Why did Jesus teach in parables??

[Thomas]

I don't follow your logic —

It is given to you to understand The mystries of the Kingdom of Heaven, To them it is NOT given to understand. it was NOT GIVEN ... Jesus purposefully excluded the multitudes from knowing.

Not quite.

Remember that there was more than one attempt to stone Jesus ... so had he spoke in 'plain English' rather than parables, then there is little doubt He would have been killed a lot sooner.

Also, parables were a well-used system of teaching — that does not mean everyone will understand the meaning of the parable ... I do have trouble with you asserting things that are just factually wrong. For instance:

Matthew 21:45-46
"And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they knew that he spoke of them. And seeking to lay hands on him, they feared the multitudes: because they held him as a prophet."

It might also be that Jesus planned His church from the outset, because He knew He would not be with the people for long ... once He was gone, where were the people to go for instruction?

Remember also, if there was no Church, there would be no Scripture ... the church was there before the Scripture was ... so the Scripture is the witness of the Church ... so if you want to understand what it means, go ask the Church which wrote it.

Thomas

 

[leastone]

"[T]he church was there before the Scripture was ... so the Scripture is the witness of the Church ... so if you want to understand what it means, go ask the Church which wrote it."

May I ask, sir, if the Church that brought forth its witness in Scripture, (as well as in martyrdom), had a particular name?



Respectfully,

Learner

 

[Dream]

Don't understand what you mean by 'not of any man's choosing' ...

Its the idea that since Jesus came the Spirit is given to individuals directly by God and not with respect to organizations or leaders, such as Moses. Jesus is not here for that same reason. This is part of what was preached to Israel by the apostles along with the extension of membership in Christ to Gentiles. Its based upon Jer 31:34 among others.

Acts 1:8
"But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth."

Acts 2:4 "...And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak."

also John 14:26 & 15:26 using the term 'Paraclete'

Acts 1:8 mentioned the gospel would be preached to the 'uttermost part' of the earth, very similar to Mark 16:15 where the apostles are commanded to preach the gospel to the whole creation. Then Mark 16:20 records that this was accomplished through the signs and miracles that were given to the apostles, (especially the power of miraculous language) in order to reach all the Jews of the diaspora, by which means they found out what had happened. Colossians 1:23 also records the gospel as having already been preached to all creatures. All creatures and the 'uttermost part of the earth' then, referred to the diaspora of Israel. When the tongues first came, Peter told men of the diaspora about Jesus being taken to heaven and that he would not return until his enemies were under his feet. (Not what they had expected of their king). He had received the promised Holy Spirit (hagios pneuma) and had poured out the promised gift, which was for them and their children and all those whom the Lord would call.(Acts 2)

This marked both the entrance of the Gentiles into the house of God, and a change in how a person was a member. Verse two says "And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'"

And they instructed their successors ...

It is true that we disagree here, and I think these apostles accomplished what they were sent to do by means of miraculous powers. (Col 1:23, Mark 16:20) The gift was poured out, so apostles to Israel were no longer needed.

Remember also, if there was no Church, there would be no Scripture ... the church was there before the Scripture was ... so the Scripture is the witness of the Church ... so if you want to understand what it means, go ask the Church which wrote it.

That is based upon belief in apostolic succession. It seems that if we needed the continued presence of apostles, then Jesus would not have been kept in heaven, and the reason he's not needed here is the same reason the apostles are no longer needed here. That is the whole idea of the gift of the Holy Spirit being poured out.

 

[wil]

Namaste Dream,

You've been here, on this site since Feb 08 it says...10 months. I assume you've been elsewhere, talked elsewere, written elsewhere. You've posted 866 times in that 12 months and I'll bet more words of yours have been recorded here than those of Jesus in his lifetime.

The gospel record is short and incomplete, in no way does it comprise three decades of life (yes we know the gaps) or three years of teaching/preaching/conversations with disciples or others. It is a highlight reel, 3 hours of a sporting event is condensed to 15 seconds of TV time...quite analogous to Jesus's teachings vs. the gospel record I believe.

As I indicated before, I don't believe he only taught in parables, but the parables were the most memorable, most oft repeated, and hence what was recorded decades later when it was finally written down by folks who weren't even around to hear them.

