Eternal damnation?

Originally posted by sonship
Kepler, it is often the case that people want to argue over church history and councils when it is simply not necessary.

Adoption of this or that doctrine in some official ecclesiastical way in some religious organization is not terribly relevant to the point.

Ask me about the Scripture itself. What happened in 1215 not that important.

That was the nature of the question so whether or not it is important to you is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the body that determined what was preached, and therefore held to be true, only decided that sinners get eternal torment 1200 years after the start of christianity. Why the delay? What happened to cause this change of attitude? 1200 years is a very long time, fully 20% of the age of the earth if you are inclined to agree with the young earth codswallop.

As I said before, it seems to be similar to the ban on clergy marrying. That ban was enacted for purely human reason, to stop church property being inherited by the heirs of clergy. I suspect this change of doctrine is a similar case. For some reason humans, those at the top of the church, decided that death was insufficient as an inducement not to sin and introduced the possibility of endless torment backed up by some apparently vague scriptural evidence.

Originally posted by Kepler
Apparently the doctrine of eternal torment was an invention of the Lateran Council of 1215. So where does that leave our favourite instructor and his notions of hellfire and damnation?

My own opinion is that this is yet more evidence that his version of christianity is just men, especially RJ, making it up as they go along.

I'm not sure how you can say that, if scripture suggests its a reality it does
not matter what group among us accepts or rejects it. If a case can be
made for it, than it does not matter what any council or group of believes
accepts or rejects it.
Kelly

That was the nature of the question so whether or not it is important to you is irrelevant.

It is irrelvant to whether or not Christ's teaching in Luke 16:19-31
(spoken, written, believed and preached long before 1200 AD), is truth.

And really what is important is what you, Kepler, believe.
Jesus there is speaking to our hearts.
That's the kind of Bible reader I am.

If you're not interested in whether Jesus was speaking truth or not and want to argue about councils, someone else can engage you.

What is relevant is that the body that determined what was preached, and therefore held to be true, only decided that sinners get eternal torment 1200 years after the start of christianity.

That is not as important as you reading it and deciding whether you should take Jesus seriously there or not.

You don't want to take it ? Then don't take it.
It is only the Christ who came back from the dead.
It is only Moses and the prophets.

Originally posted by sonship

That was the nature of the question so whether or not it is important to you is irrelevant.

It is irrelvant to whether or not Christ's teaching in [b]Luke 16:19-31
(spoken, written, believed and preached long before 1200 AD), is truth.

And really what is important is what you, Kepler, believe.
Jesus there is speakin ...[text shortened]...
It is only the Christ who came back from the dead.
It is only Moses and the prophets.[/b]

(Colossians 4:6) Let your utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt, so as to know how you ought to give an answer to each one.

This is simply unacceptable on your part. Kepler asked in sincerity and instead you treat him with almost contempt. Its typical of many evangelical Christians I have met on my house to house ministry, devoid of reason, they become emotional, filled with some kind of spirit, which I believe is not very Holy.

It has nothing to do with whether Christ was speaking truth, its a straw man argument that you are making up, we are in agreement that Christ was teaching truth, what we do not accept is your inability or unwillingness to address the disparity of why the early Christians and many of the early churches with the exception of the Church of Rome, did not teach the doctrine of eternal torment. Its the same with the trinity, it was unheard of until the forth century. Why dont you come clean and simply accept that its extra biblical and the product of church tradition?

Originally posted by sonship

That was the nature of the question so whether or not it is important to you is irrelevant.

It is irrelvant to whether or not Christ's teaching in [b]Luke 16:19-31
(spoken, written, believed and preached long before 1200 AD), is truth.

And really what is important is what you, Kepler, believe.
Jesus there is speakin ...[text shortened]...
It is only the Christ who came back from the dead.
It is only Moses and the prophets.[/b]

i think the key issue is knowing that you are understanding what the scriptures says correctly. if the council didnt have a hell until the 1200's it shows that they were either wrong before or after that date.

the fact that you and people like robbie cannot agree on what each line of scripture means shows that christianity is still having the same problem that it had in the 1200's.

you are taking the approach that its obivious that there is a hell, because to you it says so clearly but yet robbie makes an equally strong case that there isnt............so its not so clear.

i would also add that the understanding of the bible is still changing, as new things are understood about the world, new understandings in the bible are found. so it is clear that the zeitgeist effects our understanding.

so therefore what happened in the 1200's is important and is relevant, because a decision was made that changed christianity and it may or may not have been influenced by the society of the time, an understanding that has stayed with your faith to this day, but not others like robbies.

so how do you know that your view of the bible is the final view of the bible? how do you know that some scholar in 100years time isnt going to look at the world around him and discover that the text means something different. they people before 1200 did, the j.w's do, jews do. it seems biblical translations are in constant flux. it seems folly to suggest that councils meeting and changing biblical understandings is irrelevant........its only irrelevant to you because you agree with that understanding.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Colossians 4:6) Let your utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt, so as to know how you ought to give an answer to each one.

