07 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipyou are like Dr Frankenstein, you have created a monster and must cower before it in fear.
there is a difference between having a healthy respect for something and living in morbid fear,
You assume then that the disciple who responds to this teaching is living in "morbid fear":
[b]"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! "
of the Father and of the holy angels. " [/b] NIV [/quote][/b]
07 Jun 13
4 edits
Originally posted by sonshipwhy have the translations that you cite, translated the verse with the term, Hell? It is not a Biblical term?
there is a difference between having a healthy respect for something and living in morbid fear,
You assume then that the disciple who responds to this teaching is living in "morbid fear":
[b]"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! "
of the Father and of the holy angels. " [/b] NIV [/quote][/b]
"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! " your translation,
let us take a look at the original, shall we?
'embalein eis ten geenan', translated as 'cast into hell'. The term geenan being rendered as Hell. What in fact does 'geenan', refer to, in reality? It comes from the term Gehenna and was originally the name of a valley near Jerusalem where rubbish was burned.
Now you will tell us why your translators have taken a valley outside of Jerusalem which is actually named, a place where rubbish was burned and rendered the text as Hell?
the correct translation is,
(Luke 12:5) But I will indicate to you whom to fear: Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Gehenna. Yes, I tell you, fear this One. - New World translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Now why the disparity? Which is more accurate and why?
I put it to you that your translators are perpetuating a pagan doctrine and have done so through biased translation, making it appear to their readers that the text actually states Hell, when in fact it refers to something quite different? Why would they invalidate the word of God in that way? Is it a lack of honesty? a lack of integrity? or a deliberate attempt to mislead? or simply a religious bias being imposed on scripture where none exists? Surely there must be a reason for it? hmmm?
07 Jun 13
FEAR
As commonly used, fear means an expectation of harm or pain, generally a painful emotion characterized by alarm, dread, disquiet. However, fear may also mean a calm recognition or consideration of whatever may injure or damage, such recognition causing one to exercise reasoned caution and intelligent foresight.
What is the fear of Jehovah that we should have?
The Bible shows that there is a proper fear and an improper fear. Thus, fear may be wholesome and cause the individual to proceed with due caution in the face of danger, thereby averting disaster, or it may be morbid, destroying hope and weakening a person’s nervous stamina, even to the point of bringing about death. The fear of God is healthful; it is an awe and a profound reverence for the Creator and a wholesome dread of displeasing him. This fear of incurring his displeasure is a result of appreciation of his loving-kindness and goodness together with the realization that he is the Supreme Judge and the Almighty, who has the power to inflict punishment or death upon those who disobey him.
Insight on the scriptures, page 818, Jehovahs witnesses.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Jun 13
13 edits
why have the translations that you cite, translated the verse with the term, Hell? It is not a Biblical term?
A practice I am employing lately is using online Bibles instead of always quoting my favorite Bible sitting on my desk.
The better translations might not read Hell. I agree. Long ago I wrote that Hell is just Hades. And Hades is the Old Testament Sheol. I take for granted that people remember. Gehenna rather than hell in Luke 12:5 would be more accurate.
Having conceded this the essential truth is not changed. Man has one level of ability to hurt you. God should be feared more because He has an additional ability to hurt you beyond what man can do.
"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! " your translation,
let us take a look at the original, shall we?
'embalein eis ten geenan', translated as 'cast into hell'. The term geenan being rendered as Hell. What in fact does 'geenan', refer to, in reality? It comes from the term Gehenna and was originally the name of a valley near Jerusalem where rubbish was burned.
You are quite right.
The essential point, however, is not effected.
What man can do should not be feared for it has limitation.
What God can do should be feared because He can go further with His ability.
Now you will tell us why your translators have taken a valley outside of Jerusalem which is actually named, a place where rubbish was burned and rendered the text as Hell?
The point is fully taken that Gehenna is what it should read.
But the essential point you miss, even when we translate "Gehenna".
