read and agreed with their statement of faith and it also allows me to grow in my relationship to Christ and to use the gifts that God has given me, through His spirit to advance His kingdom.
If the denomination made a doctrinal change that they couldn't answer for biblically I would leave. I am also free to read my bible and through friends and others even on thsi board who have great questions I delve into the word to continually discover more about my God. We are also encouraged to ask questions of any church leader on any topic.

JimiTime wrote:

I have no human go-between. I talk to God through his Son, and read the bible testimonies. I talk to others like yourselves to get your insights. Sometimes they help me see error in my thought, sometimes they show me the error in yours. If you see the trinity and hellfire discussions in the dogma and truth thread you'll see what I've said and shown. I assure you, these doctrines are most certainly false, but don't take my word for it, read the bible accounts with an open heart and you'll see it also. Then again, if you believe as many do, that without a belief in the trinity I'm not a real Christian, my words will mean nothing. The threat of heracy rang loud at the first council of nicea in relation to the trinity. A tree will be known by its fruit. the catholic church were certainly far from Christian in both behaviour and doctrine, so maybe it was those who didn't give into the threats that should be remembered as the real Christians. Just some food for thought.

I also chat with God directly, through Christ, He says that the only way to the Father is through Him.

The RC church does some some doctrine that is not biblical, but one can find salvation through that organisation.

A link to the denomination of my church and it's staement of faith and verses to support the statements:
http://cmalliance.ca/statementoffaithp86.php

Medina

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the end analysis I think that I will hold to the view that Jesus went and got the souls from that part of Hades and took them to Heaven.

Thats really sweet Brian

I don't believe he went down there at all, but if he did, then i hope thats why.

You piss me off so much sometimes as I know I do you, and sometimes you come out with complete gems like this

BrianCalgary

Medina wrote:

Thats really sweet Brian

I don't believe he went down there at all, but if he did, then i hope thats why.

You piss me off so much sometimes as I know I do you, and sometimes you come out with complete gems like this

A little lost here. Why would this piss you off, and in light of 1 Peter 3:18-20, how would you interpret the meaning of the passage?

And no, you don't piss me off, frustrate periodically, but not piss off.:)

Medina

This didn't piss me off, but you have in the past

I think your bouyant optimism and hope comes through very strongly sometimes, particularly here!

And its nice

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote:

Thanks for the questions Medina

There have always been two lines in teh Apostles creed that have bothered me. This and 'one baptism for the remission of sin'. (That is another discussion though.)

So i don't necessarily buy into the descent to the dead, or Hell or Hades, depending on your translation.

There are two passages that refer to it, the aforementioned Ephesians and

1 Peter 3:18-20:
18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

Apparently the line in the creed didn't appear until AD390.

The line in 1 Peter could indicate that Jesus went to the part of hades that held the good folk as described in His parable Luke 16:19-31, and took all with Him to Paradise as also promised to the thief on the cross.

In the end analysis I think that I will hold to the view that Jesus went and got the souls from that part of Hades and took them to Heaven.

Here is a link to a decent article:
http://www.girs.com/library/theology/descnd.html

If i may draw your attention to something here Brian. You say that these things don't sit right with you. Why don't they? Because you believe Jesus is God, and that Hell, Hades etc is a place for the wicked or those on remand as its been described by wolfsbane. So if in fact Jesus was 'not' God but the only begotten son of God, 'and' if hell referred to the grave, i.e. the dead are dead until the resurection, there would not be a conflict! I said it before, a lie leads to another lie to cover the first one and so on and so on. This happens with the trinity and the doctrine of hellfire. No meandering is needed when these doctrines are thrown out. No confusion, no meandering, just sense and knowledge of our Sovreign Creator.