 

[Dream]

As I indicated before, I don't believe he only taught in parables, but the parables were the most memorable, most oft repeated, and hence what was recorded decades later when it was finally written down by folks who weren't even around to hear them.

I see what you're saying. The parts that were written down would be the choice parts and things that reminded people of what he said. There is enough to read the topic with and understand the commentary. I think there is enough to get to know his group, and what is there is very efficient with many references to the much larger OT.

 

[Thomas]

May I ask, sir, if the Church that brought forth its witness in Scripture, (as well as in martyrdom), had a particular name?

Not originally ... there were many names, 'The Way' being one, but the general term throughout the Empire soon became 'Christian'.

The question then becomes which church today closest resembles that church, in its doctrine? The answer to that, to me, is the one that cleaves closest to the original teaching as was handed down ... which would put the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as clearly distinct from later denominations.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Dream —

Its the idea that since Jesus came the Spirit is given to individuals directly by God and not with respect to organizations or leaders, such as Moses.

I suggest that's a very selective reading of Scripture, basing a belief on a couple of verses, and ignoring the context.

If you follow the logic of that argument, then even Christ Himself becomes unnecessary. If the pouring of the Holy Spirit is all that is required, then the Incarnation was not, and Jesus was not. Might I also point out that the Holy Spirit has been lavished upon man since the dawn of time ... but that does not mean He chooses to accept it, follow it, or abide by it.

+++

Assuming Christ wasn't wasting His time then, we have Matthew 4:19 / Mark 1:17
"And he saith to them: Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men."

Then check out Matthew 13:11, 16:16-19, 28:18; Mark 4:11, Mark 8:30; Luke 8:10; John 6:67-72 ... amongst others, which clearly indicate that Jesus intended to found a church, and that His disciples were being trained to lead it ... then, of course, John 21:16-19
"He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me."
Christ spoke of Himself as the Shepherd, and here He quite plainly and directly hands his flock to Peter.

The assumption that Christ would establish a Church for what, some 20 or 30 years, after which it would be unnecessary? No ... I don't think so.

Acts 1:8 mentioned the gospel would be preached to the 'uttermost part' of the earth, very similar to Mark 16:15 where the apostles are commanded to preach the gospel to the whole creation.

Yes, the apostles were commissioned to preach, to baptise and so forth ... and their successors continue to do so today.

It is true that we disagree here, and I think these apostles accomplished what they were sent to do by means of miraculous powers. (Col 1:23, Mark 16:20) The gift was poured out, so apostles to Israel were no longer needed.

Really? Was all Isreal converted? No. All the Gentiles? No. Then the mission is not yet complete.

Look around you ... as I have said often, in the age of the Apostles, the message was clear and simple. Now, the message is utterly confused, and everyone adds their own opinion to the confusion.

Why? Because everyone likes the idea of being Christian, but decides to be so on their own terms. So they throw out the teachings of the people who gave them the Scriptures, and invent their own interpretations...

It seems that if we needed the continued presence of apostles, then Jesus would not have been kept in heaven, and the reason he's not needed here is the same reason the apostles are no longer needed here. That is the whole idea of the gift of the Holy Spirit being poured out.

No, that's an illogical as well as retrospective and self-serving argument.

Again, you're saying that it has to be on your terms.

It would mean, at the very least, that Jesus would be some 2,000 years old, which would be pretty conclusive proof in my book, and thus undo everything God is trying to do.

I would suggest Jesus is still needed, and is still here, and that's why he established His Church, and guaranteed it, until the end of time ... He is visible in the witness of His saints.

The point is clear. We accept Jesus on His terms ... and His terms are, accept thy neighbour before you even think of calling on me.

The Holy Spirit is there to help us do that ... the Spirit reveals the Son, the Son reveals the Father ... the way you have it, the Spirit is there to confirm us in our own opinions.

You quote Acts 2 at length, but you miss the important part:
"What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call."
He shall call them to His church ... that is what He founded it for ... now and for ever.

"They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers."

Thomas

 

[leastone]

[W]hich church today closest resembles that church, in its doctrine?
The answer to that, to me, is the one that cleaves closest to the original teaching as was handed down ... which would put the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as clearly distinct from later denominations.