It should be obvious that Jesus was using Gehenna as a symbol of divine punishment reaching BEYOND physical death.
Why? Because if man AND God achieve the identical same result from casting you into the city dump, then there is NO REASON why we should have a greater fear of God.
A.)
1.) Ie. Man throws you alive into the Gehenna city dump. Your body and soul expire.
2.) God throws you alive into the Gehenna city dump. The exact same thing happens. So why should God be feared more ??
B.)
The teaching is not that above but this:
1.) Man throws you alive in the city dump of Gehenna and your body is killed. But there is NO MORE that man may do to harm you.
2.) God, on the other hand, can go further to harm your soul " AFTER KILLING " your body that has been thrown into the city dump (or killed in any manner).
It is the AFTERWARDS which signals God can go FURTHER than man and FURTHER than man's municipal dump of the valley of Gehenna.
It is apparent that Jesus is using Gehenna HERE as a symbol of a divine and supernatural punishment going BEYOND what man is able to do. Thusly more fear should be rightly assigned by sinners towards God.
the correct translation is,
(Luke 12:5) But I will indicate to you whom to fear: Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Gehenna. Yes, I tell you, fear this One. - New World translation of the Holy Scriptures.
I happily accept the correction. It was late and I was a little careless.
However, If the throwing into the city dump of Gehenna yields exactly the same result whether done so by God or by man then there is no reason for Jesus to warn us that MORE fear should be had towards God. Right ?
What's the difference ? What God can do, man also can do if it is the city dump. The FACT that Jesus speaks of AFTER HE HAS KILLED means BEYOND physical death.
Back then to my favorite translation, the Recovery Version -
"And I say to you My friends, Do not fear ..."
Do not fear WHO ??
" ... Do not fear those who kill the body AND AFTERWARDS have NOTHING MORE THAT THEY CAN DO."
Do not fear MANKIND. For AFTER killing the body by throwing you into the litural Gehenna dump alive (or killing you in any other manner), have nothing MORE that they can do to you.
By constrast FEAR God. Why? Because after your body dies by being thrown into the litural Gehenna dump or in any OTHER manner of death, AFTERWARDS God has MORE that He can cause you to suffer.
Therefore the Gehenna as Jesus is using it is a SYMBOL of God's ability to go BEYOND what happens in the city dump should you be KILLED there or beforehand.
But I will show you whom you should dear: fear Him who, after killing, has authority to cast into Gehenna ..."
Now why the disparity? Which is more accurate and why?
Your pointing out the difference has its place. But it does NOT, I repeat, it does NOT nullify Christ's warning:
Man can only do so much to harm you.
God can go beyond what man can do.
Therefore God alone is the one to Whom we should render our true fear.
You are desperately trying to make the word "Gehenna" an issue which changes the essential point of the teaching. If the exact same result is had whether or not man or God throws a person into the city dump then there is NO REASON why God should be feared more. Both man and God in that case should be feared THE SAME.
But if AFTER KILLING God has something more he can do to harm you, ie. cast your soul into a symbolic Gehenna, then we better reserve greater fear for God.
That is precisely the teaching. And incidentally, the teaching argue for the continued existence of the human soul beyond physical death.
There is no need to use the phrase "the immortality of the soul". There is no need to quote Socrates or Plato. This teaching, without using any such phrase as "the immortality of the soul" reveals the continued existence of the human soul after killing, after the expiration of the physical body.
And of course it is not the only passage to strongly imply or teach the continued existence of the soul after death of the man.
I put it to you that your translators are perpetuating a pagan doctrine and have done so through biased translation,
I have used a more accurate translation of Gehenna. And your attempt to teach contrary to the New Testament is defeated. The hope you put in singling out the word Gehenna does not accomplish the task you wish it to accomplish.
You have accomplished that "hell" there is a loose paraphrase.
You have not accomplished demonstrating pagan myth in order to undo the essential import of Christ's teaching there.
making it appear to their readers that the text actually states Hell, when in fact it refers to something quite different?
