Beware of false Christian theologies

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The Catholic Church still teaches there is a literal place called hell, which goes against claims made by some people on this thread. I have today copied from the Vatican's own website (www.vatican.va) their current position on this topic as follows :
" The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire". The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

The words that I have put in bold confirms that the Catholic Church still believes that it is a physical place of eternal torment.

I don't agree with your conclusion. They speak of souls going to hell - which deducts the physical part of your statement. Souls aren't physical in the Catholic Church as far as I know.

They put "eternal fire" in quotes which also detracts from the idea of them teaching a physical Hell (and with it, your 'burned up in seconds' idea).

It seems to me that the RC church teach the existence of people in a state of eternal torment. Without that being a physical place. Naturally, existence itself supposes a place of sorts, so I wouldn't get too hung up about whether the place where this existence plays out is physical or spiritual. It isn't physical it seems, but it's still a place. And still a place where, it seems, other souls will be present with each other in their torment.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't agree with your conclusion. They speak of souls going to hell - which deducts the physical part of your statement. Souls aren't physical in the Catholic Church as far as I know.

They put "eternal fire" in quotes which also detracts from the idea of them teaching a physical Hell (and with it, your 'burned up in seconds' idea).

It seems to me that the RC church teach the existence of people in a state of eternal torment. Without that being a physical place. Naturally, existence itself supposes a place of sorts, so I wouldn't get too hung up about whether the place where this existence plays out is physical or spiritual. It isn't physical it seems, but it's still a place. And still a place where, it seems, other souls will be present with each other in their torment.

If the Catholic Church didn't mean hell to be interpreted as a physical place, then why did they use words like " descend into hell " ?

The Catholic Church is wrong on its teaching on hell, and related subjects, using their definition of it from my earlier post, for the following reasons,
1. Man does not possess an immortal soul. Such a teaching appears nowhere in the Bible.
2. There is no statement anywhere in the Bible saying there is a judgement
immediately after death.
3. The Bible teaches that after death persons go wholly to the grave where they have no recollection of anything.
4.The Bible says a person is bodily raised from the dead after Christ returns to the earth, and is then judged. The Bible teaches there is only one judgement.
5. If a person measures up in the judgement, he/she is given everlasting life; or on failing the judgement destroyed in the lake of fire ( the second death).
6. The Bible considers the death in the lake of fire to be eternal punishment as it separates that person from God for ever !

hinault

kieranwaldron wrote: »

If the Catholic Church didn't mean hell to be interpreted as a physical place, then why did they use words like " descend into hell " ?

To "descend" in to something, doesn't always pertain to a physical location.

For example, you often hear of people descending in to a state of alcoholism.
One would not presume that this involves descending in to a physical location called alcoholism.

Peregrinus

kieranwaldron wrote: »

If the Catholic Church didn't mean hell to be interpreted as a physical place, then why did they use words like " descend into hell " ?

Because we can only talk about supernatural realities using metaphorical or analogical language. Our language arises out of our own experiences, and we can only apply it metaphorically or analogically to supernatural things that we have not experienced.

For example. I call God "Father", even though my actual father was an accountant in Guiness's brewery. The Holy "Spirit" is not, in fact, a breath. Jesus "ascended" into heaven even though heaven is not a place in the sky (or a place anywhere). We talk of God "existing" even though existience is a property of created things, and God is uncreated. We don't have a separate word for what we term the "existence" of God, even though it is fundamentally different from the existence of things. Etc, etc.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

5. If a person measures up in the judgement, he/she is given everlasting life; or on failing the judgement destroyed in the lake of fire ( the second death).

I can't recall you answering the issue of persons 'in Christ' already having (by virtue of their being in Christ) eternal life. How can you be given something at Judgement which you already have?

And how can you hold specific persons (those in Christ) not having immortality if they have eternal life?

It also appears that someone whose sins are no longer booked to their account can't be measured up at Judgement (in the sense of being found wanting or not). They have already been declared righteous by virtue of being in Christ?

kieranwaldron

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because we can only talk about supernatural realities using metaphorical or analogical language. Our language arises out of our own experiences, and we can only apply it metaphorically or analogically to supernatural things that we have not experienced.

For example. I call God "Father", even though my actual father was an accountant in Guiness's brewery. The Holy "Spirit" is not, in fact, a breath. Jesus "ascended" into heaven even though heaven is not a place in the sky (or a place anywhere). We talk of God "existing" even though existience is a property of created things, and God is uncreated. We don't have a separate word for what we term the "existence" of God, even though it is fundamentally different from the existence of things. Etc, etc.

Your statement that " heaven is not a place in the sky (or a place anywhere) " is incorrect. Acts 1:11 tells us that Jesus was taken bodily to heaven; and Acts 2:33 tells us that he now sits at the right hand of God. For a being in human form to sit in heaven the latter must be a physical place.

Revelation 21:1-3 talks of a "new heaven and a new earth "; and a new Jerusalem, prepared by God in heaven, descending to the earth ; where God will then sit among men implying that He previously sat in it in heaven.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can't recall you answering the issue of persons 'in Christ' already having (by virtue of their being in Christ) eternal life. How can you be given something at Judgement which you already have?

And how can you hold specific persons (those in Christ) not having immortality if they have eternal life?

It also appears that someone whose sins are no longer booked to their account can't be measured up at Judgement (in the sense of being found wanting or not). They have already been declared righteous by virtue of being in Christ?

Only God and Jesus Christ have immortality now. Those who die " in Christ " are known as the "firstfruits" and do not have immortality now, they are given it when Christ returns to the earth.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Only God and Jesus Christ have immortality now. Those who die " in Christ " are known as the "firstfruits" and do not have immortality now, they are given it when Christ returns to the earth.

The tense is present.

"12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."

antiskeptic wrote:

It also appears that someone whose sins are no longer booked to their account can't be measured up at Judgement (in the sense of being found wanting or not). They have already been declared righteous by virtue of being in Christ?

Could you answer the above also?

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Your statement that " heaven is not a place in the sky (or a place anywhere) " is incorrect. Acts 1:11 tells us that Jesus was taken bodily to heaven; and Acts 2:33 tells us that he now sits at the right hand of God. For a being in human form to sit in heaven the latter must be a physical place.

... and God must have hands in order for Jesus to be sitting at the right one. Are you supposing God has hands? Or that God is physical? Because Jesus said..

"God is Spirit"

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have"

hinault

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Your statement that " heaven is not a place in the sky (or a place anywhere) " is incorrect. Acts 1:11 tells us that Jesus was taken bodily to heaven; and Acts 2:33 tells us that he now sits at the right hand of God. For a being in human form to sit in heaven the latter must be a physical place.

Revelation 21:1-3 talks of a "new heaven and a new earth "; and a new Jerusalem, prepared by God in heaven, descending to the earth ; where God will then sit among men implying that He previously sat in it in heaven.

The *Bible doesn't state that Heaven is a physical location.


*Canon of the Bible as agreed from the 4th century onwards.

J C

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Only God and Jesus Christ have immortality now. Those who die " in Christ " are known as the "firstfruits" and do not have immortality now, they are given it when Christ returns to the earth.

We are all immortal now ... it's just that our immortality is confined to our spirits/souls at present ... we will get our immortal bodies at the resurrection.

realitykeeper

One aspect of Christianity is often misunderstood in my opinion. It is commonly believed that Christ`s crucifixion was a sacrifice (which it was) but some Christians seem to have a kind of pagan understanding of the sacrifice. My view is that the sacrifice of Christ`s crucifixion can save souls by serving as an example of the love and self sacrifice people should be prepared to make for each other. By learning from Christs example of love and self sacrifice, sinners can save their own souls but they have to be pro-active about it. In other words, they have to strive for the perfection and not assume the Crucifixion in and of itself will exempt them from sin.

antiskeptic

realitykeeper wrote: »

sinners can save their own souls but they have to be pro-active about it. In other words, they have to strive for the perfection and not assume the Crucifixion in and of itself will exempt them from sin.