This is simply unacceptable on your part. Kepler asked in sincerity and instead you treat him with almost contempt. Its typical of many evangelical Christians I have met on my house to house ministry, de ...[text shortened]... nt you come clean and simply accept that its extra biblical and the product of church tradition?

would you come clean if it was you? (no pun intended)

Originally posted by stellspalfie
would you come clean if it was you? (no pun intended)

I always try to conduct myself in a manner befitting a Christian and a minister of God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I always try to conduct myself in a manner befitting a Christian and a minister of God.

that seems like a 'yes' and 'no'.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
that seems like a 'yes' and 'no'.

smells like teen spirit.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
smells like teen spirit.

yeah a denial, a denial, a denial, a denial,a deniaaaaaaaal.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
yeah a denial, a denial, a denial, a denial,a deniaaaaaaaal.

LOL 😀

i think the key issue is knowing that you are understanding what the scriptures says correctly. if the council didnt have a hell until the 1200's it shows that they were either wrong before or after that date.

Let's pretend that we do not believe in any councils. Pretend for a moment that we do not care about Carthage, Nicene, Constantanople, no councils at all. We don't care about what this or that council decided on any matter.

Now let's read Matthew 25:41,46 - "Then He will say to those on the left, Go away from Me, you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ... And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Now let's switch it. Let's pretend we believe in all the councils. We believe every council. Even if a council said the moon is made of green cheese, we would believe it. We believe the council if it said I am not writing at this moment. We love councils - all of them.

Now let's read again Matthew 25:41, 46 - "Then He will say to those on the left, Go away from Me, you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ...And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Now, that is interesting. I didn't notice any difference at all. The Scripture still says what it says what it says. Did you notice any difference ?

The only "council" which is really important is the convening of you, the Holy Bible, and the Holy Spirit. Feel the weight of your own responsibility to receive or reject the speaking of the Bible.

Originally posted by sonship

i think the key issue is knowing that you are understanding what the scriptures says correctly. if the council didnt have a hell until the 1200's it shows that they were either wrong before or after that date.

Let's pretend that we do not believe in any councils. Pretend for a moment that we do not care about Carthage, Nicene, Constantan ...[text shortened]... t. Feel the weight of you own responsibility to receive the speaking of the Bible.

From the point of view of history, the adoption of the doctrine after 1200 years is very important. It does not matter what you or I believe today in this case. For 1200 years the church did not have eternal torment as a doctrine and therefore that doctrine was not preached prior to 1215. That would mean that prior to that date christians in general would not have believed that they were going to hell for eternal torment due to some sin or other. After that date it all changes.

Why did christianity suddenly notice the bits of the bible that you quote? Are they later additions or had the translation or interpretation of them changed over those 1200 years?

Whether or not you can convince me that your god and your version of its religion are true is irrelevant to my question.

Originally posted by sonship

i think the key issue is knowing that you are understanding what the scriptures says correctly. if the council didnt have a hell until the 1200's it shows that they were either wrong before or after that date.

Let's pretend that we do not believe in any councils. Pretend for a moment that we do not care about Carthage, Nicene, Constantan ...[text shortened]... f your [b] own responsibility to receive or reject the speaking of the Bible.[/b]

who's to say that a new understanding of that text wont arise in the future? maybe their will be an invention or discovery of science/religion or a change in meaning of words over time, that will totally change what we understand and take from the text.

you are looking at it with eyes and mind that look to make it relevant to what you know now, and as we know understandings in the bible that were thought of as fact have changed over time as new meanings are discovered.

are you suggesting that the way we know the bible now is the 100% correct way?

From the point of view of history, the adoption of the doctrine after 1200 years is very important.

You're placing overdue importance to it, even if it is true.

From the standpoint of history - what Jesus spoke there in the New Testament predates whatever handy-dandy council you'd like to use as a lynchpin.

I am not despising all ecclesiastical councils. You are overstressing their importance.

I think you are deflecting the issue to render it less pertinent. Do it if you wish. "I have to wait and see what the committee said I should 1200 AD before I decide whether I could end up like the rich man or Lazarus for that matter."

I have not looked up your council in 1200 yet. But it is not that important to my reception of Christ's words. Usually they had been talking about a thing for a long time before there was a council for some organized official stance on a matter.

Often when the Holy Spirit convicts a person of some truth in the Bible they react by switching the subject to religious talk. When Jesus came to the Samaritan woman at the well, he told her of her private life of having five husbands.

Immediately she wants to jump to the subject of where do we worship - on this mountain or in Jerusalem. This was just so much religious talk as a deflection.

What one should pay first attention to is how God is speaking to one's individual conscience. Do not jump to arguments about how long this or that was the official position or what council decided this or that. If you start discussing council proceedings and minutes your embark down an labyrinth of other political and clerical issues heaping distractions and red herrings of all kinds.