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote:

If i may draw your attention to something here Brian. You say that these things don't sit right with you. Why don't they? Because you believe Jesus is God, and that Hell, Hades etc is a place for the wicked or those on remand as its been described by wolfsbane. So if in fact Jesus was 'not' God but the only begotten son of God, 'and' if hell referred to the grave, i.e. the dead are dead until the resurection, there would not be a conflict! I said it before, a lie leads to another lie to cover the first one and so on and so on. This happens with the trinity and the doctrine of hellfire. No meandering is needed when these doctrines are thrown out. No confusion, no meandering, just sense and knowledge of our Sovreign Creator.

Way off target here Jimitime.

It doesn't sit well because the biblical references are so vague.

To set things straight: Jesus is God become man. He holds the nature of both at the same time and is fully God and fully man.

He died to take our sins on debt upon Himself. He went to the good side of Hades, populated by the righteous, such as Lazarus and took them to Paradise with Him. (This is where the Bible is vague.)

When we die we go to be with God we have already been judged and found to be righteous as a result of Christs action on the cross.

In the end there is a new Heaven and Earth, to be enjoyed by those who have been saved, through Christ.

Those who are in Hades (only the bad side exists at this time) are then judged on their works. They are found wanting and then are given an eternity without God, which is described as a lake of fire.

Everything that I have just stated is Biblical. The only reason that I am uncomfortable with the phrase 'descended to the dead' is because any passage used to defend this position is vague. I accept it now based on Ephesians 4 and 1 Peter 3 but if anyone can show me different I will be right there with you.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote:

Heaven is a state where one is in complete communion with God. So I will continue to preach it.

So if you are good and have faith, you don't go to a 'place' called heaven? Again forgive me if I'm not getting it, but it seems vague. The common meaning people say is that Heaven is Gods dwelling place, and the good go there when they die. Is it a place or a state of being? If its a state of being, where does it occur?

I am also not tied to any one denomination. I go to the church of my choice, I am a member because I have read and agreed with their statement of faith and it also allows me to grow in my relationship to Christ and to use the gifts that God has given me, through His spirit to advance His kingdom.
If the denomination made a doctrinal change that they couldn't answer for biblically I would leave. I am also free to read my bible and through friends and others even on thsi board who have great questions I delve into the word to continually discover more about my God. We are also encouraged to ask questions of any church leader on any topic.

Fair enough, I take your word on that. As for being free to read the bible. I can tell you right now that you are not. Your mind is in a cage of doctrine, which crushes reason and plants thought in your head. I am speaking from experience here. You will not even realise it. You could read the same scripture everyday for a year and believe it means one thing, you don't even give it a second thought because you have already settled into your doctrine. It controls your sense and reason, without you even knowing it. Only when your eyes are opened, you realise what the scripture actually means. Again, I can only hope that this does not fall on deaf ears. In the past it was me who was deaf with my own certainty, thank God those days are gone and I am healing. God be praised, Amen.

I also chat with God directly, through Christ, He says that the only way to the Father is through Him.

I hope you didn't think I implied that you didn't. Just to draw on what you said here though, You chat to God through Christ. Then you say the only way to the 'Father' is through Christ. Think about it, trinity doctrine, making sense??

The RC church does some some doctrine that is not biblical, but one can find salvation through that organisation.

Yes, one can find Jesus through RC, but it sends people to spiritual sleep. Also, Mary worship, transubstantiation, the papacy among others. one cannot serve 2 masters, either you adhere to the RC teaching or to the truth, you cannot have both as they are in direct conflict. In fact its probably the biggest converter to non-christian faiths due to their inherrent teachings.

God is our almighty creator, Jesus is his only begotten Son who died as a ransom for Adams sin, reconsiling man to God. He made Gods name manifest and ascended to heaven to be our King. God be praised through his Son Jesus Christ Amen.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote:

Way off target here Jimitime.

It doesn't sit well because the biblical references are so vague.

To set things straight: Jesus is God become man. He holds the nature of both at the same time and is fully God and fully man.

He died to take our sins on debt upon Himself. He went to the good side of Hades, populated by the righteous, such as Lazarus and took them to Paradise with Him. (This is where the Bible is vague.)