The correction has been made. And your point of denying the continued existence of the SOUL of man beyond physical killing is not established. It is defeated.
" ... fear Him who, after killing, has authority to cast into Gehenna."
OBVIOUSLY man has all authority to cast your corpse into the city dump. Right ? So Jesus using Gehenna there has to be a symbol of something which God alone and not man, has the authority to place into.
Why would they invalidate the word of God in that way? Is it a lack of honesty? a lack of integrity? or a deliberate attempt to mislead? or simply a religious bias being imposed on scripture where none exists? Surely there must be a reason for it? hmmm?
Repetition at this point would be rather monotonous.
You think you have a stronger case than you really have.
"Gehenna" in Luke 12:5 HAS to be a symbol of something God exercises authority over which man does not. That cannot be the physical city dump outside of Jerusalem because MAN may place you there dead or alive.
"AFTER KILLING" signals that the Gehenna that Jesus uses in the passage is something transcending the physical valley trash compose heap outside of Jerusalem.
07 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipflip sake, was all that text really necessary?
why have the translations that you cite, translated the verse with the term, Hell? It is not a Biblical term?
A practice I am employing lately is using online Bibles instead of always quoting my favorite Bible sitting on my desk.
The better translations might not read Hell. I agree. Long ago I wrote that Hell is just Hades. And the physical valley trash compose heap outside of Jerusalem.
Having conceded this the essential truth is not changed. - Jayson
This is simply untrue, the essential meaning has not only been concealed, but utterly and completely distorted beyond recognition,
Ghenna is a fitting symbol of punishment, yes, but there is nothing in the text to suggest that the punishment is ongoing and that those who experience it are conscious of suffering, that is extra biblical, there is certainly nothing in the text to suggest that its a fiery hell, a place of torture where the damned are purposely kept alive by God and tortured eternally. The dead really are dead and as Solomon stated, under divine inspiration, conscious of nothing.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Jun 13
6 edits
flip sake, was all that text really necessary?
No. But I am dealing with someone extremely hardheaded, being so strongly indoctrinated wrongly. I would not be surprised if you still want to argue about it.
I am ready for your further attempts.
Having conceded this the essential truth is not changed. - Jayson
This is simply untrue, the essential meaning has not only been concealed, but utterly and completely distorted beyond recognition,
You are in denial. The distortion is on your side and actually makes no sense.
Bring your additional arguments then.
Ghenna is a fitting symbol of punishment, yes,
According to Josephus the Jewish historian, the Pharisees at least, thought of Gehenna as a symbol of punishment after death. Josephus wrote:
"The Pharisees simplify their standard of living, making no concession to luxury ... Though they believe that everything is brought about by fate, still they do not deprive the human will of the pursuit of what is in man's power, since it was God's good pleasure that here should be a fusion and that the will of man with his virtue and vice should be admitted to the council-chamber of fate. They believe that souls have power to survive death and that there are rewards and punishment under the earth for those who have led lives of virtue or vice; eternal imprisonment is the lot of evil souls, while the good souls receive an easy passage to a new life." [ my emphasis]
The point in writing this is not to argue how correct Pharisee teaching was but only how much they would have understood what Jesus was teaching. I believe that Jesus spoke the word of God. And the above ancient statements of Josephus indicate that Pharisees in Jesus day of earthly ministry would have grasped the symbol of a extra death Gehenna as a place of treatment of souls after physical death.
The quote is from page 53 of a book entitled The New Testament in Context - Sources and Documents by Howard Clark Kee, Prentice Hall Publishing. From what I have read I doubt that it is written by an evangelical Christian. However, it did have some useful information in it as is sometimes the case in theologically liberal scholarship.
but there is nothing in the text to suggest that the punishment is ongoing and that those who experience it are conscious of suffering,
This reasoning is false.
