I have started a study of what Jesus said about Hell and Heaven. Of course for anyone to accept the results of this study, they will have to have one or more of the following criteria

a. They will have to at least subconciously be in agreement with the conclusions

b. They would have to be of the type that believes most things they read

c. They will contribute to this study and help me "get it"


Being as the study is for my own benefit, it does not offend me when folks disagree. I actually am privilaged, providing the critiscism is sincere.


As a basis for this study, (can someone propose a better one?)I am using the Holy Bible as the most accurate authority on what Jesus taught.

Post on this thread if you like. Ignore it if you prefer. To keep it simple I will not post many references on each conclusion. For simple reasoning and for the ability of everyone who might read to follow the line of thought, I propose this: If you know of a scripture that contradicts the one I have presented, or that shows another conclusion put down it's reference together with your conclusion.

Conclusions:

1.Jesus taught everlasting life John 5:24 John 6:47

2.Jesus taught that there will be a judgement of the literal dead John 5:28,29

3.Jesus taught that natural state of a man is that he will not see the kingdom of God.
John 3:3 John 3:36

4.Jesus taught that God wants everyone who hears of Jesus to have everlasting life. John 6:40

5.Jesus taught that it is possible to die with our sins unforgiven. John 8:24

6. Jesus acknowledged there was a hell. Luke10:15

If someone sees error in one or more of these conclusions or could make them more complete, feel free. If you have another conclusion to add, please do so.

~~4.Jesus taught that God wants everyone who hears of Jesus to have everlasting life. John 6:40~~


John 6:40
40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.


You can't just hear about Jesus you have to "believe" in him.


John 3:16

"God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life".

Notg, likely you know that many/most (?) on this forum have had experience with a church that teaches they are the one true church, (at the exclusion of all others) and may have experienced forced expulsion because of difference of opinion on this and other doctrines. One point that impresses me of Jesus' teaching is that we come to Him individually and personally... and not through any church decree or approval. Also, that such faith is complete of itself without any meritorious response on our part. Because of these issues, Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22 (same words) are important to me. We belong to Christ because He revealed Himself to us. No church or individual can approve a connection to Christ, and no one step between us and Christ and break such a connection.

Luke 10:22: "All things have been delivered to Me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father and no one knows who the SOn is except the Father, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

Also tied to my above comments; 1 Tim 2:3-6 p; "... God and Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all..."

I will add that Jesus wants all to hear/believe, so the will is there on God/Christ's part. Our unmertitorious response is to accept. I disagree with those who say some are predestined for eternal separation from God.

x@#

Hank,


"Notg, likely you know that many/most (?) on this forum have had experience with a church that teaches they are the one true church, (at the exclusion of all others) and may have experienced forced expulsion because of difference of opinion on this and other doctrines. One point that impresses me of Jesus' teaching is that we come to Him individually and personally... and not through any church decree or approval. Also, that such faith is complete of itself without any meritorious response on our part. Because of these issues, Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22 (same words) are important to me. We belong to Christ because He revealed Himself to us. No church or individual can approve a connection to Christ, and no one step between us and Christ and break such a connection. "


In researching the articles of the Swiss Brethern as well as the early "Mennonite" church the other day I noted that "Personal Relationship With God" was the basis of their belief as well. "Church" to those people was what was between the believers. I also noted that this foundation was the basis COGICM points to in the published material I have found eg. 33 Articles Of Faith. This seems to be the basis that Baptists use as well as most Mennonite background churches.

"I will add that Jesus wants all to hear/believe, so the will is there on God/Christ's part. Our unmertitorious response is to accept. I disagree with those who say some are predestined for eternal separation from God."

How do you understand John 17:12 in reference to Judas. As well, in the prayer found in these verses, Jesus refers to "those who thou has given me"

Of course, assembled believers are the church, but in my opinion, the "true church" or the family of God are all those who believe (John 3:16) and have eternal life. Much can be debated of how the assembly should look like and function, but if the true church (which Christ is building) is overlooked all is for nought. First, we must recognize what it is that makes one a believer in Christ's church.

