Check your email for updated passwords!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - lapwing
It seems your question is something along the lines of, how do we go about interpreting anything in Revelations as literal vs symbolicThat's a fairly accurate view of what I wrote though I'd rather stick to specific questions.
So if the torment that the damned are thought to endure by some is non-existent i.e. represents nothing in reality, how do we know the praise given to the Lamb represents something that actually happens?
(That's only an example of a question that could be asked)
Opinions differ on whether hades and gehenna are as distinct as you imply. The account gives no prospect of future relief to the rich man which counts against it as being (only!) for the intermediate state. It does indicate that punishment, at least in hades, included torment. Isn't part of the argument that a nice kindly God wouldn't allow people to be tormented?
The point here was that the everlasting contempt is not experienced by the contemptible. It poses no real threat to annihilationism.In the example I gave both the reason for taunting (Jerusalem in ruins) and the taunting by the neighbours were ongoing in parallel. Also, it was very odd to choose the noun that only occurs twice and ignore the one (both together in Dan 12:2) that occurs 73 times in the OT.
Eternal salvation and eternal redemption refer to the everlasting outcome of a finite process of saving and redeeming (Hebrews 5:9, 9:12).This may be conflating what Jesus did with what Christians experience so I don't think the grammatical point applies since what Jesus did and what Christians experience are different.
We could start a thread of single word comments - might end up proving God exists.
Discussion on hellism, annihilationism and universalism, seems in my mind, to be utterly impossible without it quickly descending into accusations, misreadings, insults, sniping, and general bad behaviour. Posts don't get read properly, and preconceived notions and theological frameworks are entrenched with people equating them with the word of God itself and everyone else's opinion with the teaching of demons.
My experience as a classroom teacher was that if something happened behind my back the one who accused someone else was inevitably the guilty party, not the one accused. Rather like people who accuse others of not buying rounds of drinks. Again it is the accusers who are most often the mean ones.
Just sharing my life experiences though Q11: not a comment on your posts in this thread.
I've clarified #33 by quoting more of what you wrote in #13.
I wouldn't call after-the-fact editing a clarification! It muddied the water considerably concerning my two responses to #33. That's a dishonest attempt to make my responses look bad and yours look good.
I'm through responding to your posts.
Of course you could have said thank you for taking note of my (lancia's) comments. It's not as if I was quoting something you hadn't written in the same post that led on directly from what I did quote.
First, it should be obvious that the vision given to John consists of highly symbolic, apocalyptic imagery and must be interpreted carefully.
You've made quite a few thought provoking comments in this thread. I did think that Ecdysis' comment:
think Bertuzzi's extensive woopin' of SPF's arguments has just convinced me of Annihilationism being true. Wow
was unfair since you were quoting extensively from a website whereas SPF was writing his own posts. That would be the case even if the rethinkinghell website is yours.
My comment on the above is that the imagery is to do with images i.e. things John "saw" in his vision such as the dragon and the whore of Babylon (and the Lake of Fire of course). To apply that idea to things like the torment described in Rev 20:10 seems harder to symbolise away. Why not say that the worship given to the Lamb is also symbolic and so should be discounted?
How does your view deal with the account of the rich man and Lazarus? Again there is symbolism in that account but the point about Lazarus suffering in hell, yet being able to ask that his family be warned would be inappropriate if it was actually impossible given Lazarus was annihilated.
On Dan 12:2 there are two Hebrew nouns: cherpah (Strong 2781) and deraon (1860). Since the former occurs 73 times in the Bible I would have thought it more instructive to look at the use of that noun.
O God, the nations have come into your inheritance;
they have defiled your holy temple;
they have laid Jerusalem in ruins.
2They have given the bodies of your servants
to the birds of the heavens for food,
the flesh of your faithful to the beasts of the earth.
3They have poured out their blood like water
all around Jerusalem,
and there was no one to bury them.
4We have become a taunt to our neighbours,
mocked and derided by those around us
So yes you are right that they have become a taunt to their neighbours but for very real ongoing reasons. So I think the argument that the experience of the contemptible is short lived in Dan 12:2 is tenuous to say the least.