If it were not a matter of the suffering soul being CONSCIOUS then there would be no reason to have fear of the punishment. It is at least ongoing enough that it deserves the fear to be avoided.
If you want to argue that nothing in Luke 12:5 indicates eternal suffering, maybe that might be a case in that particular instance. However, if it were not ongoing then it should not be feared. Jesus has the obvious intention that the fate would be feared and that seeking God's will be done instead.
Why would Jesus says " ... yes, I tell you, fear this One." (RcV)
If it was not an ongoing process of punishment ?
If the soul so dealt with was unconscious of what was happening then there would be no reason to fear or to be warned.
that is extra biblical, there is certainly nothing in the text to suggest that its a fiery hell,
Now you are contradicting yourself I think. GEHENNA was a place where the trash was BURNED. So the usage of the symbol would indicate FIRE of some sort.
It is a GIVEN that it is a burning place of that which has been discarded on a DIVINE level - Gehenna - like the city dump in the valley which everyone is Jerusalem knew about.
The DISTORTION is from you trying to twist another meaning from the passage from what should be rather obvious. And if it is not obvious to the stubborn in Luke 12:5 it should be obvious by several accompanying other passages.
You cannot say "Because of Christmas there is also no Triune God in the New Testament."
And you cannot say "Well, because of Dante's Divine Comedy or Socrates and Plato's immortality of the soul there is no eternal punishment in the New Testament."
a place of torture where the damned are purposely kept alive by God and tortured eternally.
It would be wrong to say that they are kept alive in the usual sense.
It would be wrong also to say that they do not exist.
Death in the Bible does not mean non-existence.
If non-existence commenced for the soul after someone was killed then Jesus would not warn that God "after killing" has something more dreadful that he can do to man.
How could He punish what does not exist ?
How could what did not exist be hurt ?
In that case "after killing" would mean after EXISTENCE.
Since Jesus WARNS man of God's authority to touch you "after killing" then AFTER you are alive no more you still EXIST in some way in which you can be hurt by His punishing hand.
The dead really are dead and as Solomon stated, under divine inspiration, conscious of nothing.
What Solomon stated in Ecclesiastes has only to do with "under the sun". As far as man's life and existence "under the sun" is concerned, death is the end. This we know by experience. That person is no longer on the earth.
Solomon's wise words have their limit. Solomon's sermon in Ecclesiastes only deals with man's life on the earth under the sun. It would be terribly unwise to think something Solomon said there would make nonsense of what the Son of God said about "after killing has, [God] has authority to cast into Gehenna."
The three realms are spoken of as subject to Jesus in Philippians - the things in heaven and on earth and UNDER THE EARTH -
"That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should openly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:10,11)
Solomon's Ecclesiates did not deal with the realm of departed souls that are "under the earth". They are no longer on the earth or under the sun. But they exist. Jesus says such ones could be punished by God's authority "after killing".
07 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipits nothing to do with being in denial and it certainly nothing to do with being indoctrinated, it has everything to do with religious bias and your translators imposing doctrine on scripture where none exists, its simply not acceptable.
flip sake, was all that text really necessary?
No. But I am dealing with someone extremely hardheaded, being so strongly indoctrinated wrongly. I would not be surprised if you still want to argue about it.
I am ready for your further attempts.
[quote]
Having conceded this the essential truth is not changed. - Jayson
ould be punished by God's authority [b]"after killing".[/b]
what do you think will motivate a person to make changes in their life, fear of Hell or Love of God?
I reproduce an excerpt from a woman named Kathleen,
The teaching that souls suffer in hell promotes a morbid fear of God. By contrast, a person who learns the truth about God and comes to love him will develop a healthy fear of him. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; prudent are all who live by it,” explains Psalm 111:10. (The New American Bible) This fear of God is, not abject terror, but awe of and profound reverence for the Creator. It engenders in us a healthy fear of displeasing him.