You mention the 33 articles. Carefully study Art. 18 and you will note that the Mennonite Anabaptists were very clear that the important church is made of up of ALL believers, past and present. It repeats this several times. If this is not understood among the Mennonites (and some of the Baptists), then in my opinion, it opens the door for believers to put their trust in their own assembly.

Another important point in Art. 18, is that the writer says that the "church" commenced in the perfection of the Garden of Eden. This points to the purity of the "true church", being all those who have been justified by faith, made as pure as Adam and Eve before the fall. This state, and this state of forgiveness alone is the "true church" and is seen with eyes of faith. In actual reality, the assembled believers are ALL lacking.

Hank, you did not answer his question. Try to be concise. It is far too easy to hide our errors and confusion in a plethora of spiritual talk. Keep it simple, and then we can ascertain if you know what you are talking about.

Scott; my response was to notg's earlier post; I did not see his last post till now.

NOTG asked the following in response to my comment about "predestination".

"How do you understand John 17:12 in reference to Judas. As well, in the prayer found in these verses, Jesus refers to "those who thou has given me"

I believe the scriptures are clear that no one comes to God on one's own merits. We have a free will, but that free will is not meritorious. Vernon McGee sais that one thing we all can learn from the scriptures in respect to predestination is that NO ONE can claim any self-righteousness in coming to God. It is by grace alone, on the merits of Jesus Christ alone.

I understand John 17:12 to refer to the present believers at that time and then in verse 20 Jesus prays also "for those who will believe in me."

I do not have all the answers to the scriptures, "but I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that HE IS ABLE TO KEEP what I have committed to Him until that day."... in spite of my less then perfect understanding. And, the same for those who may see scriptures differently then I do. I enjoy vigorous debate (for the most part) but I do not stake my faith on my ability or lack there of, to successfully debate the Bible/God.

<<< We have a free will, but that free will is not meritorious. >>>

This is an absurd statement. Thank you Hank. I believe this encapsulates the inherent self-contradiction and error of the Armenian position in one brief statement.

< We have a free will, but that free will is not meritorious. Vernon McGee sais that one thing we all can learn from the scriptures in respect to predestination is that NO ONE can claim any self-righteousness in coming to God. It is by grace alone, on the merits of Jesus Christ alone >
"no man can come to God except the Father draw him."

"God frees Himself on every man."

these verses give me the thought that every man has the potential for Eternal life.

How is it then that some are able to choose salvation and some men seem unable.

The "meritorious" part to me means "deserving reward" not "getting a reward". We will get a reward if we choose one, but not because we deserved it more.

Some folks get to have a happy day because they choose happiness. Others are in distress because they have not made the choice to be happy.

I was inspired from my research with this thought. It would be nice for all true believers to be able to find a group of believers to fellowship with. The criteria that the group would extend fellowship to the new believer would be that they had a true relationship with God. This fellowship would be extended unless that person turned away. In this "fellowship" would be found security to care for the physical and emotional needs of the human being as well as the spiritual. It seems to me that this is what the apostolic as well as anabaptist churches endeavored to do.

Not to continue the debate with Scott... but to remind any reading here of difference between Scott and my understanding. Scott has a lower view of God then I do; he says God is unable to create something without being responsible for it. I understand God is able to create man and give him the responsibility to choose/reject the free gift of eternal life or reject it.

Notg; you say it seems that some are able to choose and some seem unable to choose Christ. It does appear that way to many however I believe (as you intimated ) that all have equal chance at eternal life. In my understanding, the propitiation of Christ goes beyond actually "confessing Christ" but extends to all those who respond to God's revelation through creation, their conscience or the Word. Romans 1, 2 & 3.

>>Scott has a lower view of God then I do< <br>

My, my. Sounds like someone's brown-nosing the big guy upstairs: "Look at me, look at me! I think more highly of you than that scott guy!"


Not that there's anything meritorious about it or anything.

"God frees Himself on every man."

Are you calling that a Bible verse, notg? It is a concept I have heard from little on up, but to my knowledge it is not found in Scripture.

"I think more highly of you than that scott guy!"