When we die we go to be with God we have already been judged and found to be righteous as a result of Christs action on the cross.

In the end there is a new Heaven and Earth, to be enjoyed by those who have been saved, through Christ.

Those who are in Hades (only the bad side exists at this time) are then judged on their works. They are found wanting and then are given an eternity without God, which is described as a lake of fire.

Everything that I have just stated is Biblical. The only reason that I am uncomfortable with the phrase 'descended to the dead' is because any passage used to defend this position is vague. I accept it now based on Ephesians 4 and 1 Peter 3 but if anyone can show me different I will be right there with you.

Oh well, I tried.:(

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

Off topic but worthwhile nonetheless....
And wolfsbane- while we may disagree on Genesis 1, it has to be said that you are a mighty fine defender of the Scriptures. Keep running the race sir!

Now that is an example of true Christian spirit. Thank you, Bro.

wolfsbane

JimiTime said:

Actually, I wouldn't say that. In all my time, I've only heard people talk of your spirit going to heaven or hell (or the awful doctrine of purgatory). Earth was never discussed.

I don't know what religious groups you have been exposed to, but I only speak of the Evangelical churches I have encountered both personally and by way of media. Both the Reformed end (mine) and the Biblical Fundamentalist usually have something to say about the new earth.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible is a classic work among Evangelicals. Nearly every home had it over the past couple of centuries and gleaned a lot of their theology from it. Here's what it says on 2 Peter 3:13:

1. What true Christians look for: new heavens and a new earth, in which a great deal more of the wisdom, power and goodness of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ will be clearly discerned than we are able to discover in what we now see; for in these new heavens and earth, freed from the vanity the former were subject to, and the sin they were polluted with, only righteousness shall dwell; this is to be the habitation of such righteous persons as do righteousness, and are free from the power and pollution of sin; all the wicked shall be turned into hell; those only who are clothed with a righteousness of Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, shall be admitted to dwell in this holy place.

So where was Jesus for the 3 days?

I was speaking only of the present and future after-life. To speak of what happened before the Lord rose from the dead we must take another look. Christ Himself spoke of the Paradise in which He would that day meet the repentant thief who was crucified with him. He also spoke during His ministry about Hades and Abraham's Bosom:
Luke 16:22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

So before His resurrection, Christ was in two places: His body was in the grave, His spirit was in Paradise/Abraham's Bosom. It appears the latter was not the immediate presence of God, but a blessed place of waiting for the atonement to be made and for their Saviour to come and lead them into the Father's presence.

On His resurrection, Christ brought all the righteous dead with Him to heaven.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the 144,000 means the number of elect Jews? And what do you mean by 'elect' jews?

Because it says they were of the 12 tribes of Israel, and then shows that in addition to these there was a great multitude of other saints also.

By 'elect' I mean those chosen by God for salvation. Election is a major theme of the doctrine of salvation, e.g:
Matthew 24:22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened
Romans 8:33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
1 Thessalonians 1:4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.
1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

For an overview of what election involves:
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

How is it evident? Are you speaking about 'the church' being all denominations of Christendom, or one in particular?

I mean it is evident that the New Jerusalem is a picture of the Church because of the terms used. See how the Church and Christ are pictured as Bride and Groom in Ephesians 5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%205:22-33;&version=50; and then compare with:

Revelation 21:2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Revelation 21:14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Revelation 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, ... 27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

The Church is not any one of the denominations, nor yet of them all. Most of Christendom are not Christians in the Biblical sense, many of the churches having departed from the faith long ago. Some true Christians are in among them, but few. Even in faithful churches, many individuals make false professions of faith. None but those genuinely born again of the Spirit will ever enter the New Jerusalem.

And just to be clear. I do understand that we don't have to throw out everything we know, but I find much corruption in the world of christendom.

Indeed.