In Heb 6:2 the word translated as "judgment" (2917: krimatos) refers more to the condemnation or sentence passed rather than the process of coming to a judicial decision e.g. Rom 13:2 NASB
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
So it is the sentence that has been passed that is eternal. Also it's orthodox Christian belief to regard salvation as an ongoing process that one works out (Phil 2:12). It's what you are doing now that counts. I recall, in a fictional sphere, Yoda making this point to Luke Skywalker who was always looking to the future rather than focussing on the present. The parallel here is looking to some past conversion experience rather than living an ongoing Christian life. The Apostle Paul is a good example of someone who was an ongoing Christian.
I've clarified #33 by quoting more of what you wrote in #13. The point I'm disputing is that you're mapping across the number of blows/lashes that the servant receives in the earthy story which makes up the parable. Those blows/lashes are an earthly punishment received by an earthly servant. That's why they are limited in number. But you're saying that means the actual punishment is hell is limited. But any description of punishment in a parable that uses a realistic earthly story is bound to be limited. Also the point of the parable is not to describe hell but to urge the importance of being a faithful disciple. You're reading too much into the parable to suit your personal theological objective. "Unbelievers" in the parable makes the spiritual application of the parable more explicit.
You haven't responded to the point about being cut in two.
This parable is not just a simple story about life on earthThis is a misunderstanding of my last post. Of course the parables of Jesus have a spiritual application: Jesus preached about the kingdom of God not just life on earth. However, he used realistic stories to explain his spiritual messages.
The point of the parable of the Unfaithful Servant is to contrast the behaviour of and consequences for the faithful and unfaithful servant or steward. Jesus is showing the importance of being watchful rather than acting as if the absent master won't come back. However, it is the question of watchfulness rather than delay that is the key point of the parable. So to apply this both to the Jewish leaders of Jesus day who would be judged for not teaching the people properly and to the leaders of the church awaiting Christ's return may not be entirely unjustified.
If you apply the many and few blows literally to punishment in hell then don't you have to do the same with being cut in two (v46). Surely this is hyperbole to emphasise the seriousness of the punishment. The different number of blows repeats the idea found elsewhere that much will be expected from those to whom much is given e.g. Mt 11:21-24 contrasting towns in Galilee with Sodom and Gomorrah. One could argue that the implied difference in punishment comes from the difference in knowledge. Those who should have known better will have more to regret. There is no justification to think that the different numbers of blows relates to different amounts of time spent in hell!
However, one should not miss the main point of this parable. It's not about what hell is really like it's about Christians being faithful and ready for Christ's coming.
Note that Luke 12:46 says the unfaithful servant will be assigned a place with the unbelievers. Revelation 21:8 tells us where that is ...This is an example of a common mistake made when interpreting parables. The parable of the unfaithful servant is an example of a parable that tells a simple realistic story. The punishment of the servant is within the confines of the realistic story so it is a mistake to read it across as a description of punishment in hell. In the story a master would inflict fewer or more blows since it fits the earthly scenario: this fits the earthly story.
So, the unfaithful servant will be assigned a place with the unbelievers and that place is the Lake of Fire. But in the Lake of Fire, the unfaithful servant is not to be punished eternally, for he is to receive only many lashes, not an infinite number of lashes. When those many lashes have been dealt, none remain. If he is in the Lake of Fire and receives only many lashes, then there would seem to be an end to the punishment for him in the Lake of Fire.
Burmese Days by Orwell is a lesser known but good read.
The BBC did a dramatization of the first two Barsetshire Chronicles with a stellar cast and it's available on Youtube e.g.
and Humphrey Bogart played mean Marlowe
Each person is different and Paul's conversion was not just about his salvation but to establish him as the apostle to the Gentiles:
But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel Acts 9:15 NIV
The Tetragrammaton was clearly in the text in the original manuscripts, so why is it missing and substituted?Well as far as the NIV is concerned you can find out from its Preface. For instance the 1984 Preface
Note that the NIV is only one of many which render YHWH as LORD.