Mutterlode is on the job, had I not mentioned it,,,, it would still stand!! Sheeze!



Scott, I thought you weren't going to converse or mess with Notg's post? Remember, he's not in your league?

<<< Scott has a lower view of God then I do; he says God is unable to create something without being responsible for it. I understand God is able to create man and give him the responsibility to choose/reject the free gift of eternal life or reject it. >>>

An astute mind is simply cannot make an assertion such as that. I would invite any clear thinking person to rip that statement to shreds. The inherent logical contradictions scream in protest. Hank, you should consider taking your comment to a professor of logic at a local University and get an assessment of how unsound it really is.

But rest assured of one thing, it is your view of God which is the lower. That is my protest. Your lower view of God, well actually your despicable repugnant view of God. Your view that authority has no responsibility. Your view that if you have enough power, you can do anything you damn well please, starting with abdicating all responsibility. Well folks, when it said be perfect as God is perfect, it certainly did NOT mean to behave at home like Hank's God does up in the sky. I will use Hank's own words, that God creates something and then abdicates all responsibility for it. Hey, thats like a daddy that creates a child, and then gives the child total free-will to destroy itself and takes no responsibility for it, and Hank calls this a higher view? My god, I'd hate to see a lower view!



Hank, your labeling my view of God as "lower" is dishonest, and in my view, you continue to present the term "lower view" in association with my views so as to habituate the reader to this idea, regardless of its intrinsic merits. But in doing this, you show your low opinion of the readers of this forum, i.e., that most readers have low critical thinking skills.

"Are you calling that a Bible verse, notg? It is a concept I have heard from little on up, but to my knowledge it is not found in Scripture. "

John 6:44

John 6:45

Scott, what's this deal over the last several months that all of the sudden you think professors and professional people have the right or hold to truth.

Brent

Scott; sorry if I sounded that way... I have no intention of being malicious towards anyone's views. Let me change to say your view points towards a lower view of God in that you limit Him to what you can humanly understand.

God is transcendent to man; His Being and character is beyond human comprehension and so I only can subscribe to Him as the Bible tells me about Him. The Bible does not tell us everything about God however it tells us enough that we are responsible to Him. We can choose to serve Him or reject Him.

Romans 11:33, Amplified Bible: "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unfathomable (inscrutable, unsearchable) are His judgments (His decisions)! And how untraceable (mysterious, undiscoverable) are His ways (His methods, His paths)!"

God's depth is incomprehensible. His nature character is NOT. So God's love is NOT materially different than ours, but His depth is. So God's justice is NOT materially different than ours, but His depth is, etc. etc.

Hank, you find yourself in the most absurd of positions of having misunderstood God because of man's traditions, and then defending this error to the last straw, you are forced to conclude that God's nature is incomprehensible to us. If so, then just how in the hell do you fellowship with God?

With this kind of ad-hoc bandaid solution, how can God be anything to you but an abstract idea? Because your human sense of justice, mercy, etc. is not only different than God's, its hostile to it. You cannot fellowship with what you cannot comprehend, unless it becomes so abstract that it has no practical reality in your life. Sure, your faith in God is strong, but its your faith in the idea of God. You are forced to separate God from most aspects of this natural world. I see the natural world as being an expression of His very nature.

<<God frees Himself on every man." <br>
Are you calling that a Bible verse, notg? It is a concept I have heard from little on up, but to my knowledge it is not found in Scripture.>>>

The quotes are from statements I have heard or read that I think are based on the scriptures mentioned. Note that the statement in John 6:45 is a reference by Jesus to prophesy. It could be argued that the scripture is talking about those that choose to be taught rather then every person alive. It goes on to say that everyone that hears and learns of the father comes to Jesus. I am interested in how Hank fits this into predestination or no predestination. I believe I understand how he looks at it.

Hank,
God is transcendent to man; His Being and character is beyond human comprehension

I believe it is an excuse that humanity has used over the centuries to absolve himself of responsibility.

How do you reconcile your position in light of this verse?

1Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

When your boys wanted to know the ways of business did you enjoy teaching them? When they inquired did you hold back or did you gladly show them all they wanted to know?

Is the same possible in our relationship with God, if the right questions are not asked, the answers are not forthcoming.

Scott, In thinking about your statement that holds the principle, if I have it right, that since God creates, he is therefore responsible (accountable) to the creation.


His leaving of the creation into the hands of the creation to care for itsellf, is an action of incomprehensible irresponsibility in your eyes. Do I have that right?

All of nature testifies against your view.


For nature itself is left in an 'orbit" if you will, it runs itself with scientific and predictable precision.

Right now my yard is sick looking, all wet and icy, and a little bit of snow, any vegetation is a burned looking brown, but if you kick through the rubble you find shoots of new life arising out of the decay, having it's seeds or roots planted last fall.

Is it unjust for God to allow the weather to become so bad, that herds of deer die of starvation in the winter storm? Or wolves to grow in population, until there are almost no deer? If they overpopulate and then starve is it unjust of the creator to not provide a meal rather than let them starve?

I say no, that is not an unjust creation. So if a man arises and chooses unjust, wickedness, and evil concupiscence with the inherent actions that tend to come to play in that lust to reign, I do not see an action in the inherent confusion, for a perfect creation, can still have imperfect flow of action.

18* For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
19* For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20* For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21* Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22* For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

The action of the creation, is the motive of the creator, the remainder is to be gathered and burned, for it is rubble, much as packaging is not the motive of the product you purchase, but a way to deliver the thing packaged.

Heb 6:8* But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

I see no contradiction held in irresponsibility to burn the evil, and keep the good.

In response to notg:

Romans 1 tells us that man is without excuse; John 3:16-21 tells us Jesus did not come to condemn the world, but man condemns himself (V19) "light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather then light".

If one reads on in John 6 we note that Jesus says V 51-54; "IF anyone eats this bread he will live forever... unless you eat... whoever eats..." I understand this non-meritorious response is expected of man in inheriting eternal life and this offer of propitiation (1 John 2:2) is withheld from no one.

John 6:53-54 (Amplified Bible)

53And Jesus said to them, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, you cannot have any life in you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood [unless you appropriate His life and the saving merit of His blood].

54He who feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has (possesses now) eternal life, and I will raise him up [from the dead] on the last day.

Mark wrote quoting me:

"God is transcendent to man; His Being and character is beyond human comprehension.

I believe it is an excuse that humanity has used over the centuries to absolve himself of responsibility."

I agree that we have responsibility to learn of God, all that the Bible holds forth for us. Nothing that we need to know is withheld from anyone who seeks after God. However, the love, mercy, sovereignty, creating power of God is beyond what man can grasp and understand. Just because I do not understand all of God (as human logic dictates) we do not detract from what may be part of God. The question here is can God create man with a free will to choose without being responsible for man's choice. I say God can; Scott says (if I understand him correctly) God cannot.

I think (at least part of) Scott's point is that it would be entirely out of character for a supposedly loving parent to allow her/his progeny that degree of latitude without her/himself assuming any responsibility for giving said progeny to act in such a way.

<<< His leaving of the creation into the hands of the creation to care for itsellf, is an action of incomprehensible irresponsibility in your eyes. Do I have that right? <br>

All of nature testifies against your view.>>>

Fred, I don't often resort to an emotional effeminate argument, but I will here. Your not getting it disappoints me, it really does. You say all of nature testifies against our view. Fred, the error in that statement would be recognized by a seven-year old. For example, you want to bring the example of nature into it. Ok, great lets do it, and lets start with your statement:

The daddy (God) leaving his children (creation) into their own hands to care for themselves, is an action of incomprehensible irresponsibility in your eyes.

For a daddy to leave his children to fend for themselves before they have the maturity to not destroy themselves is actually a criminal act, and results in the state removing the children from the home. Yes, all of nature does testify against what you believe.


How far will you men go to defend men's traditions? Enquiring minds want to know. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read your defense. A parent would go to the state reformatory for treating his child the way YOU SAY that God treats is creation, and then Hank labels this a "higher view of God". Damn! I think I'm getting a feeling of how many men through the ages felt when they dared to question a sacred cow.

