Posts by Halcon

128

Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

Halcon

The level of insanity, cruelty and plain old sadism required should make us thankful that it doesn't exist.

Tonus

If God truly is love, as the scriptures repeatedly claim, non-existence is a more logical punishment. To return to dust. To disintegrate you so as to never be conscious again.

In the old testament God is shown 'cutting off' the wicked, simply ending their life. Never once does he instruct Joshua for example to round up the Canaanites and torture them with fire. We do however read how God detested the Canaanite ritual of burning children alive as a sacrifice to their gods, an act that never rose in God's heart to begin with, according to Scripture.

Jesus also stated "if you, being wicked, can show love to your children, how much more so will God show you love".

Non-existence is a more humane state of being than a state of eternal torture. We as human beings agree on this. We cannot be more humane than God.

128

Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

Halcon

I'm simply stating that a literal physical hell would mean that heaven is a literal physical place too.

Both destinations occur after the physical human experience ends, most often after death according to the scriptures.

But if the physical human experience continues for the ones condemned to hell, why would it be different for the ones going to heaven?

128

Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

Halcon

Exactly

128

Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

Halcon

I think that verse is a big clue on whether heaven OR hell will be experienced.

God is willing to justify you based on nothing more than belief on our part…. A very generous offer

Most certainly it will be either heaven or hell...the question is HOW will either be experienced, which is the question this thread brought up.

Imagine hell being a literal place, somewhere deep inside this planet or another. The opposite would also be literal. Heaven would be a literal place either on this planet or another, a literal physical paradise. Which would mean that the JW interpretation is actually the correct one after all.

128

Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

Halcon

7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:smile:

I think this verse is a big clue regarding how hell or heaven is to be experienced.

128

Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

Halcon

If a burning hell is a literal place, then it must mean that there is a civilization of human beings literally deep underground or on another literal planet experiencing pain as punishment.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

This is particularly true when the mind, leaving the ground of experience beneath itself, rises toward the regions of the absolute Being, where, according to the strict requirement of natural theology, every metaphysical concept must be re-evaluated with the triple method of God-knowledge.

Again, you're quoting essentially verbatim the ideas of Plato and Plotinus. Plotinus especially very practically inferred the concept of striving to 'rise' to the upper echelons of reality, and to finally become unified with the One

The general rule of speaking about the Trinity is: everything in God is one, where there is no contrast of relations; therefore, if the excellence of nature is the predicate, the subject can be nature or a person; if the predicate is personal excellence, the subject can only be a person.

It is true, that if all things come from one being, God, it follows that all the things that come from it carry its essence and substance. This is why Plotinus could say that we should strive to unify our 'inner divinity' with the divinity of the One, since it only became separated by means of the limitations of the human mind, which you also explain and quote from the philosopher above.

Describing his relelationship with God using the terms "Father" and "Son" is of course a perceptive analogy, but this does not prove that the Son was created or that he is ontologically inferior to the Father, just as it is not in the human world.

At best, we can say that both interpretations (Trinity and non Trinity) are technically correct. Trinity because all things come from God and carry his essence. Non-Trinity because Jesus himself said "the Father is greater than I"..his very own words. And they cannot simply be discarded as words for the less enlightened or ignorant. Even if you did, we can say Jesus was saying the same thing in two different ways.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

aqwsed12345

The verses you quoted have nothing to do with what I was talking about. They do not praise learned ignorance or JW-style theological barbarism. By the way, even the apostles didn't understand everything that Jesus taught, since, as Christ said, the Holy Spirit would later make them understand the teaching

Jesus could not have used a more simple to understand example of a human relationship to describe the one between himself and God. Not only did he use the example of father and son once, he did it over and over, thereby affirming the impression of father and son into the minds of his disciples.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man whois taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature.

- from the first link above, from Augustine

This is 100% neoplatonist (and consequently Platonist). The essence/substance/divinity does not cease. It is the constant of the divinity, a common denominator so to speak (a constant also well explained by Plotinus) that allows for the Trinity interpretation.

It is a purely 'mental' idea that runs into trouble when it's applied to the physicality of things that are perceived as separate, like a father standing next to his son.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

contrast, this cult of ignorance (again) is a completely wrong and anachronistic attitude. When in the history of God's people was everyone given unrestricted biblical interpretation? When did every "ordinary person" have their own Bible? Where in the Bible does it say, "I was written for ordinary people"? Where? Where?! Well, I'll tell you: nowhere!
J

Matthew 11: 25 - 27

He thanked God for hiding the truth of "these things" from those who are wise and understanding and revealing the truth instead to little children

1 Corinthians 2:1

When I first came to you, dear brothers and sisters, I didn’t use lofty words and impressive wisdom to tell you God’s secret plan

Both Jesus and Paul would beg to differ.