You believe Jesus or you don't believe Jesus.

God forbid, if you should get hit by a automobile tonight going home, and if you find yourself in torment because you neglected the word of God - some council in 1200 AD will mean nothing to you at that moment.

You believe Jesus' words there of the solemn testimony or you dismiss the solemn testimony. No need to glance over to see what the council said, or me, or ANYONE for that matter.

It is between you and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Numbers in the Bible often have a spiritual significance associated with them. The number FIVE is often associated with one's personal responsibility -

Ie. Five foolish virgins - Five wise virgins.
The responsibility is up to them whether they want to be wise of foolish.

Likewise here Jesus said that rich man spoke of FIVE brothers still living -

"And he said, Then I ask you, Father, to send hum to the house of my father - For I have five brothers - so that he may solemnly testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment."

Five living brothers suggest it is the responsibility of each of them to decide for themselves. As it is yours and mine.

It does not matter what you or I believe today in this case. For 1200 years the church did not have eternal torment as a doctrine and therefore that doctrine was not preached prior to 1215.

Jesus preached in Luke 16:10-31 about the man dying and being judged.

The book of Hebrews said before 1215 - "And insomuch as it is reserved for men to die, once, and after this comes judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)

The Pharisees in the audience knew what Jesus was referring to. Josephus writes:

They believe that souls have power to survive death and that there are rewards and punishments 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 .... the Saducees hold that the soul perishes along with the body."

This was Josephus speaking of the beliefs of the Jewish rabbis during Christ's earthly ministry. At least the Pharisees understood perfectly the impact of what Jesus was warning in Luke 16.

Let's go back further by centries. Let's go back to the prophet Daniel and his prophecies of the end of days - the last judgment:

"And many of those who are sleeping in the dust of the ground will awake, some to life eternal and some to reproach, to eternal contempt." (Daniel 12:2)

God's prophet didn't have to wait on the council of 1200 to predict that some would resurrect to life eternal and others to eternal contempt.

Then there's the prophet Isaiah speaking of the time of the new heaven and new earth. The punished will be there to serve as a reminder that rebellion against the Most High is futile -

"For as the new heavens and new earth, which I make, remain before Me, declares Jehovah, So will your seed and your name remain.

And from new moon to new moon and from Sabbath to Sabbath all flesh will come to bown down before Me, says Jehovah.

Then they will go forth and look on the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me; For their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched; and they will be an abhorrence to all flesh." (Isaiah 66:22-24)

This is there to accept or to not accept long before your council in 1200.

Jesus references this passage when He speaks of beyond this physical life judgment - "And if your eye stumbles you, cast it out, it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into Gehenna, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. For everyone will be salted with fire." (Mark 9:47-49)

Are you going to advize Jesus Christ that He needs to wait to see what the council in 1200 AD has to say about it ?

That would mean that prior to that date christians in general would not have believed that they were going to hell for eternal torment due to some sin or other. After that date it all changes.

Paul was a Christian who authored some 13 of the 27 New Testament books. In his basic outlay of the Christian faith - the book of Romans , writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he informs us -

"To those who by endurance in good work seek glory and honor and incorruptibility, eternal life; But to those who are selfishly contentious and disobedient to the truth and obey unrighteousness, wrath and fury.

Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man who commits evil, both of Jew first and of Greek. For there is no respect of persons. " (Romans 2:7-11)

Now some will protest - "But that doesn't say anything about eternal wrath and fury. Gotcha ! "

I don't want to undergo ANY divine " wrath and fury." That is no escape hatch. Besides Paul does say "eternal destruction" in Second Thessalonians -

" ... the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of His power, in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey that gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength." (2 Thess. 1:7b-9)

In the same letter he speaks of the Antichrist as the "son of perdition" (2:3)

"But Paul didn't have the benefit of some council in 1200 to educate him ?"

PEDITION defined

PERDITION

per-dish'-un (apoleia, "ruin" or "loss," physical or eternal):

The word "perdition" occurs in the English Bible 8 times (John 17:12; Philippians 1:28; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 6:9; Hebrews 10:39; 2 Peter 3:7; Revelation 17:11,18). In each of these cases it denotes the final state of ruin and punishment which forms the opposite to salvation. The verb apolluein, from which the word is derived, has two meanings:

(1) to lose;

(2) to destroy.

Both of these pass over to the noun, so that apoleia comes to signify:

(1) loss;

(2) ruin, destruction.

It is not the absence of being. It is the ruination of well being.

Oh, Judas also, along with the coming Antichrist, won the title of "son of perdition" (John 17:12)

And concerning Judas Jesus said it would have been good for him if he had never been born. So PERDITION cannot be annihilation into non-existence. For it would be better for the "son of perdition" to have never existed than he be "the son of perdition. "

Give it up Kepler. Seek assurance, safety and peace in the faithful Savior Christ and under His redeeming blood. Give up obfuscation via ecclesiastical councils and other red herrings.