Scott writes: "For a daddy to leave his children to fend for themselves before they have the maturity to not destroy themselves is actually a criminal act, and results in the state removing the children from the home. Yes, all of nature does testify against what you believe."

Scott, your own words tells us of your deliberate (or is it inadvertent) skewing of the argument. You say "before they (children) have the maturity to not destroy themselves". I am speaking about mature, responsible adults. Children are fully saved and covered by the grace of Jesus Christ. The Anabaptist explanation for this comes out in their teaching against infant baptism. Adam & Eve left Eden believing the promise of a Redeemer and and all posterity is born with this same promise and till individuals recognize sin, God does not hold them responsible.

Your argument leaks and does not hold water.

Scott, let's look at evidence. Head into town and observe people. Give a survey.
1. How many people say they are following God to the best of their ability. Every day, all day.
2. Is God happy with you.
3. Who do you try to please most. God or yourself.

If default is that we are NOT children of God, then your logical theory does NOT WORK. We need to find out where the children of God are and then we can find the true story.

The Bible has it's check list to find the people. Will logic accept this list?

If you give the survey I have suggested, probably some or alot folks that answer yes to #2 will not compare with the check list in the "Fruit of The Spirit".

Make the toy people. Make them a World. Make them a deal. "I am going to give you this world. You are in charge. All the things are here to make you happy and complete. I will come and visit you and you can enjoy it. I have one caution for you. My enemy down the road has it in for me. He will definitly show up and try to get you to turn away from giving Me the credit for this world I gave you. He will in fact tell you that I am unfair. As long as you stay true to Me and do not listen to him every thing will be fine. Follow him and we can no longer be friends. It will be easy to see who will make you the happiest. I will bless you and he will bring you distress."

So the dumb human chooses the wrong guy. And only because the Snake appealed to their intellect. Now check this out. Are we any smarter today?

And only because the Snake appealed to their intellect.

Wrong. He appealed to the senses not the intellect. Huge difference. That is still what gets us into trouble...the tendency to follow the senses.

<<< Scott, your own words tells us of your deliberate (or is it inadvertent) skewing of the argument.>>>


Well Hank, when you point a finger, you have 4 more pointing back at you. Your deliberate agenda to associate in people's minds a "lower view of God" with my name, and you do this by repeated presentation is exactly what you accuse me of. It is deliberate use of a thought-terminating cliche to thwart critical thinking of other readers, and to prevent them from honestly evaluating my thoughts. I don't know, maybe we are both guilty, but for sure, you are resorting to subtle techniques of mind shaping/control here.


< <br>
You say "before they (children) have the maturity to not destroy themselves". I am speaking about mature, responsible adults. >>>



Hank, forget that a person has a beard and is fifty years old. Is it mature to make choices which condemn oneself to eternal torment? Judge their maturity by their choices rather than their chronological age.

<<<Wrong. He appealed to the senses not the intellect. Huge difference. That is still what gets us into trouble...the tendency to follow the senses.>>>

I beg to differ. The senses are merely the means of communicating with the inner intellect. To make it simply a senses matter puts man totaly out of control of himself and makes him a being of instinct only. If this was the case then Scott's theory flies.

The senses are good and are part of creation. Put those same senses under the bidding of God again and alot of "good" will be done. Leave them under the control of the intellect and there will be trouble galore.

notg, I don't believe Mark meant the senses as in limited to our radio receivers that feed the brain, but rather, the emotional, the effeminate, guidance by feelings, etc.

Fred, your redeeming point on this earthly plane is that you do NOT treat your children they way you believe God treat His children.

Mark has not specified what exactly he is referring to but I can clarify what I am. The serpent appealed to the individuality or as I termed it, the intellect of the being. This would be the part in every man that wishes to understand for himself and NOT be under the beck and call of anyone. The individualistic. This part of man is selfish and taints what ever in life it touches with this selfishness. The intellect is self directed and will not readily accept any thing but what it has compiled and cataloged. For sure the emotions affect this. Take world war 2 in Germany. Some of the world's most astute scientists were the most affected.

