- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29849
21 Sep 19
@rajk999 saidIt is certainly a conundrum that has flummoxed sonship. (And led to a vanishing act).
Oh .. I got it. Jesus will have His eyes closed.
He cannot bear to witness such torment.
Can 'any' Christian explain why 'in the presence of the lamb' doesn't actually mean the lamb is present. (And don't bother with the 'omnipresent' defense).
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Sep 19
2 edits
I'm struggling. They will be tormented in the 'presence' of the lamb,...but he won't actually be there overseeing it?!
Do we have a different understanding of 'in the presence of?'
What's your problem?
The first verse in the Bible establishes God's ability to do what He wants -
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Now what is your difficulty? Revelation 10:14 is beyond the ability of God?
He also shall drink of the wine of the fury of God, which is mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath;
and he shall be tormented in fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb.
And the smoke of their tormenting goes up forever and ever; and they have not rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (vs. 10,11)
If you happen to be nearby would you advise the followers of Antichrist not to be concerned because this would be an impossibility with Christ ?
And is the statement not logically possible even if Christ and His angels should only observe the punishment for one hour? Is the statement not true if Christ and His angels have this before them for only one day?
Does the phrase "their tormenting foes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night..." strictly speaking describe Christ's watching or their being tormented?
How about if all eternity is before and in the presence of God in some unimaginable transcendent way that only the Eternal God knows?
Impossibility may be a problem for you.
It is not for me. You prod that I ran away and want more words on this.
And the more we talk about it the more ground you have to accuse Christians of wanting to talk about nothing else. Someone will exploit that.
"Christians, and their OBSESSION with hell fire and torment !! Why don't they talk about love and mercy and forgiveness?"
What else do you want me to say Ghost?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Sep 19
2 edits
It is certainly a conundrum that has flummoxed sonship. (And led to a vanishing act).
Can 'any' Christian explain why 'in the presence of the lamb' doesn't actually mean the lamb is present. (And don't bother with the 'omnipresent' defense).
Do you think you are not before Christ and God right now?
"And there is no creature that is not manifest before Him, but all things are naked and laid bear to the eyes of Him to whom we are to give our account." (Hebrews 4:12)
That is not all negative you know?
There is quite a wonderful aspect to our lives being totally transparent to God's eyes.
Anyway, you attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill here. I think it is better just to take the warning in Rev. 14.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29849
21 Sep 19
@sonship
This is where our conversation got to. (Before you vanished).
You said, 'The God-man Jesus, the Lamb, does not have to be physically there where they are for what is happening to them to be before Him.'
I replied, 'In the presence of,' sonship, 'in the presence of...' - Revelation says such torment happens in 'the presence' of the lamb.
How can you then casually claim he does need to be physically there?!
21 Sep 19
@sonship saidThe point here is that you are a liar and a deceitful bible twister. You change the teachings of Christ and here again you are taking a simple statement in Revelation, ... in the presence of .. which means that Jesus was present at the time, and you are inserting your own opinion that Jesus does not have to be physically present during the torment.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
It is certainly a conundrum that has flummoxed sonship. (And led to a vanishing act).
Can 'any' Christian explain why 'in the presence of the lamb' doesn't actually mean the lamb is present. (And don't bother with the 'omnipresent' defense).
Do you think you are not before Christ and God right now?
[b]"And there is no creature ...[text shortened]... o make a mountain out of a mole hill here. I think it is better just to take the warning in Rev. 14.
Its simple. You have no integrity and your words are not to be trusted.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29849
21 Sep 19
@sonship saidRevelation 14:10:
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
It is certainly a conundrum that has flummoxed sonship. (And led to a vanishing act).
Can 'any' Christian explain why 'in the presence of the lamb' doesn't actually mean the lamb is present. (And don't bother with the 'omnipresent' defense).
Do you think you are not before Christ and God right now?
[b]"And there is no creature ...[text shortened]... o make a mountain out of a mole hill here. I think it is better just to take the warning in Rev. 14.
'They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.'
The 'presence' of the lamb is clearly referenced here. Own it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Sep 19
4 edits
Revelation 14:10:
'They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.'
The 'presence' of the lamb is clearly referenced here. Own it.
So your theory is that Jesus has to jump down into the place of their punishing in order for it to before Him ?
E. If He is not physically there, then it cannot be "before" His presence ?
This is not a problem to me because -
1.) I explained about the nature of prophecy. When you study fulfilled prophecy it is often what was said PLUS some that was not said. God's logic is not on the test. Our own hearts are on the test.
2.) They could according to the present laws of physics we know, be burned up (as the prophecy states) yet untold is the supernatural element the continues forever.
3.) Any amount of time Jesus as a man (He is man as well as God) observes the penalty is one thing. The duration of the penalty is another.
"If they are there forever, then Jesus has to be there with them forever" is not a valid argument to me.
4.) If physically they are before Him and pass into another realm of existence like Sheol / Hell in the OT the bible has David saying that in some sense God was THERE even if he should try to get away from God there.