I try throw out the bathwater and keep the baby, so I do thread carefully. I look around at the people who just say, 'look what religion has caused', 'the wars, the oppression'. Those same people in turn shut their minds to the thought of God. I then see the crusades, the troubles in Northern Ireland (while I accept that it is republican and unionist, Religious groups have not helped, and certainly not been Christian), the oppressive rule of the RC Church among others, and think, 'One of the biggest contributors to the stumbling of people is the corruption of God through the world of christendom'.

I totally agree.

As I said before, and this is not up for debate with me as my conclusions are solid, Hell, the trinity and the bible being the literal 'Word of God' for me are corruptions. I know that these are things that most would dis-agree with me on, and even deride me as not being a 'proper' christian for not believing, but there in lies the extent of the corruption.

Hmm. Why are they so solid when you admitted not having an answer to what the Bible said on eternal torment? Nor had you the answer to the other texts on the deity of Christ. I accept one can have a principle of understanding that governs how we interpret details, but if your principle contradicts the details, you have a faulty principle.

This principal that I work from is the same principal that stops me quoting scientists which are for or against creation. I don't know them, or the science, so why would I trust them?

Indeed, trust no man. But one can put weight to their words, depending on their character. The only thing we can trust is the Word of God.

wolfsbane

Medina said:

Just to throw something into the mix, in Genesis 8 the following verse is to be found:

20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

22 "As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."


This doesn't really tally with the 'end of the world' we're told of.

I see what you are getting at - Does this imply no future Judgement Day?

The context clarifies it. The Old Testament warns of the Day of Judgement, e.g.
Daniel 12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2012;&version=50;
Malachi 4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%204;&version=50;

The reference then to 'never again' must be to another sifting of mankind as with Noah's Flood. That Judgement spared the righteous man and his family, but they were not sinless. From them arose another generation of wicked men and so on down to ourselves. But with the Last Day, only the righteous are saved and they are made perfect. The present earth will be destroyed and the sinless saints will inherit the new one.

So no repeat of the judgement that destroys the wicked but lets them rise again:
2 Peter 3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203;&version=50;

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Medina said:

I see what you are getting at - Does this imply no future Judgement Day?

The context clarifies it. The Old Testament warns of the Day of Judgement, e.g.
Daniel 12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2012;&version=50;
Malachi 4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%204;&version=50;

The reference then to 'never again' must be to another sifting of mankind as with Noah's Flood. That Judgement spared the righteous man and his family, but they were not sinless. From them arose another generation of wicked men and so on down to ourselves. But with the Last Day, only the righteous are saved and they are made perfect. The present earth will be destroyed and the sinless saints will inherit the new one.

So no repeat of the judgement that destroys the wicked but lets them rise again:
2 Peter 3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203;&version=50;

Gosh. It's always nice to see someone going straight to the "literal truth" of the Bible. When what is so straightforward is really so complicated, how does one know that the Flood doesn't really refer to a political party?

cheekily,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime said:

I don't know what religious groups you have been exposed to, but I only speak of the Evangelical churches I have encountered both personally and by way of media. Both the Reformed end (mine) and the Biblical Fundamentalist usually have something to say about the new earth.

This is still not addressing the point! 'Usually have something to say about new earth' is not an explaination. Those same groups will say the good go to heaven, only when the question of earth is asked will they have an answer like, 'well yeah there does seem to be an indication of a new earth'. My point, is that, is it only vague because the doctrine of Heaven and hell are taken as a given!

Hmm. Why are they so solid when you admitted not having an answer to what the Bible said on eternal torment? Nor had you the answer to the other texts on the deity of Christ. I accept one can have a principle of understanding that governs how we interpret details, but if your principle contradicts the details, you have a faulty principle.

My principle does not contradict the detail. Such a vague representation of what i said is what you've given. I gave much detail on the second death and the father being greater than the Son. I showed how for every trinity scripture there were at least 5 more that would suggest otherwise. I suggest that you read those points again. i stated that I did not have an answer to the torments question or to the alpha omega question yet. that does not make me less certain. I am just not going to give an answer until I, God willing, gain accurate knowledge of them. I do not want to add to the confusion that Christendom has put out.