I thank you for your answer, Thomas.

I find it interesting that you zoom in on "doctrine" and cleaving to "original teaching" (as handed down, of course) as the main mark of close resemblance between the primitive church and the RCC, EOC, and OOC.

Of course, these appear to have no resemblance at all, and any small group of dedicated, born-again, Spirit-filled believers of a small house church seems to be closer to the real thing.

One might object and point out that they cannot really have the original doctrine, since they are "outside the Church," and are thus open to error.
Then again, the "doctrines of the Church" are not quite the simple, original teachings of Jesus, are they? I mean, with what body of doctrine would Peter have started out with to "feed the innocents"?

I am not out to provoke you, sir, just trying to work these things out for myself, while curious as to how you would respond.

Thanks.

Respectfully,

Learner

 

[Thomas]

Of course, these appear to have no resemblance at all, and any small group of dedicated, born-again, Spirit-filled believers of a small house church seems to be closer to the real thing.

I tend to focus more upon commonality of the Profession of Faith. The Creed was in place by the close of the first century, and the first Christians were, as you point out, above all a liturgical community, and that liturgical practice continues — it has developed organically over the centuries, no doubt — but still essentially and recognisably the same liturgy and the same practice — in those communities you mention (RC, EO & OOC).

And central to that body of believers were the Apostles and the teaching ... in Acts it is evident that those 'Spirit-filled believers' were drawn to the Church and the Sacramental Graces — Baptism and the Eucharist — that are in her gift.

One might object and point out that they cannot really have the original doctrine, since they are "outside the Church," and are thus open to error.

I'm not sure of whom you're talking here?

Then again, the "doctrines of the Church" are not quite the simple, original teachings of Jesus, are they? I mean, with what body of doctrine would Peter have started out with to "feed the innocents"?

Do you not think so? The Johannine corpus is very simple — love — and Peter and John seem inseparable in the early days. True, from what we see and what we know, Peter is more inclined to 'take the bull by the horns', as it were, but then again Mark's gospel is a pretty good guide to Peter's testimony, and Acts to his style of preaching.

Then again, the Beatitudes are far from simple ... nor the commandment to give up everything one has ...

Then of course, we have St Paul, whose letters predate the Gospels. He too preaches a remarkable simple idea — That God sent His only Son that we might live eternally in Him — but of course explores some more subtle and technical, one might say 'internal' or 'esoteric' aspects, both moral and mystical.

As I see it, the New Testament is the witness of that early community — it was their scripture, after all, they did not believe what was written, they wrote down what they believed.

Most people tend to miss that, as if there are the Christians, on the one hand, and the doctrine, on the other.

The Church was spread far and wide by word of mouth before the written scripture, in Rome Nero was burning Christians before the Gospels were written down. And there were already the need for order and discipline, especially in conflict between Christian and Jew (there had been running street battles in Rome) and Christian and Gentile (look at the silversmiths of Ephesus).

And of course, the care of the wider community. Every city had its widows, orphans and dispossessed looked after by the Church, and until its fall, monies collected and sent to Jerusalem — indeed the Apostles appointed the diaconate to manage just such affairs, which shows a considerable degree of organisation and centralisation I would suggest, within a decade of Golgotha.

Thomas

 

[winner08]

That isn't about the parables and it was in Romans 7. I think I've agreed more than you're letting on.
Everything I've said was in agreement with the verse about the foolish and wise. Can you be specific?
I think we're talking about more of the same things than you think.

The people were alive and so had spirit but not the specific breath given to Israel's elders. There was a measure of the spirit given to all Israel to hear with, however when it came to this, Jesus had some things to say. It didn't mean what everybody had thought before he spoke about it. In fact, the special breath given to the leaders could be taken away, and it was impossible to say who was an Israelite based upon Patriarchy alone:

Jesus said 'He that has ears to hear let him hear' (Luke8:8), which is a change from the way things were done before him. When Jesus said "He that has ears to hear" he reminds Israel of the hearing order. In the wilderness, all of Israel was ordered to hear in the great "Hear Oh Israel" passages.(Deut 5,6,9) Israel is ordered to hear, an act of obedience. Jesus is saying effectively "If you're of Israel, then hear." By saying this Jesus announced that not everyone in Israel was spiritually an Israelite; since in Deuteronomy an Israelite is able to hear spiritual things. If they're weren't able then there wouldn't have been a commandment to hear in Deuteronomy. This was a big change in how people thought things were done. Until that time, you could be born into it. Paul probably thought about this when he said "But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,"(Rom 9:6) Jesus said many other related things, like "Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left."(Matt 24:40)

I agreed that the parables were about that, and check my post again if you'd like. Sorry about that misunderstanding.