In other words, a works-based salvation (a.k.a. salvation based on how you perform).

Which is pretty much how all religions bar salvation-by-faith Christianity work. Including the pagan ones (God will be pleased if I do this/that/the other).

Not so much your opinion then, as the opinion of all the worlds religions.

realitykeeper

antiskeptic wrote: »

In other words, a works-based salvation (a.k.a. salvation based on how you perform).

Which is pretty much how all religions bar salvation-by-faith Christianity work. Including the pagan ones (God will be pleased if I do this/that/the other).

Not so much your opinion then, as the opinion of all the worlds religions.

You have demonstrated my point.

Peregrinus

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Your statement that " heaven is not a place in the sky (or a place anywhere) " is incorrect. Acts 1:11 tells us that Jesus was taken bodily to heaven; and Acts 2:33 tells us that he now sits at the right hand of God. For a being in human form to sit in heaven the latter must be a physical place.

And for a being to sit at the right hand of God, God must have a right hand.

What you are essentially arguing here is that we can only understand this passage in a literal sense if we understand it in a literal sense. That's true, but trivial; it entirely overlooks the possiblity that the language is figurative even though, in fact, the mainstream Christian (and Jewish) tradition has always been that all language about God is figurative, analogical or metaphorical (so that we can speak of "God's right hand", for instance, without affirming that God necessarily has any hands.

Delirium

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Only God and Jesus Christ have immortality now. Those who die " in Christ " are known as the "firstfruits" and do not have immortality now, they are given it when Christ returns to the earth.

What about Mary who (as I remember from religion class) assumed to Heaven?

Peregrinus

Delirium wrote: »

What about Mary who (as I remember from religion class) assumed to Heaven?

Let me anticipate Kieran by pointing out that there is nothing about that in the bible.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

Let me anticipate Kieran by pointing out that there is nothing about that in the bible.

Neither does the Bible say that Moses or Elijah were assumed in to Heaven, despite their being present at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ.

kieranwaldron

Delirium wrote: »

What about Mary who (as I remember from religion class) assumed to Heaven?

The assumption of Mary to heaven is a false teaching solely manufactured by the Catholic Church.

Nick Park

hinault wrote: »

Neither does the Bible say that Moses or Elijah were assumed in to Heaven, despite their being present at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ.

I think you're wrong on 2 counts here:

1. The Bible does say that Elijah was transported to heaven (2 Kings 2)
2. The presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration should not be taken as indicating anyone's presence in heaven. The Transfiguration was on earth, not heaven, and, according to Church Fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, was a vision of revelations that Moses and Elijah received in their lifetimes.

kieranwaldron

Peregrinus wrote: »

And for a being to sit at the right hand of God, God must have a right hand.

What you are essentially arguing here is that we can only understand this passage in a literal sense if we understand it in a literal sense. That's true, but trivial; it entirely overlooks the possiblity that the language is figurative even though, in fact, the mainstream Christian (and Jewish) tradition has always been that all language about God is figurative, analogical or metaphorical (so that we can speak of "God's right hand", for instance, without affirming that God necessarily has any hands.

I think God, though He is essentially a spirit being, can take on different forms if the situation demands it. If Jesus Christ in bodily form now sits on His right hand in heaven, as we are told in the Bible , God could easily have assumed a bodily form in order to interact with him.

The Bible tells that God created angels as spirit beings, to act as messengers and helpers. Yet when He sent two of them to investigate Sodom and Gomorrow, they appeared to Lot in human form who accommodated them in his house for days.

An all-powerful spirit being such as God, can therefore change any spirit being, including Himself, if the situation demands it !

antiskeptic

realitykeeper wrote: »

You have demonstrated my point.

All I've demonstrated is that your view of Christianity renders it's mode of salvation the same as every other religion (i.e. salvation by own effort).

You'll face a bit of an uphill struggle demolishing something as well established as salvation by faith merely by supposing folk to have "misunderstood" Christianity.

J C

We all love to think that we can Save ourselves (by good works) ... but we need to be humble enough to realise that we cannot Save ourselves ... because we are sinners ... and no amount of good works or self-flagellation will mitigate even one sin.
All sin is ultimately committed against God ... and therefore only God Himself can forgive it.

... so we need to humbly ask for Jesus Christ's mercy to Save us ... and stop these prideful attempts at Saving ourselves through our own means, such as doing penace and/or good works.

Of course, once we are Saved, we should be doing good works, because we are Saved (and not as a means of Salvation).

Hope this clears this up.

hinault

J C wrote: »

We all love to think that we can Save ourselves (by good works) ... but we need to be humble enough to realise that we cannot Save ourselves ... because we are sinners ... and no amount of good works or self-flagellation will mitigate even one sin.
All sin is ultimately committed against God ... and therefore only God Himself can forgive it.

... so we need to humbly ask for Jesus Christ's mercy to Save us ... and stop these prideful attempts at Saving ourselves through our own means, such as doing penace and/or good works.

Of course, once we are Saved, we should be doing good works, because we are Saved (and not as a means of Salvation).

Hope this clears this up.

Amen JC.

John 20 : 19-23

20:19 Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them:
Peace be to you.

20:20 And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.

20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

kieranwaldron

This thread has now been posted more than 3 months to this site. In that time, it has received more than 5,200 views and 124 comments. I would like to take time to review the comments made against each of my opening points as follows.

I am not surprised that no member of this site has brought up anything based on the Bible against my point 1 concerning the false teaching of the immortality of the soul. The words " immortal soul " do not appear anywhere in the Bible thereby confirming it is a false teaching.

No convincing arguments have been posted by those who commented on my point 2 concerning the teaching of an equal trinity as against my assertion that only a duo exists (God and Jesus Christ), and they are not equal because the Bible makes it plain that Jesus Christ is inferior to God.

There has been some comments by members on my point 3 concerning hell referenced to Scripture but they have misrepresented what it says, or implies, in this regard; as against my clear references to God's stated intention to destroy the wicked.

Concerning my point 4, Scripture says heaven is simply the abode of God. The Bible says the earth is the destiny of the saved and not heaven.

The need to worship Mary or the saints appears nowhere in Scripture; instead the Bible says, in several places, that God alone should be worshipped as outlined in my point 5.

Mainstream Christianity by not teaching God's plan for the earth implies that he does not have one, as raised in my point 6. Yet the main message of the New Testament was the Kingdom of God to commence on earth when Jesus Christ returns to it to set up his kingdom.

I have therefore gone through the original points made by me in opening this thread in overview mode, in order to highlight the lack of serious challenge made by anyone to the points made solely based on the Bible.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

This thread has now been posted more than 3 months to this site. In that time, it has received more than 5,200 views and 124 comments. I would like to take time to review the comments made against each of my opening points as follows.

I am not surprised that no member of this site has brought up anything based on the Bible against my point 1 concerning the false teaching of the immortality of the soul. The words " immortal soul " do not appear anywhere in the Bible thereby confirming it is a false teaching.

No convincing arguments have been posted..

I think this is where things lie. It's not that the arguments haven't been convincing (since they convince others), rather, they are not convincing to you.

It's worthwhile reviewing where the problem might lie, since the potential exists for the problem to lie with you.

a) You have a rather constricted way of viewing scripture. You'll take a snippet of scripture and pull surprisingly concrete (and not insubstantial) theological rabbits out of the hat. I've bolded an example above where the absence of evidence (of the clear cut kind you seem to require) is taken as evidence of absence.