Consider how learning the truth about hell affected Kathleen, a 32-year-old former drug user. Her life had been filled with parties, violence, self-hate, and immorality. She admitted: “I would look at my one-year-old daughter and think, ‘Look at what I’m doing to her. I will burn in hell for this.’”
Kathleen tried to stop using drugs, but nothing worked. “I wanted to be good,” she said, “but everything in my life and in the world was so pathetic. There seemed no reason to be good.”
Kathleen then met Jehovah’s Witnesses. “I learned that there is no burning hell. The Scriptural evidence made perfect sense,” said Kathleen. “Knowing that I would not have to burn in hell was a tremendous relief.”But she also learned of God’s promise that humans could live forever on an earth cleansed of wickedness. (Psalm 37:10, 11, 29; Luke 23:43) “I now had a real hope—to live forever in Paradise!” she exclaimed.
Would Kathleen be able to stop abusing drugs without the threat of a fiery hell hanging over her? She related: “When I had a strong craving for drugs, I would pray, begging Jehovah God for help. I thought of his view of such defiling habits, and I did not want to disappoint him. He answered my prayers.” (2 Corinthians 7:1) This fear of displeasing God enabled Kathleen to break free from her addictions.
Yes, cultivating love for God and a healthy fear of him—not fear of torment in hell—can motivate us to do God’s will in order to enjoy lasting happiness. The psalmist wrote: “Blessed is every one that feareth Jehovah, that walketh in his ways.”—Psalm 128:1, American Standard Version.
Love motivates people Jaywill, not fear of burning in Hell.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Jun 13
2 edits
I will try to make my replies concise, short.
its nothing to do with being in denial and it certainly nothing to do with being indoctrinated, it has everything to do with religious bias and your translators imposing doctrine on scripture where none exists, its simply not acceptable.
I think it has been conclusively demonstrated that "hell" or "Gehenna" in the translation of Luke 12:5 does not effect the core intention of Christ's exhortation.
As a matter of fact, though I do not like paraphrase Bibles, I can see that the translators used "hell" probably to distinquish it from the on earth, in this dimension Gehenna of the Jerusalem municipal dump. While I disagree with the paraphrase perhaps the intention is seen.
There is a saying among language scholars "Every translation is an interpretation."
Perhaps so. So we grant the more accurate translation - "Gehenna".
Jesus could not mean "After human beings are able to kill you there is an additional harm that God can inflict. That is to cause you to be thrown into the city dump."
Man HAS the authority to do THAT.
So additional authority from God must refer to something beyond that.
And thusly, it deserves additional respect and even fear.
what do you think will motivate a person to make changes in their life, fear of Hell or Love of God?
If the question is is Luke 12:5 THE ONLY PASSAGE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE, answer is decidedly "Of course not."
I could mention hundreds of other passages on the motivation of LOVE.
They do not make an additional regard for the fear of God's AUTHORITY non-existent.
I reserve the right to be impressed with the multiple aspects of motivation set before me in considering how I should react to God and Christ.
In John's Gospel, the writer places before us about nine cases of how Jesus dealt with people. Some of them did not mention eternal punishment at all. For example in chapter four - the thirsty Samaritan woman by the well. No mention of punishment.
Yet in the previous case the avoidance of perishing is touched and wrath is mentioned in chapter three in the case of Nicodemus.
I reserve the right to be impressed with EITHER and BOTH teachings.
You seem to want to uphold one in order to suppress the other.
I reproduce an excerpt from a woman named Kathleen,
The teaching that souls suffer in hell promotes a morbid fear of God.
It might. It does not have to if the Holy Spirit is moving in our hearts and if we also read other parts of the Bible.
Look. I am not saying ONE passage in the Bible might never become an obsession to the unbalanced mind. But I do not blame that on the Bible or on Jesus.
Some other person like David Koresh may be impressed with love that he feels justified to love one of two of his church members' wives and take them for his own.
Obsession and deception can be used on perhaps any singled out passage.