Indeed, trust no man. But one can put weight to their words, depending on their character. The only thing we can trust is the Word of God.

What is the Word of God? because i distinctly recall that this is a title reserved for Jesus. If you are saying that the only thing we can trust is the testimonies and inspired words of the bible then I would say, combined with faith and prayer, yes.

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote:

This is still not addressing the point! 'Usually have something to say about new earth' is not an explaination. Those same groups will say the good go to heaven, only when the question of earth is asked will they have an answer like, 'well yeah there does seem to be an indication of a new earth'. My point, is that, is it only vague because the doctrine of Heaven and hell are taken as a given!
.

Because if I die tomowrrow I can't go to a new Earth; it doesn't exist yet.

So where do I go? I go to Heaven.

The only time the new Earth is talked about is within the context of eschatology, as this discussion is. It isn't talked about in the context of what happens immediately after death.

Excelsior

BC- would a valid scientific definition of death be that we no longer exist in the space-time universe. Therefore, the concept of atemporality needs to be considered when we consider Paul talking about us falling asleep. It need only be as a blinking of an eye before we are awoken to glory with the shout of acclamation that inaugurates the New Earth. What do you reckon?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Gosh. It's always nice to see someone going straight to the "literal truth" of the Bible. When what is so straightforward is really so complicated, how does one know that the Flood doesn't really refer to a political party?

Interpretation always depends on context. All that a person says on a matter, for instance, should be considered before we reckon we can pin him down as meaning x or y. For example, if I quoted your first sentence - It's always nice to see someone going straight to the "literal truth" of the Bible. - as an example of your theology, I would be totally wrong.

What God meant here is perfectly consistent with the rest of Scripture.

wolfsbane

JimiTime said:

This is still not addressing the point! 'Usually have something to say about new earth' is not an explaination. Those same groups will say the good go to heaven, only when the question of earth is asked will they have an answer like, 'well yeah there does seem to be an indication of a new earth'. My point, is that, is it only vague because the doctrine of Heaven and hell are taken as a given!

There are a lot of conservative Evangelical commentaries out there. Even more books on Eschatology. They cover the subject in much more detail than you suggest. Brian's point is pertinent: the new heavens and new earth are not usually referred to when we speak of where departed saints go, for they presently go to heaven. Only after the resurrection, and the destruction of this present universe, will they inherit the new.

My principle does not contradict the detail. Such a vague representation of what i said is what you've given. I gave much detail on the second death and the father being greater than the Son. I showed how for every trinity scripture there were at least 5 more that would suggest otherwise.

You did not give an explanation of the pro-deity, pro-eternal punishment texts. That's my point. Your system can only deal with some of the texts. My system deals with both. Jesus being a created being could explain some texts. Jesus being God could explain others. But the only way both texts are reconciled is if He is both God and man.

Likewise with eternal punishment. Some texts could be taken to mean annihilation, but to explain all the texts one has to accept eternal punishment.

i stated that I did not have an answer to the torments question or to the alpha omega question yet. that does not make me less certain.

It should. You can't just decide that annihilation fits better your opinion of what God would do, in spite of all the texts that specifically say different.

I am just not going to give an answer until I, God willing, gain accurate knowledge of them. I do not want to add to the confusion that Christendom has put out.

That would be sensible - but you then firmly make your mind up on the issues, without waiting for this accurate knowledge. Why not just admit you don't know either way?

What is the Word of God? because i distinctly recall that this is a title reserved for Jesus.

It is indeed. He is the incarnate word. He is God's full revelation:
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

If you are saying that the only thing we can trust is the testimonies and inspired words of the bible then I would say, combined with faith and prayer, yes.

I'm glad you agree. Now all you have to realise is that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

ISAW

Sorry if somebody made this post already but I think noboday has.
ther is another interpretation of Revelations.

somebody early on stated UU I think ,"why dont we just be nice to each other now" or words to that effect.

the other interpretation is that Revelations has already happened. the Beast can be interpreted as Nero or someone like that who wiped out christians.