Others prefer to take a more nuanced view. They will look at the overall thrust of scripture when focusing on a single sentence - using scriptural thrust to help interpret scripture. They will be aware of the kind of language being used and whether they ought consider the passage literal or metaphorical. They will look at the audience being addressed and add cultural insights to sharpen their understanding of what was intended to be communicated. Heck, they are even go back into the original Greek and Hebrew texts to help add a razor edge to things.

The less nuanced view comes across as simplistically sledgehammerish in comparison

b) You appear to base your position on foundations of presumption and find snippets of scripture to support the idea. You presume, for example, that a fire which demonstrably doesn't consume will surely consume in a matter of seconds. You presume the bodies thrown into this fire will behave exactly like our earthly bodies. You presume death means "the end" when death is clearly used in situations where it isn't the end. You presume destroy = annihilate when that ain't necessarily so. You don't really deal with objections, rather you skip and ignore and keep on presuming.


You're not the only one who's not convinced

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think this is where things lie. It's not that the arguments haven't been convincing (since they convince others), rather, they are not convincing to you.

It's worthwhile reviewing where the problem might lie, since the potential exists for the problem to lie with you.

a) You have a rather constricted way of viewing scripture. You'll take a snippet of scripture and pull surprisingly concrete (and not insubstantial) theological rabbits out of the hat. I've bolded an example above where the absence of evidence (of the clear cut kind you seem to require) is taken as evidence of absence.

Others prefer to take a more nuanced view. They will look at the overall thrust of scripture when focusing on a single sentence - using scriptural thrust to help interpret scripture. They will be aware of the kind of language being used and whether they ought consider the passage literal or metaphorical. They will look at the audience being addressed and add cultural insights to sharpen their understanding of what was intended to be communicated. Heck, they are even go back into the original Greek and Hebrew texts to help add a razor edge to things.

The less nuanced view comes across as simplistically sledgehammerish in comparison

b) You appear to base your position on foundations of presumption and find snippets of scripture to support the idea.(1).You presume, for example, that a fire which demonstrably doesn't consume will surely consume in a matter of seconds. (2) You presume the bodies thrown into this fire will behave exactly like our earthly bodies. (3) You presume death means "the end" when death is clearly used in situations where it isn't the end. (4) You presume destroy = annihilate when that ain't necessarily so. (5) You don't really deal with objections, rather you skip and ignore and keep on presuming.

You're not the only one who's not convinced

I comment on your contribution dealing with a) as a whole, and splitting b) into
5 different points, as follows.

in reply to a), you appear to accept that the words " immortal soul " do not arise from the Bible, The Catholic Church added this belief early on in their history via an ecumenical council. Bearing in mind what the Bible says in several places about to lack of need to add or subtract anything, I consider the ruling of the council to be invalid.

If your point b) (1) relates to the lake of fire, then I consider it to have the consumption capabilities outlined in my initial piece.
If your point b) (2) relates to the lake of fire, I believe only the earthly bodies of those rejected in the judgement get thrown into it.
On your point b) (3) relating to death and the end you have misrepresented my views on these. These views are: at the end of an earthly life a person goes wholly the grave and remains there without being aware of anything; at a future date that person will be resurrected and judged; if they are rejected in the judgement, they will die again in the lake of fire which is the end- it last for all eternity.
If you point (4) relates to the destiny of the wicked, then in that context I have interpreted a word like annihilate in one verse to be the same as destroy in a similar verse.
In reply to your point (5), I take critical comments on my posts head on as I am doing here.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

in reply to a), you appear to accept that the words " immortal soul " do not arise from the Bible, The Catholic Church added this belief early on in their history via an ecumenical council. Bearing in mind what the Bible says in several places about to lack of need to add or subtract anything, I consider the ruling of the council to be invalid.

I'm not familiar with how the belief in an immortal soul first took hold. But let's suppose it happened as you say.

They didn't add or subtract to the word of God. To do so would require they alter the Bible.

They concluded as they concluded based on their reading of scripture. They interpreted it, in other words. And based on that interpretation, a belief is held. That's not adding or subtracting. The bible has to be interpreted, otherwise you have to take it literally - which is a nonsense.

I would suppose they approached scripture in the way suggested in my last post: nuanced / scripture informing scripture, etc.

If your point b) (1) relates to the lake of fire, then I consider it to have the consumption capabilities outlined in my initial piece.

I know you consider it but that's not enough. You have to justify your position. Faced with a fire which doesn't consume the devil or his angels, precisely how do you suppose it necessarily consumes others thrown there? You need to be precise here: working your way through your position without presumptions.

If your point b) (2) relates to the lake of fire, I believe only the earthly bodies of those rejected in the judgement get thrown into it.

And the devil and his angels? What basis have you for supposing the bodies thrown into the fire will be the same as earthly bodies. You'll have dealt with the consumption issue above, hopefully

if they are rejected in the judgement, they will die again in the lake of fire which is the end- it last for all eternity.

1. Death doesn't necessarily mean the end. Indeed, in two other cases where we meet it it doesn't mean the end. People die and will face judgement. People died in Adam yet live a walking, taking life here on earth. Given that, what is your basis for supposing this particular death the end (a.k.a. annihilation). Precedent stands against you.

Again, I'm looking for precision - not presumption / assertion.

If you point (4) relates to the destiny of the wicked, then in that context I have interpreted a word like annihilate in one verse to be the same as destroy in a similar verse.

Could you cite these verses?

In reply to your point (5), I take critical comments on my posts head on as I am doing here.

Fair enough, thanks. Lets see how the above pans out - they are pretty straightforward challenges (in the sense of being obvious objections to raise against your position)

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not familiar with how the belief in an immortal soul first took hold. But let's suppose it happened as you say.

1. They didn't add or subtract to the word of God. To do so would require they alter the Bible.

2. They concluded as they concluded based on their reading of scripture. They interpreted it, in other words. And based on that interpretation, a belief is held. That's not adding or subtracting. The bible has to be interpreted, otherwise you have to take it literally - which is a nonsense.

I would suppose they approached scripture in the way suggested in my last post: nuanced / scripture informing scripture, etc.

3.I know you consider it but that's not enough. You have to justify your position. Faced with a fire which doesn't consume the devil or his angels, precisely how do you suppose it necessarily consumes others thrown there? You need to be precise here: working your way through your position without presumptions.

4.And the devil and his angels? What basis have you for supposing the bodies thrown into the fire will be the same as earthly bodies. You'll have dealt with the consumption issue above, hopefully

5. Death doesn't necessarily mean the end. Indeed, in two other cases where we meet it it doesn't mean the end. People die and will face judgement. People died in Adam yet live a walking, taking life here on earth. Given that, what is your basis for supposing this particular death the end (a.k.a. annihilation). Precedent stands against you.

Again, I'm looking for precision - not presumption / assertion.

6. Could you cite these verses?

Fair enough, thanks. Lets see how the above pans out - they are pretty straightforward challenges (in the sense of being obvious objections to raise against your position)

I have numbered the points you made above 1-6, and reply on each in that order.

1. They did add to the Bible, they introduced the concept of the immortality of the soul which is contrary to it, and then built further teachings such as the doctrines of heaven and hell on what they introduced. The whole of the Bible, of which God is the overall author, is written on the assumption that man is mortal. Therefore God didn't mention the immortality of the soul in the Bible because he didn't give man one at the outset.
2. My reply on 1 covers the points made here.
3. All fires consume that is the reason we have fire brigades today. People who are rejected at the judgement and bodily thrown into the lake of fire are consumed by it; this isn't necessarily so of the devil and his angels who are spirit beings.
4. The bodies thrown into the lake of fire are earthly bodies, because the Bible says people are resurrected from the grave in bodily form.
5. I don't know what you mean by the following statement " People died in Adam yet live a walking, taking life here on earth. " Can you elaborate on who you are talking about here ?
6. Phillipians 3:19 and John 3:16 are examples.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I have numbered the points you made above 1-6, and reply on each in that order.