In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as “Lord” in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered “Lord,” for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered “Sovereign Lord.”
Because for most readers today the phrase “the Lord of hosts” and “God of hosts” have little meaning, this version renders them “the Lord Almighty” and “God Almighty.” These renderings convey the sense of the Hebrew, namely, “he who is sovereign over all the ‘hosts’ (powers) in heaven and on earth, especially over the ‘hosts’ (armies) of Israel.” For readers unacquainted with Hebrew this does not make clear the distinction between Sabaoth (“hosts” of “Almighty”) and Shaddai (which can also be translated “Almighty”), but the latter occurs infrequently and is always footnoted. When Adonai and YHWH Sabaoth occur together, they are rendered “the Lord, the Lord Almighty.”
Note that this practice follows the precedent set by the Apostles and other inspired NT writers who wrote Kyrios=Lord instead of the Tetragrammaton in the Greek NT in places where the OT was quoted. This leaves you with the problem that you are saying that the Apostles and other NT writers were wrong to do this, even though they were inspired by God to do so. So you are accusing God of doing the wrong thing and you refuse to admit this.
The Shema clearly states that Yahweh is one, not three persons.I've lost count of the number of times I've quoted the definition of the Trinity to you and you still don't get it do you. Are you really that thick? You don't come across that way so this must be a result of your brainwashing.
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Note Will's comment on eched It's also used for "one people" e.g. Gen 34:16 referring to Jacob's large family.
The abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief or principle:
This is much stronger than (in fact different from) the "yeast" of the Pharisees. Jesus is warning the disciples about the Pharisees' wrong teaching: he's not saying the Pharisees have renounced the Jewish faith. Jesus attended the synagogue regularly and Jewish festivals. He was presented as a child in the Temple. You have misunderstood the meaning of the word "apostasy".
Now I wouldn't adhere to Judaism because they deny that Jesus is Messiah and LORD=God. I was talking about you. You don't like the New Testament because it doesn't include the Tetragrammaton and you deny that Jesus is God which Jews also do.
George Howard et al are indulging in pure speculation and are isolated figures in Bible scholarship
4.Professor George Howard: The Jehovah's Witnesses only scholar is quoted profusely as evidence of a Hebrew Original of Matthew. What JW's won't tell you is that George Howard is almost alone in the world today in his views which have been universally rejected because they are based upon speculation and guesses and no solid proof. Howard's theory has never found any support in any New Testament manuscript. Howard and JW's must both claim that the New Testament has been lost altered and corrupted as you will notice below.
You never did give any proper archaeological links to those alleged LXX MSS that are supposed to include the Tetragrammaton.
C T Russell is the man largely responsible for what became the JWs and he has characteristics of a cult leader. Why are you not concerned that his "wife divorced him for mental cruelty, he had no formal Bible training and was influenced by somebody who thought that Christians who had died would be raised in April 1878."
1 making the case for the historical Jesus most likely having a view of the OT as the 'word of God',
2 making the case that that in the 1st century context this would include the idea that the OT was 'inspired' (maybe entailing infallibility) and 'authoritative'
3 defining exactly what is entailed by such a belief in inspiration
4 making a case for Jesus gaving the apostles (only) authority to write inspired scripture.
5 making the case that Paul was one such apostle.
6 making a case for the inspiration of the NT in addition to the old
7 making the argument for the early church recognising without error those inspired apostolic documents (all of which were preserved) and their canonisation
1. Beware being too prescriptive. if Jesus isn't recorded to have used the phrase "word of God" it doesn't mean he doesn't have a view. (John described him as the Word). Better to ask what Jesus thought of the OT e.g. using it to defeat Satan's temptations
2. Again just because Jesus didn't use the word "inspired" doesn't mean he didn't think so. All the NT is canonical not just the words of Jesus.
3. I've given you refs on this
4. maybe one shouldn't equate apostolic authority to writing inspired scripture. That would discount the content of what is written and would promote everything an apostle wrote. Scriptures about binding and loosing, the election of Matthias, the Sprit leading into all truth, the Johannine and Lukan Pentecosts and Paul's insistence on being an apostle show that it was an office with authority.