Yes Dream I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I have a bad habit of misunderstanding what people a saying sometimes. This is one of these sometimes.
I do have to say that we are all given a mesure of the Holy Spirit. Not just some of Isrealites. I don't know if you know this or not but the house of Isreal is not the isrealites in the state of isreal. God's chosen people includes whom ever He wants to include. Paul's letters to the churches teach that one does not have to be a jew to be God chosen. I think He Paul called it being a spiritual jew. remember Paul manily taught to the gentials.

Yes I do see now that we do agree more than I thought. Thanks for the heads up. I don't have to many people agreeing with me so I am shock when somebody does. You see Dream I don't beleive what mainstream chriatianity teaches. I believe the teaching is purely a man made doctrin. Man twisted the true teachings of Christ to fit their needs so that they could keep the people slaves to them. Teaching the myth of hell and not being saved and haveing to pay tithes just as today its all about power and money Nothings changed.

Darren

 

[Thomas]

You see Dream I don't beleive what mainstream christianity teaches.

OK. So we should abandon everything ... and follow you?

I believe the teaching is purely a man made doctrine. Man twisted the true teachings of Christ to fit their needs so that they could keep the people slaves to them.

I on the other hand tend to think you're the one making up your own doctrine as you go along to suit you.

Teaching the myth of hell ...

OK. Explain this:

Matthew 5:22
"And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Matthew 10:28
"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Or these ...

Matthew 3:10
"For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire."

Matthew 3:12
"Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

Matthew 7:19
"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire."

Matthew 13:40
"Even as cockle therefore is gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world."

Matthew 13:42
"And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 25:41
"Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels."

Mark 9:41-43
"And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea ... it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: Where there worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished."

John 15:6
"If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth."

You say one thing ... Scripture says something else ... I know which I choose.

It is obvious that sheol was not enough for Jesus, He wanted an image far more graphic and visceral than that. Gehenna — the term translated as hell — was a place of abomination known to His audience, there was no mistaking His meaning then ...

Thomas

 

[leastone]

As I see it, the New Testament is the witness of that early community — it was their scripture, after all, they did not believe what was written, they wrote down what they believed.

Most people tend to miss that, as if there are the Christians, on the one hand, and the doctrine, on the other.

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for the effort to respond with such a thorough explanation. I especially took note of the emphasized words in the quote above.

Thanks once again.

Learner

 

[Thomas]

A quick note on parables.

The term comes from the Greek, parabole, a term for a figure of speech in ancient oratory (the root meaning is the placing of one thing beside another for the sake of comparison).

The two most basic forms of parable are the simile and metaphor — a simile is a comparison using the words 'like' or 'as' — "as lambs" (Luke 10:3), or perhaps the more common: "The kingdom of heaven is like ... " (Matthew 13:31).

Metaphors (Gk metapherein, 'to carry over') ascribe the qualities of one thing to another "You are the salt of the earth" (Matthew 5:13) or again, more famously, the 'I am' sayings of Christ recorded in John — the bread of life, the good shepherd, the door.

The translators of the Septuagint used parable to translate the Hebrew masal.

The masal, however, is far more wider in its usage than the Greek understanding of parable, it covers a number of literary forms, including proverbs, riddles, songs, oracles, similes, metaphors and allegories, as well as recitals and discourses ...

... but most intriguingly, we have clear evidence from Jewish texts, admittedly though of a later date, but which may well embody oral traditions that were contemporary with the times of Jesus, that rabbinic parables were not clear illustrations of religious truths, but often comprise enigmatic sayings, puzzling imagery, and other techniques to engage and challenge the hearer.