Good thinking

1. They did add to the Bible, they introduced the concept of the immortality of the soul which is contrary to it,

1. The point I raised suggested the need for everybody to interpret: you and them. Interpretations will differ because no one has a perfect understanding of every element of the Bible. To hold an imperfect interpretation isn't to add/subtract. If it is, then you add and subtract yourself (unless you suppose yourself to have a perfect interpretation)

Which is it?

and then built further teachings such as the doctrines of heaven and hell on what they introduced.

2. Such is interpretation. As you progress you build a picture. Your issues seems only to be that they built a different picture to you. What stands against you is the sophistication of your argument vs. theirs. I mean, there are reams written by people who are in a far better position to have an accurate interpretation than you or I. That isn't to say they are right and you're wrong. But you've a mountain to climb. And would be better off trying to construct a plausible, sophisticated theology than denounce others who've done a fair bit more work than you.

The whole of the Bible, of which God is the overall author, is written on the assumption that man is mortal.

3. That it is written on the assumption that ... is an assumption itself - until such time as compelling argumentation is constructed to convert assumption into sound theology.

2. My reply on 1 covers the points made here.

I trust your reply to the above deals with this too

3. All fires consume that is the reason we have fire brigades today. People who are rejected at the judgement and bodily thrown into the lake of fire are consumed by it; this isn't necessarily so of the devil and his angels who are spirit beings.

4. All beings have bodies on this earth - things are different off-earth. Assumption about the nature of non-earthly fires is not substantiated thus.

5. Man has a spirit and this fire certainly doesn't consume the devil and his angels as spirits. Do you believe man bodily reconstituted before God will also have his spirit? If not from whence not?

6. The above issue depends, of course, on whether the soul is immortal or not, so, in a sense you can go nowhere with this argument until you establish the perishability of the spirit. Certainly the devil/his angels spirits aren't perishable by fire, so why man? There hasn't been much evidence/indicators presented against your position, but so far as there has been, it stands against you. You are countering with assumptions, not scriptural indicators

4. The bodies thrown into the lake of fire are earthly bodies, because the Bible says people are resurrected from the grave in bodily form.

7. We know that the saved will be given glorified bodies, just like his body (and that there is no Judgement>fire for the saved). How do you know what the nature of the bodies presented before Judgement > fire will be? Bodily resurrected doesn't mean exact same body. Unless that is assumed.

(You can see, btw, the problems when constructing a sound theology. Assumption has no part to play in it: rigorous-hurdle surmounting has. No harm: when I started on discussion forums as a starter Christian I was sure (because I'd been told so) then the Earth was 6000 years old )

5. I don't know what you mean by the following statement " People died in Adam yet live a walking, taking life here on earth. " Can you elaborate on who you are talking about here ?

8. "made us alive with Christ, even when we were dead in our trespasses. It is by grace you have been saved!"

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins.."

From Ephesians and Colossians (for example). The notion of being dead spiritually but not bodily in this life.

A second example of the use of death not meaning the end.

6. Phillipians 3:19 and John 3:16 are examples.

Neither destroy nor perish necessitate an interpretation of annihilation. Plenty of things are destroyed but still exist (Berlin at the end of WWII for example). Perishing involves loss of qualities and characteristics, without annihilation.

It's a big doctrine, annihilation. And requires far better grounding that this, you would surely agree?

Remember: it was yourself that came in a swingin' and a denouncin'. This puts the onus on you to establish your own position. And that puts you at a disadvantage, because establishing any doctrine is fraught / next-to-impossible on a discussion forum (or anywhere). You end up with posts the length of your arm in no time and it becomes impossible to keep track

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

Good thinking
1. The point I raised suggested the need for everybody to interpret: you and them. Interpretations will differ because no one has a perfect understanding of every element of the Bible. To hold an imperfect interpretation isn't to add/subtract. If it is, then you add and subtract yourself (unless you suppose yourself to have a perfect interpretation) Which is it?

2. Such is interpretation. As you progress you build a picture. Your issues seems only to be that they built a different picture to you. What stands against you is the sophistication of your argument vs. theirs. I mean, there are reams written by people who are in a far better position to have an accurate interpretation than you or I. That isn't to say they are right and you're wrong. But you've a mountain to climb. And would be better off trying to construct a plausible, sophisticated theology than denounce others who've done a fair bit more work than you.

3. That it is written on the assumption that ... is an assumption itself - until such time as compelling argumentation is constructed to convert assumption into sound theology.

4. All beings have bodies on this earth - things are different off-earth. Assumption about the nature of non-earthly fires is not substantiated thus.

5. Man has a spirit and this fire certainly doesn't consume the devil and his angels as spirits. Do you believe man bodily reconstituted before God will also have his spirit? If not from whence not?

6. The above issue depends, of course, on whether the soul is immortal or not, so, in a sense you can go nowhere with this argument until you establish the perishability of the spirit. Certainly the devil/his angels spirits aren't perishable by fire, so why man? There hasn't been much evidence/indicators presented against your position, but so far as there has been, it stands against you. You are countering with assumptions, not scriptural indicators

7. We know that the saved will be given glorified bodies, just like his body (and that there is no Judgement>fire for the saved). How do you know what the nature of the bodies presented before Judgement > fire will be? Bodily resurrected doesn't mean exact same body. Unless that is assumed.
(You can see, btw, the problems when constructing a sound theology. Assumption has no part to play in it: rigorous-hurdle surmounting has. No harm: when I started on discussion forums as a starter Christian I was sure (because I'd been told so) then the Earth was 6000 years old )

8. "made us alive with Christ, even when we were dead in our trespasses. It is by grace you have been saved!"
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins.."
From Ephesians and Colossians (for example). The notion of being dead spiritually but not bodily in this life. A second example of the use of death not meaning the end.

9. Neither destroy nor perish necessitate an interpretation of annihilation. Plenty of things are destroyed but still exist (Berlin at the end of WWII for example). Perishing involves loss of qualities and characteristics, without annihilation.It's a big doctrine, annihilation. And requires far better grounding that this, you would surely agree

I have added a point 9, and respond to them in numerical order as follows.

1-3. The way I see it is this: the Bible says about itself that it comprises a complete set of rules, truths and beliefs that needs to be adhered to, and not added to or subtracted from. The immortality of the soul is not in the Bible therefore it is an addition based on pagan, and not Christian, beliefs. This teaching contradicts the thrust of the Bible which says man is mortal. If you want to know more about how this teaching came about, go to this page on the internet : http://tinyurl.com/k9dmhdh

4. The lake of fire takes place on the earth according to the Bible, therefore it isn't a non-earthly fire.

5-6. I do believe man's spirit is restored when he stands before Jesus Christ at the judgement; but it is reasonable to assume it is taken away again if he is condemned to the lake of fire, as Ecc, 12:7 . Therefore man's spirit isn't perishable as such but taken back by God at death.

7. The Bible says we are called out of the graves as we entered them. Therefore I would conclude from that it is with the same bodies as we had before we died. Reasonable assumptions from Bible text is allowed as far as I am concerned.

8. The notion of being " dead spiritually " is usually said of people who have no faith at all. I know of nobody who died physically and now lives. The Bible says from once you die physically you can only live again if you are resurrected, as was demonstrated by JC in bringing Lazarus back to life.

9 The Bible in various verses says the fate of the wicked is they are destroyed. In one Bible verse it says they are " destroyed forever " (see Psalm 92.7). I see no difference between destroyed forever and annihilated. The destruction of an animal or a man is completely difference to that of a city, which can always be rebuilt on the same spot. A man once destroyed can only make a reappearance if resurrected by God or Jesus Christ.

extrapolate

On Immortality:

kieranwaldron wrote:

The Catholic Church added this belief early on in their history via an ecumenical council ... They did add to the Bible, they introduced the concept of the immortality of the soul which is contrary to it ... The whole of the Bible, of which God is the overall author, is written on the assumption that man is mortal. Therefore God didn't mention the immortality of the soul in the Bible because he didn't give man one at the outset.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

John 10:28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

1 John 2:17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

1 Timothy 1:16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

Etc.