One can even build the hilled city of Rome into the mix and add the Vatican/latern.

Because Christ came and made a new covenant we have a new heaven and new Earth. so we can live in Christ now. we have been shown the way.

this does not negate the second coming just all the "Damien OMEN" stuff related to it.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Interpretation always depends on context. All that a person says on a matter, for instance, should be considered before we reckon we can pin him down as meaning x or y. For example, if I quoted your first sentence - It's always nice to see someone going straight to the "literal truth" of the Bible. - as an example of your theology, I would be totally wrong.

Indeed - here, of course, you know I'm being sarcastic, because of all the other debates we've had over the literal truth of the Bible. On the other hand, you are hardly claiming that you have personally debated with, say, Moses? If you have, do let me know his posting name...

wolfsbane wrote:

What God meant here is perfectly consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Is perfectly consistent with a specific interpretation of Scripture. Consistency, as I think you said to me, is not evidence of truth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime said:

You did not give an explanation of the pro-deity, pro-eternal punishment texts.That's my point. Your system can only deal with some of the texts. My system deals with both.

Your system deals with both? Really? without ambiguity? without mystery? Your system 'attempts' to deal with both, that is all, and sometimes quite poorly. Another point, my 'system' was not to take the deity of Jesus as a given. I didn't look to prove or dis-prove, just reason what I saw, and with prayer, what I saw was clear.

But the only way both texts are reconciled is if He is both God and man.

Again, thats not so. You have ambiguity. just because you have an 'answer' doesn't mean its the right one.

Likewise with eternal punishment. Some texts could be taken to mean annihilation, but to explain all the texts one has to accept eternal punishment.

I disagree. With all my faith, with all my heart I disagree.

It should. You can't just decide that annihilation fits better your opinion of what God would do, in spite of all the texts that specifically say different.

i would never be so whimsical. and I don't see the texts that specifically say differently.

That would be sensible - but you then firmly make your mind up on the issues, without waiting for this accurate knowledge. Why not just admit you don't know either way?

Because I do know. I just said that I was looking into a few of the points you raised, specifically, the torments and alpha and omega scriptures.

I'm glad you agree. Now all you have to realise is that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Hmmm, could you just highlight the bit that Timothy says its the literal 'word of God'.

Could I ask you this. If I don't believe Jesus is God, can I be saved? Am I not a proper Christian? If I believe hell is not a place of literal torment, or the bible is 'the literal word of God', same question?

Also, I've noticed that my posts seem a little aggressive at times, please be assured I am not trying to be an agressor, and appreciate your views, time, and knowledge.

wolfsbane

JimiTime said:

You have ambiguity. just because you have an 'answer' doesn't mean its the right one.

Indeed. But you have no answer at all, no way to explain blatant eternal punishment texts or reconcile the many deity texts with the humanity ones. Having no answer strongly suggests your theory is mistaken.

i would never be so whimsical. and I don't see the texts that specifically say differently.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Hmmm, could you just highlight the bit that Timothy says its the literal 'word of God'.

First, I establish that the word of God = the Scripture:
John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Then I remind you of what Paul wrote to Timothy:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Could I ask you this. If I don't believe Jesus is God, can I be saved?

I say yes, but hesitatingly. You do seem to place Jesus far above the angels, in a unique relationship with the Father. You trust in Him, you give Him glory and honour, you praise His name, you live for Him: all the things many would think only proper towards God. So I hope He will bear with your lack of understanding or confusion on the issue of His exact status.

Am I not a proper Christian?

You are not an orthodox Christian; you are in need of a more accurate understanding of the Truth:
Acts 18:25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

If I believe hell is not a place of literal torment, or the bible is 'the literal word of God', same question?

Same answer.

Also, I've noticed that my posts seem a little aggressive at times, please be assured I am not trying to be an agressor, and appreciate your views, time, and knowledge.

No offense taken; I sensed your sincerity. I too can come across sharper than I mean, especially if I'm pushed for time.