I was referring to the emotional make-up of man when using the term senses. The serpent totally appealed to to the senses. If Eve had used logic instead of deferring to her feelings she would have never made the choice she did. The fruit appealed to the eyes...the possibility of being "like" God appealed to the flesh...don't tell me there was logic applied in the choice to partake.

Lust of the flesh...lust of the eyes...pride of life

Do any of these appeal to the logical side of man?

I rest my case.

The serpent had no inroad to her senses until he appealed to her logic. He asked her a couple questions, appealed to her reason, and soon had her doing some reasoning of her own. The senses did not motivate her till she reasoned. Note that the desire to know more was the big push. And the knowledge was what drove them away from God.

Further more how could she reason when she had no experience to base her logic on. All she had were two opposing statements from knowledge givers. Reason all you want and unless you are going to believe one above the other, you will have to test to find out. Therefore the appeal to her reason. She tested and guess what. She found out for herself. I vote it was the reasoning that got her.

I can expand on this vein a little farther. You say that if Eve would have used logic, she would not have made the mistake.

The tree of knowledge was in the garden. This was Eden and there was no evil being done. There is no way of getting evil into this place except through a being that has the ability to choose "good" or "bad".
Some how this being would have to choose evil. No logic from observation of what the devil does to people vs God is available to Eve. The senses are wide open. There is no guilt or hideing from anything. She's not sitting there looking at the tree wanting some fruit because it looks so good and.... How can she be. God said don't eat and that's all she knows. She believes.


The serpent can't give her emotion, or lust, or hunger, or any other thing. All he can appeal to start the process is her reason. By suggesting that there was more to it then God had told her he forced her into a decision. When the decision was before her, her reasoning started. I will agree that the appeal came when she DECIDED to contemplate the appeal. Logic opened the gate that obedience would have kept closed.

"Logic opened the gate that obedience would have kept closed.:

That sounds vintage Holdeman. Don't think about it, just accept what you are told. You wouldn't be H, now would you, notg?

<<< "Logic opened the gate that obedience would have kept closed.:>>>

have IL-LOGIC and obedience now become interchangable terms? LOL

Logic: the quality of being justifiable by reason.

Obedience: complience with someone's wishes or orders or aknowledgement of thier authority.

Illogical: Lack of clear sound reasoning.

Explain to me how Eve is going to reason her way to the right descision with the information she has. I'm listening. She can't be illogical either as she is at her full potential.

notg,
After rereading the Genesis account you are so right I don't know how it slipped by me.

It was when the woman reasoned, that she ate, not when she saw it was good for food.

Also jewish tradition has been wrong all these years as well in saying that she listened to her senses (emotional side)and that is what got her in trouble.

Thanks for bringing your light to this account. How do you propose I correct the verse after applying white out since it is incorrect the way it is worded?

the reasoning she did is right in the account. She used all the "logic" she had. Where exactly is she going to get better knowledge. She was ahead before she thought about it



< when she saw it was good for food. >>> eg of some of her reasoning

< It was when the woman reasoned, that she ate, not when she saw it was good for food.>>

That is NOT what I suggested. I will try to explain this way. The way the serpent sought an opening was through her "reasoning". As she started questioning and wanted to decide for herself she became susceptible.

<<<Also jewish tradition has been wrong all these years as well in saying that she listened to her senses (emotional side)and that is what got her in trouble.>>>

Which Jewish tradition?

Would you promote Philo as an authority on JEWISH teaching?

Why don't you answer my question?

Which question?

I need to know how to write the verse on top of the white out.

As far as Philo being an authority. That's debatable.
It is a way to understand the thought processes of jews in how they interpreted the Torah 2000 years ago.

On a side note, He lived in Egypt so I don't know if he even heard about Jesus during the time of his writings. At a later time if I recall correctly, he mentions of meeting Peter.

Is there a heaven?