So to say that Jesus was the only man to speak in parables, or to speak in parables that were not easily and immediately understood, is something of a huge assumption. All the evidence says otherwise.

In fact, in the Jewish texts it is common to refer to the relationship between God and man as that of the King and his servant — a device Jesus used often, and one that when applied to Himself was, apparently, not misunderstood, as He nearly got Himself stoned for doing so.

Thomas

 

[winner08]

Thomas I was reading some of your replies to others and I was just wondering do you believe in the Scriptures? Do you belive when Jesus said that NO man can come to the Father except through Me? Do you actually believe that man can choose to be saved or not? Do you believe that God's Will, WIll ALWAYS,ALWAYS be done. Not man's will.

Thomas I' m NOT trying to offend you in anyway shape or form. I notice you have strong opinions and beliefs I am just trying to understand your position.

 

[winner08]

OK. So we should abandon everything ... and follow you?


I on the other hand tend to think you're the one making up your own doctrine as you go along to suit you.


OK. Explain this:

Matthew 5:22
"And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Matthew 10:28
"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Or these ...

Matthew 3:10
"For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire."

Matthew 3:12
"Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."


Matt 3:12 this is a spiritul scripture it has nothing to do with chaft or wheet even a barn. it is about we(mankind)being gathered up and put into the lake of fire. then the chaff (carnality) of man will be burned out of the wheat(man) what you have left is the best of the wheat(man).

Matthew 7:19
"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire."


Matt, 7:9 ever tree(man) that brings not forth good fruit(the word of God) shall be cut down(man brought down and cast into the fire) where all the BAD FRUIT (mans Carnality) will be burned out of him. What is left is the purest formof the heart

Matthew 13:40
"Even as cockle therefore is gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world."

Matthew 13:42
"And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 25:41
"Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels."

Mark 9:41-43
"And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea ... it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: Where there worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished."

John 15:6
"If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth."

You say one thing ... Scripture says something else ... I know which I choose.

It is obvious that sheol was not enough for Jesus, He wanted an image far more graphic and visceral than that. Gehenna — the term translated as hell — was a place of abomination known to His audience, there was no mistaking His meaning then ...

Thomas

Thomas one has to remember that Jesus word are spirit& life He say so.

No Thomas Hell in Scripture is NOT translated Gehenna. Gehanna is the fire that burned in the valley of Hinomm. Sheol and hades is the state of the dead. Yes I agree Jesus wanted a strong image for the Lake of Fire. but the whole idea of a place where a person will be tortured with fire and brimstone for ever and ever is a man made doctrin. Not once does Jesus teach or even say that Hell is a place where you will be sent forever and ever if your a nonbeliever or your evil. Not once. If you notice in the O.T. there is not ONE word HELL not one you wont fine hell being a place of torture after death it is UNscriptual. Once again if you read the words in the scripture keeping in mind that Jesus taught the spiritual things then you will understand. I will blow your mine now. we all have to be destroyed die in the Lake of fire. Everbody except the elect. the rest of us will be throwen into the lake of fire. This is where we will be purged from all of our carnality. All our human evil way will be destroyed in the lake of fire and when we are finnish we will be in God's image (spirit and enter into the Kingdom. For flesh and blood can not enter the Kingdom.
First you have to aquate hell and fire and burning with the spirit and not the body. All the scripture you quote are just as they say but it is spiritual not physical. Jesus said If a man works are burn up in the lake of fire His life will be saved. That what i am saying the flesh and blood and all the things that are against God in our heart body and soul will be burned out. Just like the scripture that says we are the clay and God is the potter.
Just as if you take a pice of caly make a cup then fire it and it is purged from all the crap and what do you have left? a perfectly cleansed(purgeD) peice of work. This is excatly what is going to happens to us.

Does this make since to you.
We die then our soul goes to heaven or hell.
Our body is in the ground
but our soul is either burnning forever and ever or in paradise.
then we are resurrected our soul is taken from where ever it is Heaven or hell, then placed into our bodies.
Then we are judged and sentence either to heaven or hell were we will spent eternity. WHAT? we are sent back to where we just came what kind of god is this does this make any since not to me it sounds pretty dumb.
\First of all a soul if that is what you believe does not have feelings no nerves, nerve endings or a brain so that the fire would touch the soul then shoots a single to the brain so that the pain of fire would regerster from the nerves to the brain and then we would feel pain. A soul does not have a body in the afterlife the body is in the grave. So here is a real problem with mainstream christanity teachings. The soul does not only have a body it does not have a brain or skin or nerve endings so that the pain or being burn could even regerster.