On the Trinity:

kieranwaldron wrote:

Only a duo exists (God and Jesus Christ). Concerning the teaching of an equal trinity as against my assertion that and they are not equal because the Bible makes it plain that Jesus Christ is inferior to God.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Colossians 2:8-9 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of me, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

John 10:30 I and My Father are one

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

On hell:

kieranwaldron wrote:

The bodies thrown into the lake of fire are earthly bodies, because the Bible says people are resurrected from the grave in bodily form

Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire...

[The rest of your points aren't Biblically problematic from my view.]

kieranwaldron

extrapolate wrote: »

On Immortality:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

John 10:28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

1 John 2:17 ]And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

1 Timothy 1:16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

On the Trinity:

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Colossians 2:8-9 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of me, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

]John 10:30 I and My Father are one
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

On hell:

Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire...

The rest of your points aren't Biblically problematic from my view.

I reply to your points as follows.

I do not see how John 3.16 in anyway substantiates the view that a person has immortality as it ends: " whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." In other words, it is saying whoever believes will be saved, and non-believers will perish (be destroyed ). The same applies to John 10: 28 in that it mentions the word perish.

I like Romans 6:23 best to demonstrate what happens to the wicked and the saved respectively, and thereby rules out immortality : " The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord ".
It says everlasting life is " a gift from God " who would not be giving you it as a reward if you already possessed immortality.

The word trinity appears nowhere in the Bible. What is meant by the Holy Spirit is the power of God -it is part of God. The following quotation demonstrates this: 1 Corinthians 2:10:" But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. "

There are many verses in the Bible supporting the view that God destroys the wicked with a permanent death, such as Paul in Romans 6: 23 which says: " The wages of sin is death. " Although fire is mentioned quite a few times in the Bible, there is no support for the view that the wicked are tortured for eternity in a hellfire.

extrapolate

kieranwaldron wrote:

I do not see how John 3.16 in anyway substantiates the view that a person has immortality as it ends: " whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." In other words, it is saying whoever believes will be saved, and non-believers will perish (be destroyed ). The same applies to John 10: 28 in that it mentions the word perish.

I don't understand? We are not immortal as is, only once we believe in Him do we attain everlasting life. If your point is that humans don't have immortality without that faith, then that's correct. But it didn't sound like you were making that point - [Therefore God didn't mention the immortality of the soul in the Bible because he didn't give man one at the outset].

kieranwaldron wrote:

The word trinity appears nowhere in the Bible.

The doctrine is there as outlined in my previous citations. There are plenty of words not found in the Bible, that's a weak argument.

kieranwaldron wrote:

What is meant by the Holy Spirit is the power of God - it is part of God.

Why would the commandment then be to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? 1 John 5:7 says For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. Also, we know The Spirit Himself makes intercession for us according to Romans 8. You are on the right track that the Spirit is a part of God. But He is also not the Father, nor the Son.

kieranwaldron wrote:

There are many verses in the Bible supporting the view that God destroys the wicked with a permanent death, such as Paul in Romans 6: 23 which says: " The wages of sin is death. " Although fire is mentioned quite a few times in the Bible, there is no support for the view that the wicked are tortured for eternity in a hellfire.

There are actually plenty of verses to support eternal torture in hell. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever ...
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt etc.
But I personally do think annihilation could be an acceptable reading of Scriptures, I would lean that way myself. Not 100%. Note - I only corrected you on that it wasn't just physical human bodies that are cast in at the end
But it is of no matter because as we all know, it's not doctrine that saves!

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

1-3. The way I see it is this: the Bible says about itself that it comprises a complete set of rules, truths and beliefs that needs to be adhered to, and not added to or subtracted from. The immortality of the soul is not in the Bible therefore it is an addition based on pagan, and not Christian, beliefs. This teaching contradicts the thrust of the Bible which says man is mortal. If you want to know more about how this teaching came about, go to this page on the internet : http://tinyurl.com/k9dmhdh

I'll pick up on this point to see whether progression can be made accordingly to what seem to me to be reasonable rules of discussion, before picking up on the rest.

What you assert above is an interpretation of scripture. Interpretation is an inevitable requirement for all.

All that you assert about what others have done stem from the fact their interpretation differs from your own.

They too can cite the thrust of scripture. They too can extract doctrine that is latent if not patent (the word "trinity" doesn't appear in scripture, for example - it must be extracted from it)

I need you to either accept this fundamental starting point (your interpretation vs. another). If you simply insist, they've done something fundamentally different to what you're doing (albeit arriving at different conclusions) then there is no grounds for progression - an argument which ignores the problems pointed out in it isn't an argument.

kieranwaldron

extrapolate wrote: »

I don't understand? We are not immortal as is, only once we believe in Him do we attain everlasting life. If your point is that humans don't have immortality without that faith, then that's correct. But it didn't sound like you were making that point - [Therefore God didn't mention the immortality of the soul in the Bible because he didn't give man one at the outset].

The doctrine is there as outlined in my previous citations. There are plenty of words not found in the Bible, that's a weak argument.

Why would the commandment then be to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? 1 John 5:7 says For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. Also, we know The Spirit Himself makes intercession for us according to Romans 8. You are on the right track that the Spirit is a part of God. But He is also not the Father, nor the Son.

There are actually plenty of verses to support eternal torture in hell. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever ...
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt etc.
But I personally do think annihilation could be an acceptable reading of Scriptures, I would lean that way myself. Not 100%. Note - I only corrected you on that it wasn't just physical human bodies that are cast in at the end
But it is of no matter because as we all know, it's not doctrine that saves!

I reply to your comments in the order of the points as follows.

The message of the Bible is: nobody has immortality while there are alive; but if they live a life believing in God and accepting Jesus Christ as the messiah, they can attain it after they are resurrected and judged. They can attain it at the judgement as a gift from God. If you want to know more about how this false teaching came about, visit this video on the internet: http://vimeo.com/66221593

The fact that a trinity of Gods is not mentioned in the Bible is a strong argument against the teaching. Most Bible scholars do not accept 1 John 5:7 because it was not in the original Greek texts- it was added at a later date. The Holy Spirit is not a separate person from God but part of him (his power) as demonstrated in Luke 1:35, Luke 24:49 and John 20:22-23 concerning the virgin birth. Luke 1:35 says the following to support my point: " The angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God."
If you take out the Holy Spirit, then there is only a duo left, namely God and Jesus Christ who are not equal as recorded in John 12:49, as follows: "For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. " Jesus Christ never claimed to be God while he was on earth, therefore the doctrine of a trinity of equal Gods is false.

If you check the book of Revelation in the Bible, statements like: " And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever " are only mentioned in relation to the false prophet, the beast, the devil and his angels. God intends to meet out special punishments to these deceivers not applicable to the rest of humanity. The evidence in the Bible that people who do not measure up in the judgement are destroyed is overwhelming.

extrapolate

kieranwaldron wrote: »

They can attain it at the judgement as a gift from God. If you want to know more about how this false teaching came about, visit this video on the internet: http://vimeo.com/66221593

I was about to watch that video, but it is 50 minutes long. If you would present it yourself here in quick text I can skim over, that'd be better. I see that it is marked as Christadelphian. All the points you've made are actually the points that differentiate them from most others rather than In later life, I found out by doing searches on the Bible using online resources that most of the Catholic Church's teachings contradict Scripture. I list as follows the main incorrect teachings that I found against which you can assess if the particular church you belong to has strictly adhered to Scripture. Wouldn't it be more fair to say that the branch you belong to asserts the differences? But that doesn't really matter anyways. What you're stating about eternal life is the obvious, that the wages of sin is death. But the other half of what you're stating, that immortality is granted after death, isn't so clear - which is the defining part.