As the opening post shows, many of the points of understanding of Christianity are based on more then just one scripture, teaching or event of the Bible. We take a number of specifics and form our understanding from these. For instance, a simple understanding comes to mind on the question, "is there a heaven?"

Jesus said, John 14:2-3; there are many mansions in His Father's house and He will go to prepare a place for those who believe. Then in Acts 1 Jesus actually goes away, ascends to heaven as He said He would.

With this we can tie the reality of eternal life. Jesus says in John 11:25-26, that though we die, we shall live... whoever believes shall never die. We know that all die physically, but we conclude that based on Jesus comments that there is life beyond physical death. And this life (after death) is physically in God's house/mansion/heaven.

John 11:26 p; "... do you believe this?"

The daddy (God) leaving his children (creation) into their own hands to care for themselves, is an action of incomprehensible irresponsibility in your eyes.

For a daddy to leave his children to fend for themselves before they have the maturity to not destroy themselves is actually a criminal act, and results in the state removing the children from the home. Yes, all of nature does testify against what you believe.


How far will you men go to defend men's traditions? Enquiring minds want to know. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read your defense. A parent would go to the state reformatory for treating his child the way YOU SAY that God treats is creation, and then Hank labels this a "higher view of God". Damn! I think I'm getting a feeling of how many men through the ages felt when they dared to question a sacred cow.

Scott, you and I are not on the same page. I am not speaking of my responsibility toward my immature offspring, but rather an adult and his responsibility toward righteousness and truth.

The scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit 'Lightening" every man, and my own experiences testify to that truth. I remember doing evil, and "feeling" the Holy Spirit telling me not to do it, but my doing it anyway, and the inescapable guilt it produced. I had no bible instruction at all as a youth.

I well assume but am also convinced that all men are convicted of their unrighteousness and asked by a voice in their inner man to repent, and turn from sin, even if they never meet the God of scripture.


The Judgment that I believe in will be just, therefore those that don't know and never heared may well be not held as accountable, but I still believe in the accountability of the soul to his creator regardless of creed.

Now, according to the scripture, I am not subject to my wife or children, yet I take great privilege and carefulness yea, even clarity of vision to seek their advice before proceeding in a thing, and have avoided many snares in so doing.

I offer my advise to my loved ones as and as the senior father, I suppose I could make it a demand, but I don't, for the lessons of life that are valuable are best learned by willful and careful discernment found in hearty council, as apposed to forced obedience of senior authority.


It is not hard for me to let one of my kids take a large fall, and me set back and sort of consider the irony, if I know I carefully considered and properly advised before they fell.

Now please consider that in the last statement we love each other, so we don't want each other to hurt, but if one is intent on hurting himself, we also love each other enough to allow them to do so.

I noticed how Eve was getting the blame whether it was through reasoning or senses. Why was she decieved? Let's look at this a little closer.Gen 2:15- And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. ---What was Adam suppose to do in this garden? He was suppose to keep watch over it. Did he not do his job by letting the serpent in? Or did he not recognize evil at this time?-- Where was the woman at this time? read on.



16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.----- Where was the woman at this time? read on.



18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.---Where was the woman at this time of naming? Read on.



21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. --- Now she was created and present. Did Adam tell her exactly or forget to tell her the reasons? Not to eat of the certain tree? Or did he get the message screwed up? Or maybe because at that time he couldn't recognize evil when he saw it because neither has ate of the tree of good and evil. I think it was the desire of power,control, wise as God or become God-like that was the reason of the fall. Eve was decieved, but Adam wasn't. God had no choice in the matter. He had thrown sin out of heaven once and now since Adam knew good from evil, if he had ate of the tree of life, he would have lived for ever and sin would be present for eternity. It was disobedience on both Adam and Eve. The reason why isn't as important as the fact they were disobedient.



Not trying to derailthe thread with this, but it is in play here someplace. calledoutPTL

>>Thanks for bringing your light to this account. How do you propose I correct the verse after applying white out since it is incorrect the way it is worded? < <br>
I apologise Mark. I did not recognise that as sincere question.