Logically it don't add up.

 

[winner08]

If one does not take the scriptures as spiritand life just a Jesus said MY words are spirit and life one will never understand. never

 

[winner08]

NO smart a%$. I don't want nobody to follow me. Follow God. Just becuse I have a strong belief dosn't mean I have to be trash for it. Or does it? Because I don't beleive in man made doctrin of hell and free will, means I'm wrong and sould be trashed for it. Your belief is right and true and If I don't follow it I should be trash for it.

I have news for you I feel great that you put me down because I know the truth.

I'm not upset really i'm happy it make me feel good that I am being purscuted for my belief so did the discipiles.

 

[winner08]

OK. So we should abandon everything ... and follow you?


I on the other hand tend to think you're the one making up your own doctrine as you go along to suit you.


OK. Explain this:

Matthew 5:22
"And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Matthew 10:28
"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Or these ...

Matthew 3:10
"For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire."

Matthew 3:12
"Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

Matthew 7:19
"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire."

Matthew 13:40
"Even as cockle therefore is gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world."

Matthew 13:42
"And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 25:41
"Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels."

Mark 9:41-43
"And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea ... it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire: Where there worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished."

John 15:6
"If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth."

You say one thing ... Scripture says something else ... I know which I choose.

It is obvious that sheol was not enough for Jesus, He wanted an image far more graphic and visceral than that. Gehenna — the term translated as hell — was a place of abomination known to His audience, there was no mistaking His meaning then ...

Thomas

Say man what's your problem? I wasn't even addressing you, I was replying to Dream. I don't need you smart remarks. You are the one that thinks he knows everything, your the one who puts his nose in everybody elses business when not even asked. I notice you do this to quite a few people on this site. What is it with you? You have to be the center of intention or what. you like stiring up the pot? Just because God hasn't given you the wisdom to understand these thing don't take it out on me or others. I have a idea why don't you try meditating on God's word and maby He will give you understanding and a new attitude. you need it. People like you think they know it all and really they're the ones that don't know anything. I don't change scripture YOU DO I believe in what they say YOU DON"T. Like I said I can't help you if God has chosen you NOT to understand His word..

 

[BlaznFattyz]

I don't beleive in man made doctrin of hell

With Jesus' numerous warnings regarding hell as a real place of unquenchable fire that goes on forever, Christians do not believe in man-made doctrines, rather the unwavering gospel regarding salvation from hell. This is what Christ came to save us from. If you want to believe in a different doctrine that goes against scripture, it is not Christianity, but is sounding more like Universalism.

In story of Lazarus and the rich man, Lazarus is a poor man who suffers during life. The rich man is, of course, rich. They both die. The rich man goes to Hades. Lazarus goes to Abraham's bosom, another term for paradise. In Hades, the rich man lifts up his eyes and sees Lazarus far off. He cries out to Abraham and asks for mercy because he is in agony in flame. Abraham says no. Then the rich man asks if someone from the dead were to rise and go tell his brothers not to come to this terrible place.

If hell fire is false and if self-awareness after death is also false, then Jesus is using false doctrines to teach a truth. Parables illustrate truth. If it is a parable what does the consciousness after death symbolize? Also, what does the agony in flame symbolize? Clearly, Jesus is teaching that Hell is real and that it is a terrible place of punishment away from God.

 

[Dream]

If someone offends let it go or ask for clarification privately. No need to let it distract from the discussion. Thomas is a smart guy who just disagrees and is being helpful. I've seen him overlook offenses before, which he probably learned from Proverbs 19:11 "it is his glory to overlook an offense". Overlooking offenses is the only oil that makes forum conversations work. If we didn't overlook offenses, most of us would hate each other inside of 5 minutes, and besides things always seem worse than they are when you're in the middle of it. Four days from now none of us will even remember where this thread was anyway.