John 5:24 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Most Bible scholars do not accept 1 John 5:7 because it was not in the original Greek texts- it was added at a later date.

Actually, it's best guess that it may have been an addition - it's not concrete. Because of that, one should be extremely wary of denying or removing anything from God's word.

Revelation 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The Holy Spirit is not a separate person from God but part of him (his power)

How then, according to the previously cited Romans 8 verse, can the Spirit make intercession for us to Him?

Also the Matt. 28 verse, baptise in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit. Scripture clearly separates them.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

As demonstrated in Luke 1:35, Luke 24:49 and John 20:22-23 concerning the virgin birth. Luke 1:35 says the following to support my point: " The angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God."

You confuse yourself with things like this because you see that the Spirit is a part of God here. But don't forget the rest of the Bible, where you see that the Spirit is also separate from the Father and the Son. Both a part of the Godhead, yet separate. You can't settle for random verses to support your thoughts. You need to complete the jigsaw.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Jesus Christ never claimed to be God while he was on earth, therefore the doctrine of a trinity of equal Gods is false.

I see. You don't think that Jesus is part of the Godhead at all. Again, you must not ignore Scripture in order to support your own beliefs. As previously cited for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

John 14:9 Jesus said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, Show us the Father?

It's important to examine your beliefs and look to the Bible to see what the Bible says. If you find that the Bible is contradicting the beliefs of your denomination, don't be afraid to realise they can be wrong. If I were you, I would pray over these issues and dwell on His Word. Separate yourself from any doctrine being added to your heart and just listen to what He has to say.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

If you check the book of Revelation in the Bible, statements like: " And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever " are only mentioned in relation to the false prophet, the beast, the devil and his angels. God intends to meet out special punishments to these deceivers not applicable to the rest of humanity. The evidence in the Bible that people who do not measure up in the judgement are destroyed is overwhelming.

Mark 9:43-44 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched where Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll pick up on this point to see whether progression can be made accordingly to what seem to me to be reasonable rules of discussion, before picking up on the rest.

What you assert above is an interpretation of scripture. Interpretation is an inevitable requirement for all.

All that you assert about what others have done stem from the fact their interpretation differs from your own.

They too can cite the thrust of scripture. They too can extract doctrine that is latent if not patent (the word "trinity" doesn't appear in scripture, for example - it must be extracted from it)

I need you to either accept this fundamental starting point (your interpretation vs. another). If you simply insist, they've done something fundamentally different to what you're doing (albeit arriving at different conclusions) then there is no grounds for progression - an argument which ignores the problems pointed out in it isn't an argument.

In reply to the above comments, people who differ from me would appear to using a fundamentally different starting point to me. The teaching of the doctrine of the immortal soul, for instance, ignores the fact that is not mentioned in the Bible; and their other teachings dependent on it, such as a judgement immediately after death, immediately going to heaven or hell are not mentioned in the Bible either, as the latter clearly states people are resurrected to judgement.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

In reply to the above comments, people who differ from me would appear to using a fundamentally different starting point to me.

I take it you do interpret the Bible rather than take everything literally? As soon as you interpret, you are extracting meaning that isn't actually stated in the text.

If you don't interpret then you cannot read poetry, for example, since the meaning intended in poetry won't be overtly stated in the text.

Which is it: do you interpret or take things only literally?

The teaching of the doctrine of the immortal soul, for instance, ignores the fact that is not mentioned in the Bible;

Do you mean not mentioned by way of the phrase "immortal soul" or do you mean you don't interpret scripture to indicate that?

If the former then I would ask you to defend the literalist position (e.g in relation to how you deal with poetry, parables, song, analogy, etc). If the latter then aren't you merely saying your interpretation differs from mine?



-


You need to get off the pot on this one. If your "beware / false" clarion cry is to stand it has two options

a) It will stand on the very easily dismissed literalist basis.

b) it will stand in the queue on a "my interpretation vs. others interpretation" basis.

The latter has more merit than the former but is problematic. Your "it's not mentioned in the Bible (by way of the killer phrase "immortal soul")" is immediately rendered moot. So what no killer phrase, if killer phrases aren't required to arrive at sound conclusions?

Could you move the discussion forward by clarifying which camp you belong to for a start? Literalist or interpretationist

kieranwaldron

extrapolate wrote: »

I was about to watch that video, but it is 50 minutes long. If you would present it yourself here in quick text I can skim over, that'd be better. I see that it is marked as Christadelphian. All the points you've made are actually the points that differentiate them from most others rather than In later life, I found out by doing searches on the Bible using online resources that most of the Catholic Church's teachings contradict Scripture. I list as follows the main incorrect teachings that I found against which you can assess if the particular church you belong to has strictly adhered to Scripture. Wouldn't it be more fair to say that the branch you belong to asserts the differences? But that doesn't really matter anyways. What you're stating about eternal life is the obvious, that the wages of sin is death. But the other half of what you're stating, that immortality is granted after death, isn't so clear - which is the defining part.

John 5:24 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Actually, it's best guess that it may have been an addition - it's not concrete. Because of that, one should be extremely wary of denying or removing anything from God's word.

Revelation 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

How then, according to the previously cited Romans 8 verse, can the Spirit make intercession for us to Him?

Also the Matt. 28 verse, baptise in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit. Scripture clearly separates them.

You confuse yourself with things like this because you see that the Spirit is a part of God here. But don't forget the rest of the Bible, where you see that the Spirit is also separate from the Father and the Son. Both a part of the Godhead, yet separate. You can't settle for random verses to support your thoughts. You need to complete the jigsaw.

I see. You don't think that Jesus is part of the Godhead at all. Again, you must not ignore Scripture in order to support your own beliefs. As previously cited for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

John 14:9 Jesus said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, Show us the Father?

It's important to examine your beliefs and look to the Bible to see what the Bible says. If you find that the Bible is contradicting the beliefs of your denomination, don't be afraid to realise they can be wrong. If I were you, I would pray over these issues and dwell on His Word. Separate yourself from any doctrine being added to your heart and just listen to what He has to say.

Mark 9:43-44 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched where Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.

I referred to the particular video that I provided the link to because it was the best information that I could find online relating to the immortal soul and related issues.
I think what John 5.24 is in fact saying, if you refer to the surrounding verses 25-30, is that a person who leads a God-fearing life has the necessary credentials for salvation in this life which a person is judged on.

In most cases in the Bible when the Holy Spirit is used to do something it is referenced back to God and his power. I would conclude from that it is the power of God and not the third person in an equal trinity. Jesus Christ stated in many places in the Bible that he is inferior to God further undermining the doctrine of an equal trinity.

Mark 9:43-44 is a good example of hyperbole by Jesus Christ. It is not a good idea to cut your hand off, and the reference made by him to a fire that is never quenched was to Gehenna, which was mistranslated as hell. The overwhelming evidence in the Bible is that God destroys the wicked rather than having them tortured for eternity in a hellfire.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

I take it you do interpret the Bible rather than take everything literally? As soon as you interpret, you are extracting meaning that isn't actually stated in the text.

If you don't interpret then you cannot read poetry, for example, since the meaning intended in poetry won't be overtly stated in the text.

Which is it: do you interpret or take things only literally?

Do you mean not mentioned by way of the phrase "immortal soul" or do you mean you don't interpret scripture to indicate that?

If the former then I would ask you to defend the literalist position (e.g in relation to how you deal with poetry, parables, song, analogy, etc). If the latter then aren't you merely saying your interpretation differs from mine?

You need to get off the pot on this one. If your "beware / false" clarion cry is to stand it has two options

a) It will stand on the very easily dismissed literalist basis.

b) it will stand in the queue on a "my interpretation vs. others interpretation" basis.