"Where shall I go away from Your Spirit, And where shall I flee from Your presence ...
If I make my bed in Sheol, there You are." (See Psalm 139:7,8)
I don't mean to be impolite. But what seems a major problem to you is for these reasons not for me.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29849
21 Sep 19
@sonship saidYour God clearly deems it important that those who rejected Christ 'see him' (during their torment) triumphant and vindicated.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Revelation 14:10:
'They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.'
The 'presence' of the lamb is clearly referenced here. Own it.
So your theory is that Jesus has to jump down into the place of their punishing in order for it to before Him ?
E. If He is not physically there, t ...[text shortened]...
I don't mean to be impolite. But what seems a major problem to you is for these reasons not for me.
A kind of 'I told you so' distinctly ungodlike.
21 Sep 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidKnowledge of sins and reasons for failure to enter the Kingdom of God is going to be a very important part of the end times and judgment day. People are not going to be punished [neither rewarded], without full knowledge of why.
Your God clearly deems it important that those who rejected Christ 'see him' (during their torment) triumphant and vindicated.
A kind of 'I told you so' distinctly ungodlike.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Sep 19
Your God clearly deems it important that those who rejected Christ 'see him' (during their torment) triumphant and vindicated.
A kind of 'I told you so' distinctly ungodlike.
That is another issue - whether " I told you so " is by nature ungodlike.
Besides, what I read is not an emphasis on them seeing Christ but Christ seeing to them that they are vanquished.
The emphasis to me is He will see them defeated more than they are looking up observing Jesus and His angels standing there.
While the latter may be true, the force of the passage to me is that He will see to it that they are punished.
"If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, He also shall drink of the wine of the fury of God, which is mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath,
and he shall be tormented in the fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb."
You're shifting the emphasis to mean they will see Jesus - "I told you so" forever because He is present with them forever.
You think this will make Christ appear more sadistic giving you rationale not to take any of it seriously. After all, if Jesus Christ has to sit at YOUR feet to learn something about not being sadistic, then He is not worthy to be your Lord.
Run with that if you want.
I see in the passage that God, though long suffering, can get FURIOUS in anger - Righteous FURY. Not just anger this time but "undiluted" anger.
It implies that His anger can be with restraint, some dilution.
But in this instance it is not diluted with a speck of mercy -
" ... the wine of the fury of God, ... undiluted in the cup of His wrath."
The rich man seen in Luke 16:19-31 though in torment at least seems to have had the wits about him to carry on an exchange of conversation with father Abraham.
I wonder then, if some dilution of God's wrath was measured out there. But I don't know. The warning is clear.
21 Sep 19
1 edit
@sonship saidClear indeed. Greed and selfishness, failure to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, to help and give of ones wealth to the poor, leads to torment. Take note. Your faith will not save you. What makes it a thousand times worse for you is that you continually teach men to disobey the commandments of Christ. Jesus might indeed be sipping his cup of tea, watching you in the lake of fire along with the devil and the rest of your type. Its not too late to change. Start teaching people what happened to the Rich Man and how to avoid it.
The warning is clear.
21 Sep 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAnd?
Revelation 14:10:
'They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.'
The 'presence' of the lamb is clearly referenced here. Own it.
21 Sep 19
@fmf saidI would oppose such a law if imposed by man.
If "the powers that be" where you lived introduced the death penalty for adulterers and homosexuals, would you, as a citizen, oppose such a law as "evil"?
You bring up an interesting point though, one I believe addresses the topic of this thread.
I would pose this question; if indeed the God of the Bible is who the Bible says He is, and God, being the one that created everything in existence, should He define and separate between what is good and evil, and call into question the behavior of the created, is then not God just when He judges such behavior as worthy of everlasting punishment?
Who would dare question God or put Him on trial? Satan maybe? Or a mere mortal man?
The narrative of scripture is unequivocally clear with regards to what is good and evil, and just as clear with regards to the fate of those who reject God's salvation.
21 Sep 19
@fmf saidYou think wrong. There is and never will be a "Christian state", and if man sought to impose such a state I would oppose it vehemently.
If a 'Christian State' were established - similar to an Islamic State' - would you consider it "evil" if ~ on the basis of the notion that 'God's moral standard is the same' and 'evil is evil' ~ that state's government executed people for adultery and homosexuality? I think you would.
Want to know why?
It will be interesting to see if you can follow this train of thought without spiraling away into tangential and peripheral irrelevancies.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29849
21 Sep 19
@sonship saidI think you need to re-visit that passage and reflect on it. The suffering 'in the presence' of the lamb, is clearly intended as a final twisting of the knife. It reads like a bad Tarantino movie.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Your God clearly deems it important that those who rejected Christ 'see him' (during their torment) triumphant and vindicated.
A kind of 'I told you so' distinctly ungodlike.
That is another issue - whether " I told you so " is by nature ungodlike.
Besides, what I read is not an emphasis on them seeing Christ but Christ seeing to ...[text shortened]... hen, if some dilution of God's wrath was measured out there. But I don't know. The warning is clear.