5. His conversion and ministry and repeated self description as an Apostle
6. For example:
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Pet 3:16 NIV
7. FF Bruce and MJ Kruger have written books on this
The NT writers wrote the word Kyrios not Jehovah. Jesus would not have said Jehovah but may well have said Adonai.
That is speculation not fact. In view of the fact that Jesus said that he made God's "name" known to his disciples, it is highly unlikely that he would follow a Jewish superstition especially one implemented by a religious system that had apostatized,I assume you're not questioning that the NT writers wrote Kyrios not Jehovah given that we have over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the NT none of which have the Tetragrammaton. If you were to say that it was speculation that the NT writers wrote Kyrios you would have to say that about every word of the New Testament.
As to what Jesus actually said (vocalised) you are indulging in pure speculation since we don't have any recording of what he said except the Greek New Testament. We don't even know whether the scroll read Yahweh or Adonai.
I can't help noticing you've moved this away from the simple fact that in 1 Cor 8:6 Paul uses kyrios and theos for Jesus and the Father and these words were used for Yahweh and Elohim in the Septuagint and these two words were used in the Shema both referring to God.
Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our God (Elohim) is one LORD (Yahweh): 5And thou shalt love the LORD (Yahweh) thy God (Elohim) with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
a religious system that had apostasizedWhat an incredibly wrong statement. Apostasy is based on a Greek word meaning departure or defection.
So are you saying that the Nazareth synagogue had departed from the Jewish faith? What had they changed to then? Zoroastrianism? Your statement above is completely wrong and completely ridiculous.
In the ancient fragments of the Septuagint unearthed by archeologists, the tetragrammation is seen in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. Koine Greek was the language of the day, not classical Greek.And exactly how many such fragments are there? One? Two? How about supplying a proper archaeological link (i.e. not Watchtower) to back up your statement. What is the date of these fragments? Were they written by Jews seeking to devalue Jesus?
So you're saying that God got it wrong. He made a mistake inspiring a Greek New Testament.
The Divine Name KJV" must be a bit embarrassing for some who think it doesn't belong. The translators have restored the name "Jehovah" to all the (7,000) verses that the New KJV left out.This is typical JW deception tactics. Here you are referring to the Old Testament whereas I was referring to the New Testament. They are different. This kind of deliberate deception is strong evidence that you are in a false cult.
The NT writers knew God's personal name well and no doubt included it in verses where the OT was quoted.This is pure speculation based on nothing. None of the over 5000 Greek MSS include the Tetragrmmaton. Get used to it Jem.
Perhaps God was seeing the apostasy that was to take place and allowed his name to be lost on purpose...first among a people he abandoned as faithless and disobedient covenant breakers (Matt 23:37-39) and then, as predicted, among those who became apostate in the Christian congregations after the death of the apostles. (Acts 20:29, 30)This is pure Walter Mitty. You're making up facts to fit your flimsy fantasy filled religion based on nothing but a man whose wife divorced him for mental cruelty, who had no formal Bible training and was influenced by somebody who thought that "Christians who had died would be raised in April 1878". I can assure you that didn't happen.
Perhaps you're in a false cult Jem.
Ooooorr, alternatively, that ancient literary texts should be interpreted according to modern scientific knowledge.
The vast majority of the Bible isn't concerned with scientific matters and it is not its prime purpose.QuoteHoly Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvationArt VI of the 39 Articles of the CofEQuote from: ericbwonderI dismantled the case for a local flood being *intended* here in the other thread on this subject.Chutzpah. Like an American saying that USA are the best team in the World Cup.
I want to admit that I got this entirely wrong about the USA World Cup team. I'm not saying USA are going to win the competition but they certainly deserve to get out of their group and this competition is all about the so called lesser teams not being overawed by the big name teams. A well balanced team with a good team spirit counts for a lot. They have every chance of getting to the last 8 although one thinks that it is when the bigger teams will win through.