The latter has more merit than the former but is problematic. Your "it's not mentioned in the Bible (by way of the killer phrase "immortal soul")" is immediately rendered moot. So what no killer phrase, if killer phrases aren't required to arrive at sound conclusions?

Could you move the discussion forward by clarifying which camp you belong to for a start? Literalist or interpretationist

I reply to the points made by you above, as follows.

The Bible needs more than one approach to arrive at the overall meaning of what is stated in it: some things, such as the ten commandments, for instance, should be taken literally as they were written; the parables of Jesus Christ were not meant to be taken literally but the lessons delivered therein are important; the whole of the book of Revelation requires a lot of interpretation from the symbols used in it.

When I say the phrase " immortal soul " is not mentioned in the Bible I mean just that- there in no mention of it in Scripture. I am therefore not interpreting anything regarding this but merely stating a plain fact.

I therefore do not belong to any particular camp in arriving at the meaning of the Bible but study each section to see how it fits into the overall thrust of it.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I reply to the points made by you above, as follows.

I take from what you say that you interpret. You began the breakdown of the kind of elements involved. You would, for example, have to apply interpretation to the first of the ten commandments in order to decide what constitutes a false god, in order to avoid worshiping it.

One of the points I made (which you didn't address) was this one:

If the latter then aren't you merely saying your interpretation differs from mine?

Can you confirm that that's the essence of it? That you are working from an interpretation.

When I say the phrase " immortal soul " is not mentioned in the Bible I mean just that- there in no mention of it in Scripture. I am therefore not interpreting anything regarding this but merely stating a plain fact.

To which my reply has been (on the now confirmed assumption I was speaking to someone with an interpretation) "so what?"

So, "so what" that immortal soul isn't mentioned in those words in the Bible? That in itself doesn't mean immortal soul isn't taught. Yet your case seems to rest heavily on this trivial point. You persist in mentioning it, as if the lack of the words "immortal soul" has some kind of weighty significance.

extrapolate

kieranwaldron wrote:

I think what John 5.24 is in fact saying, if you refer to the surrounding verses 25-30, is that a person who leads a God-fearing life has the necessary credentials for salvation in this life which a person is judged on.

I'm not seeing how what you're saying has any impact on the verse in question. It's pretty clear "he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." Sealed deal.

kieranwaldron wrote:

Jesus Christ stated in many places in the Bible that he is inferior to God further undermining the doctrine of an equal trinity.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

Just because He submitted to the Father in order to complete the works of salvation doesn't mean He is less than the Father. It shows that He perfectly humbled Himself for such.

kieranwaldron wrote:

Mark 9:43-44 is a good example of hyperbole by Jesus Christ.

I don't believe so, I believe it would indeed be better to lose everything rather than being cast into hell. What profit is my life, if I use it to dishonour God? It's serious and that's what Jesus is getting across here.

kieranwaldron wrote:

It is not a good idea to cut your hand off

Unless it were causing such an offense to you and God that it would be better to be without.

kieranwaldron wrote:

the reference made by him to a fire that is never quenched was to Gehenna, which was mistranslated as hell.

The same word here for Gehenna [Valley of Hinnom] occurs a number of times in the NT. So you're saying in this instance they are referring specifically to that physical valley and not actually to what we would understand as hell. What then do you make of the likes of Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The word hell here is Gehenna too, but it defines even further what is meant by the use of the word Gehenna being synonymous with hell and the description thereof.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

I take from what you say that you interpret. You began the breakdown of the kind of elements involved. You would, for example, have to apply interpretation to the first of the ten commandments in order to decide what constitutes a false god, in order to avoid worshiping it.

One of the points I made (which you didn't address) was this one:
Can you confirm that that's the essence of it? That you are working from an interpretation.

To which my reply has been (on the now confirmed assumption I was speaking to someone with an interpretation) "so what?"

So, "so what" that immortal soul isn't mentioned in those words in the Bible? That in itself doesn't mean immortal soul isn't taught. Yet your case seems to rest heavily on this trivial point. You persist in mentioning it, as if the lack of the words "immortal soul" has some kind of weighty significance.

I reply as follows:

I do interpret where the situation calls for it, as some sections of the Bible require this while others don't.

The fact that immortal soul is not mentioned in the Bible is very significant and proves, as far as I am concerned, that the teaching is false. God would not have given man an immortal soul without mentioning in the Bible that he had given him such an attribute.

kieranwaldron

1.

extrapolate wrote: »

I'm not seeing how what you're saying has any impact on the verse in question. It's pretty clear "he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." Sealed deal.

2.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

Just because He submitted to the Father in order to complete the works of salvation doesn't mean He is less than the Father. It shows that He perfectly humbled Himself for such.

3.

I don't believe so, I believe it would indeed be better to lose everything rather than being cast into hell. What profit is my life, if I use it to dishonour God? It's serious and that's what Jesus is getting across here.

Unless it were causing such an offense to you and God that it would be better to be without.

4.

The same word here for Gehenna [Valley of Hinnom] occurs a number of times in the NT. So you're saying in this instance they are referring specifically to that physical valley and not actually to what we would understand as hell. What then do you make of the likes of Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The word hell here is Gehenna too, but it defines even further what is meant by the use of the word Gehenna being synonymous with hell and the description thereof.

I have numbered your points, and reply in the order of the numbers as follows:

1. I think you are misinterpreting what is said in that particular quote, and you need to take the context and what the rest of the Bible says on the subject into account. The Bible cannot be saying a person has everlasting life now because if that were so that person would never die. Do you know of anybody who has never died ? Elsewhere in the Bible it states people are resurrected to judgement and if they pass the test are then given everlasting life. (see Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, and Revelation 20:12 & 13.)

2. After Jesus resurrection, he took the apostles into the desert to instruct them on doctrine. When he described the Kingdom of God to come on earth to them they asked him to tell them when this would happen and Jesus replied : " only the Father knows ". This reply alone proves he is inferior to God.

3. I do not think Jesus Christ should be taken literally when he talked about cutting off limbs; I think he was just using exaggeration (hyperbole) to emphasise the point.

4. Jesus referred to Gehenna to signify a place of eternal destruction, not to ongoing punishment in a hellfire for eternity.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I do interpret where the situation calls for it, as some sections of the Bible require this while others don't.

Requires or not according to who exactly? If you, then you've merely added another string that everyone else applies. Is this poetry, is it a parable, is it an analogy, is it literal, is it, is it.

The fact that immortal soul is not mentioned in the Bible is very significant and proves, as far as I am concerned, that the teaching is false. God would not have given man an immortal soul without mentioning in the Bible that he had given him such an attribute.

This is about as woefully weak as it is possible to get - if argumentation (and that is what is going to convince people of your position) is what you are intending

1. Not mentioned in those specific words is not the same as not there. You make very much of "not mentioned in those words" as if that is a.k.a. "it is not there". You aren't going to convince anyone with such a blunt, unsubstantiated instrument.

2. "God would not..?

3. There are lots and lots of people who see immortal soul all over the Bible - they just aren't constricted by the same thing that you are constricted by (i.e. specific use of those exact words).

The problem can be in the constriction rather than in the lack of teaching about immortal soul.

To be honest KW, there isn't much point in going on. Your approach to Bible interpretation is, to my mind, simplistically literalist. A theology can be extracted this way but it's an approach that many here will have long since left behind/

kieranwaldron

It is now almost six months since I opened this thread consisting of six points relating to false Christian theologies, and I have been thinking of providing more substantiation on some of the points. The easiest one to tackle is the doctrine of hell which portrays God as a torturer for punishing people for eternity in a hellfire. I have found 21 verses from all over the Bible which states that God destroys sinners (the wicked) after the judgement, which contradicts mainstream Christianity's teachings on this subject.