I reserve the right not to take a pair of scissors to cut Luke 12:5 from the Bible just because someone got obsessed thinking no other truth is ever told in the 66 books of Scripture.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that I believe Jesus never said it.
By contrast, a person who learns the truth about God and comes to love him will develop a healthy fear of him.
I am not arguing against that. However, JESUS taught that passage. And JESUS knows how to motivate men to come to God if ANYONE does.
And, sir, if I come to Jesus because I am afraid of being sent to eternal punishment, what is wrong with that ? It doesn't mean that I will not grow in other appreciation.
Christians, rather than run from the teaching of eternal punishment, I suggest that you embrace it, while we explore other truths in Scripture.
History has some very loving and faithful servants of God who were afraid of being burned by God's wrath. Who says you cannot love and fear God too?
It is not that important HOW one comes to Jesus Christ as it is that one COMES to Jesus Christ - period. How you came is secondary. That you CAME to Him, that is primary.
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; prudent are all who live by it,” explains Psalm 111:10. (The New American Bible) This fear of God is, not abject terror, but awe of and profound reverence for the Creator. It engenders in us a healthy fear of displeasing him.
Consider how learning the truth about hell affected Kathleen, a 32-year-old former drug user. Her life had been filled with parties, violence, self-hate, and immorality. She admitted: “I would look at my one-year-old daughter and think, ‘Look at what I’m doing to her. I will burn in hell for this.’”
In that case she needed the truth of the Gospel in another aspect. And others are the same too.
I do not deny that for a second. I told you that John covers about nine cases of people being reached by Jesus in the Gospel of John. There is a variety of ways in which Jesus became their Savior and Lord.
And it is the case in history as well. I do not say that the ONLY way to come to Jesus is through a careful consideration of Luke 12:5.
Neither do I seek to pretend Luke 12:5 was not spoken by Christ.
Your thinking is really not sober in this area. It is rather reactionary. And it leads me to consider the truth of what I heard once -
Jehovah Witness religion is a religion based upon hate. It is the constant hatred of Christianity tradition (right and wrong) which fuels the hatred of Jehovah's Witnesses and forms the foundation of their zeal.
I wonder, if while making exclamations about love you really are not almost fully motivated by hatred of mainstream Christianity.
Anyway, for the record, some have had too much of the hell fire and brimstone emphasis. And Kathleen may have been such a person.
The Samaritan woman at the well in John four may have been such a person as well. But Jesus still told Nicodemus in the previous chapter what he must do in order to not perish.
Kathleen tried to stop using drugs, but nothing worked. “I wanted to be good,” she said, “but everything in my life and in the world was so pathetic. There seemed no reason to be good.”
I have no argument about this.
I do not approach everyone the same way with the New Testament.
Few doctors prescribe for all their patients the same medicine all the time.
Kathleen then met Jehovah’s Witnesses. “I learned that there is no burning hell. The Scriptural evidence made perfect sense,” said Kathleen. “Knowing that I would not have to burn in hell was a tremendous relief.”But she also learned of God’s promise that humans could live forever on an earth cleansed of wickedness. (Psalm 37:10, 11, 29; Luke 23:43) “I now had a real hope—to live forever in Paradise!” she exclaimed.
Does Kathleen have the ASSURANCE of this salvation?
Does she have the Lord Jesus within or does she just have a better teaching ?
The Bible said the Christians should test themselves to see if they are in the faith. Is Jesus living in you ?
"Test yourselves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not recognize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?" (2 Cor. 13:5)
How tragic it would be if you had only given her what she thought was a better teaching but she had no assurance of salvation. And she might lack that assurance because you Jehovah's Witness discourage her from praying to Jesus or believing that the Holy Spirit is a Person. She might not have the assurance because you told her that Jesus is a lesser God and not the God Jehovah mysteriously become a man.
So with one hand you think you build up.
But are you tearing down with the other hand?
You discourage people from receiving Jesus Christ into their hearts because you THINK you're doing Jehovah some favor by making Jesus just an angel.