Using the NIV version of the Bible, I have printed out in full 3 verses from the OT and NT which either state, or imply. that God destroys the wicked, and give the references of another 15 which state the same thing.
Here are the OT references:
Psalm 94:23: " He will repay them for their sins and destroy them for their wickedness; the LORD our God will destroy them. "
Proverbs 10:29: "The way of the LORD is a refuge for the blameless, but it is the ruin of those who do evil."
Malachi 4:1: " Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. "Not a root or a branch will be left to them. "
The following are the NT references:
Philippians 3:19: " Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things."
Luke 13:3: " I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
Revelation 21:8: " But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.”

Each of the following 15 verses from all over the Bible also either state or imply the destruction of the wicked: Psalm 37:38; Proverbs 14:11; Psalm 73:19; Psalm 72:7; Romans 9:22; 2 Peter 2:3; 2 Peter 3:7; Jude 1:10; John 3:16; Psalm 92:7; Proverbs 29:1; Matthew 3:12; Psalm 37:20; Psalm 145:20; and 2 Thessalonians 1:9.

The above quotes provide overwhelming evidence that God destroys the wicked after the judgement, and that the doctrine of hell is false.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

It is now almost six months since I opened this thread consisting of six points relating to false Christian theologies, and I have been thinking of providing more substantiation on some of the points.

You haven't provided much substantiation for your points thus far, so this would be welcome. Your modus operandi has been to assert your view by means of a snippet or two. Then ignore the challenges that question the assumptions underlying your view.


Substantiation is a difficult thing, granted - there are whole books taken up substantiating why a view is held. You are unlikely to do well in a paragraph or two on an internet forum

I can see already that you've mistaken "substantiation" for "quantity".

The easiest one to tackle is the doctrine of hell which portrays God as a torturer for punishing people for eternity in a hellfire. I have found 21 verses from all over the Bible which states that God destroys sinners (the wicked) after the judgement, which contradicts mainstream Christianity's teachings on this subject.

You've been challenged with this issue of "destroy" not necessarily meaning "annihilation". You've never overcome that problem but simply regurgitate the same assertion as if the problem doesn't exist. The very aim of substantiation is to overcome the obstacles that will be presented. More and more verses (which rest on the same questionable assumption) add not a jot.

The above quotes provide overwhelming evidence that God destroys the wicked after the judgement, and that the doctrine of hell is false.

Dogged repetition of a problematic assumption (destroy = annihilation) doesn't go any way towards grounding that assumption. You might as well be throwing ball bearings at an ocean liner in the attempt to sink it.

You would need to "substantiate" the foundations (destroy = annhilation) on which your view stands first - after which your argument-by-quantity would fare well.

Good luck with that!

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't provided much substantiation for your points thus far, so this would be welcome. Your modus operandi has been to assert your view by means of a snippet or two. Then ignore the challenges that question the assumptions underlying your view.

Substantiation is a difficult thing, granted - there are whole books taken up substantiating why a view is held. You are unlikely to do well in a paragraph or two on an internet forum

I can see already that you've mistaken "substantiation" for "quantity".

You've been challenged with this issue of "destroy" not necessarily meaning "annihilation". You've never overcome that problem but simply regurgitate the same assertion as if the problem doesn't exist. The very aim of substantiation is to overcome the obstacles that will be presented. More and more verses (which rest on the same questionable assumption) add not a jot.

Dogged repetition of a problematic assumption (destroy = annihilation) doesn't go any way towards grounding that assumption. You might as well be throwing ball bearings at an ocean liner in the attempt to sink it.

You would need to "substantiate" the foundations (destroy = annhilation) on which your view stands first - after which your argument-by-quantity would fare well.

Good luck with that!

I consider many of the comments made by you in the above post to be invalid for the following reasons

I have provided a great deal of references to Bible quotations which contradict traditional Christianity's teachings on the subject of hell; and in my last post alone, I gave 21 such quotations to substantiate my position. I regard quotes from the Bible supporting my view on the subject to be ample evidence of wrong teaching on this subject. If you do not think my references are adequate substantiation, then spell out exactly what you mean by this in this context.

Most of the Bible references that I have cited use the word " destroy " in relation to the disposal of the wicked. I interpret the word "destroy" in the context used to mean: get rid of forever. Indeed two of the references that I quoted at you last time used the words " eternal destruction ". One of the Bible references refers to death in the lake of fire; while Jesus Christ in his analogy in Matthew 13:37-43 (NIV) with a harvest where sinners are represented by weeds speaks about the gathering and burning of the weeds prior to the crop being secured.

It is clear from the prior paragraph that what the Bible is taking about is getting rid of the wicked (sinners) for all time. Therefore your reference to proving "annihilation" is not necessary as it means the same thing as destroy in the context used.

I opened this thread in order to inform the public about how traditional Christian churches contradict the Bible on various subjects, and I feel, at least in the case of hell, I have substantiated this position adequately.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I have provided a great deal of references to Bible quotations which contradict traditional Christianity's teachings on the subject of hell; and in my last post alone, I gave 21 such quotations to substantiate my position.

The issue in question is the nature of hell: an existence there vs. annihilation. My point was this:

More and more verses (which rest on the same questionable assumption) add not a jot.

What you say above doesn't deal with this point: quantity doesn't necessitate quality. Let's see how you deal with the quality issue below..

I regard quotes from the Bible supporting my view on the subject to be ample evidence of wrong teaching on this subject. If you do not think my references are adequate substantiation, then spell out exactly what you mean by this in this context.

The issue was your assumption that "destroy" necessarily = "annihilation". I have pointed out before how something can be destroyed (Berlin at the end of WWII, for example) yet not be annihilated.

So let's look at how you tackle that issue below

Most of the Bible references that I have cited use the word " destroy " in relation to the disposal of the wicked.

Fair enough - but destroy = annihilation not addressed

I interpret the word "destroy" in the context used to mean: get rid of forever.

There is agreement (from me) that Hell does involve getting rid of something forever. But that something need not be the whole of the personhood. And the getting rid of can mean something gotten rid of as rubbish: out of the house and home and out of sight. Onto the rubbish tip (one Biblical picture used, as you know)

Annihilation is taken to mean every aspect of the personhood is obliterated. See the definition

annihilation: complete destruction or obliteration.

Indeed two of the references that I quoted at you last time used the words " eternal destruction "

Whilst I wouldn't pretend to comprehend what eternal existence is like to experience, the closest sense that we have of it is time everlasting. The destruction has duration / dynamism, but that doesn't itself speak of annihilation.

One of the Bible references refers to death in the lake of fire; while Jesus Christ in his analogy in Matthew 13:37-43 (NIV) with a harvest where sinners are represented by weeds speaks about the gathering and burning of the weeds prior to the crop being secured.

It is clear from the prior paragraph that what the Bible is taking about is getting rid of the wicked (sinners) for all time. Therefore your reference to proving "annihilation" is not necessary as it means the same thing as destroy in the context used.

Getting rid of sinners forever can be achieved without annihilation. Berlin, to continue with that analogy, if refused reconstruction forever, would remain destroyed and inoperable as a city forever. It would not be annihilated, rather, it's capacity to operate as a city (or a sinner) is forever removed it.

opened this thread in order to inform the public about how traditional Christian churches contradict the Bible on various subjects, and I feel, at least in the case of hell, I have substantiated this position adequately.

Your response here is mere dancing around on the head of a pin. I don't think you are being fully evasive - I think you genuinely think you are making your case.

However, the points made to you here are essentially the same as have been made to you before. You are stuck on the issue of necessarily rendering destroy = annihilation when other options easily exist (Berlin). Which means you are forced to assume your way over the hurdle.

This isn't an irrelevancy: the nature of Hell is one of the most important questions on which to obtain an answer on. The support need be clear as day to render the view substantiated.