Jesus said some teachers would not enter into salvation themselves but hindered others from going in as well.
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you close off the kingdom of the heavens in the face of men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to enter." (Matt. 23:13)
If you forbid Kathleen from entering into Jesus Christ then you may be closing to door of salvation to her. The greater blame will be yours.
Would Kathleen be able to stop abusing drugs without the threat of a fiery hell hanging over her? She related: “When I had a strong craving for drugs, I would pray, begging Jehovah God for help. I thought of his view of such defiling habits, and I did not want to disappoint him. He answered my prayers.” (2 Corinthians 7:1) This fear of displeasing God enabled Kathleen to break free from her addictions.
In her case as in the case of millions, the "hell" they are already in is the immediate practical problem.
Yes I agree that hopelessness would be depressing. Yet the Gospel is that Christ can come and live within us - "Christ in your the hope of glory". Yet you JWs oppose this message.
For you hate the revelation of the Three-one God. And you forbid your pupils to consider the Holy Spirit as the Person Christ in His pneumatic form as the Spirit of Jesus.
Yes, cultivating love for God and a healthy fear of him—not fear of torment in hell—can motivate us to do God’s will in order to enjoy lasting happiness. The psalmist wrote: “Blessed is every one that feareth Jehovah, that walketh in his ways.”—Psalm 128:1, American Standard Version.
I reserve the right to be impressed with more than one angle of the whole revelation of the Bible.
I reserve the right to consider before Go...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
07 Jun 13
I reserve the right to consider before God and in prayer, which approach may be used by the Holy Spirit to help men to come to Jesus. And if more than one approach which two or more aspects of the whole truth should they hear.
Love motivates people Jaywill, not fear of burning in Hell.
Your argument is with the Lord not with me.
It is the Lord Jesus who taught - "But I will show you whom you should fear ... yes, I tell you, fear this One."
These words came out of the SAME MOUTH as pronounced such comforting words of love, mercy, longsuffering, friendship with the sinner, forgiveness.
The SAME PERSON spoke both and each teaching.
08 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonshipI have no argument with the Lord Jesus Christ, I have an argument with a teaching that has kept people in abject fear, rather than a healthy respect for spiritual principles.
I reserve the right to consider before God and in prayer, which approach may be used by the Holy Spirit to help men to come to Jesus. And if more than one approach which two or more aspects of the whole truth should they hear.
Love motivates people Jaywill, not fear of burning in Hell.
Your argument is with the Lord not with me. ...[text shortened]... ng, friendship with the sinner, forgiveness.
The SAME PERSON spoke both and each teaching.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jun 13
1 edit
I have no argument with the Lord Jesus Christ, I have an argument with a teaching that has kept people in abject fear, rather than a healthy respect for spiritual principles.
Then you should be careful, I think, to indicate the difference.
What I saw was you try to change the actual meaning of Luke 12:5.
What you end up doing is bitterly complaining about people who perhaps have no other message to spread except that of fire insurance.
You JWs are not unique in that annoyance by any means.
But you should not twist the words of Christ to mean the opposite of what He apparently intended.
He will tell us who we should really fear. And He is right.
That is not the ONLY thing He taught. Agreed.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jun 13
3 edits
Folks, the reason Christ stressed in Luke the fear of God was to get His disciples out of the fear of man.
The old saying said "The only way to get the fear of man out of you is to get the fear of God in you."
This is right. The only remedy to the dread of sinful man is to fear God. God of course is good, righteous, holy, perfect, and loving yet just. . So as the Ultimate Governor He should be feared and as the heavenly Father He should be loved.
Now I would say that Jesus, because He was God become a man, had His MAN side fearing God too. I don't think He was saying what He did not practice Himself.
I think He was speaking out of His own fear for God. He was God / man. He shared our nature too.
And it is not "whosoever can explain" has eternal life. It is "whosoever believes" has eternal life. What can the true Christian say? Jesus, as God become a man, is believable.