To me if Eve was enticed without FIRST being in control, then there is no hope for humanity. It would then be simply the same instinct as all of the rest of creation uses to change courses. If she was attracted to the tree for how it looks, and this is how the serpent tempted her, then you must conclude that either the devil was at that point able to manipulate nature, or God was tempting her. Every thing was pure to the point that God Himself was comfortable in the garden.

Mark, how much have you considered this. Another avenue would be can the devil ever mess with creation without man's intellect. If every one had the Spirit of love and unselfishness that Jesus had would there be war or hungery kids?

>>Did Adam tell her exactly or forget to tell her the reasons? Not to eat of the certain tree? Or did he get the message screwed up? < <br>
She knew enough to tell the serpent what God had said.

>>Or maybe because at that time he couldn't recognize evil when he saw it because neither has ate of the tree of good and evil.< <br>
I hadn't considered that

>>I think it was the desire of power,control, wise as God or become God-like that was the reason of the fall. < <br>
My thoughts exactly.

>>Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't.< <br>
Is that from the scripture? If this is true the implications are interesting to consider. What would have been the motivating factors to make the choice he did? If Eve has eaten, she already knows and he doesn't. She could be telling him things he can't believe or marvels at. Her demeanor would have changed from happy innocence to guilt and he would have wondered at it. Or maybe he ate before the reality of it sank home.

notg. 1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
spouse says that Adam didn't know anything about the serpent or devil. Did they know what death was? At the time they had everlasting life.
But isn't God a restoring God? Look at His plan! We goof up royally and He still has a plan for us.
Was that in His plan to begin with? For the final destruction of the devil? Everyone has a free will choice to believe or not believe His forgiveness or even His existence. calledoutPTL

Notg,
Lets make the fruit relevant.
When a person has an affair, is that person using the logical side of their brain (yes a conscious choice is made, but that is not what I'm talking about) or are they motivated by the desires of the flesh, i.e. the desire of fulfilling the senses or emotions. In other words, where did the motivation come from?

To further drive the point, most people close to the individual will often say, "what was that person thinking!" The response is usually along the line of, "they weren't."

Emotions and senses are hungry to be satisfied. Logic and reason considers the consequences. The consequences of the "Fall" were actually quite dire (anyone want to argue with that?), and apparently, these consequences were not (were not even able to be) adequately considered. Mark, your argument wins hands down.

>>When a person has an affair, is that person using the logical side of their brain (yes a conscious choice is made, but that is not what I'm talking about) or are they motivated by the desires of the flesh, i.e. the desire of fulfilling the senses or emotions. In other words, where did the motivation come from?

To further drive the point, most people close to the individual will often say, "what was that person thinking!" The response is usually along the line of, "they weren't."< <br>
Your argument fails in its basis. Adam and Eve were living innocent as children. They had no sense of right or wrong. Anyone having an affair since the fall of man has the facts. They were not standing there thinking "I want to but I better not" They can't even fathom what guilt is going to feel like. There is no way they could reason their way through this one. The choice is simply "who to believe". If they would have not been thinking beings with the ability to choose, they wouldn't have done it.




>>Emotions and senses are hungry to be satisfied. Logic and reason considers the consequences. The consequences of the "Fall" were actually quite dire (anyone want to argue with that?), and apparently, these consequences were not (were not even able to be) adequately considered. Mark, your argument wins hands down.< <br>
Marks argument is that if they had used logic and reason they would have avoided the fall. Now you acknowledge that that the consequences were not even able to be considered and logic and reason consider consequences. And then you say that Mark wins? HUH?

The fact that she decided for herself got her in trouble. The only way to avoid the problem was to listen to God and God had made her with the ability to choose for herself. She chose to listen to the serpent when the serpent planted a doubt for her. She took control for herself and lost the bet.

"The fact that she decided for herself got her in trouble." Oh really? Where was Adam? Did he tell her not to? The word says she was decieved, (She was just out checking the beautiful garden. and the devil disguised himself as a serpent. Did snakes talk then? (Kinda like a burning bush that isn't consumed.) No wonder she was curious!)but Adam deliberately chose wrong. Did he want to be all powerful and wise as God also? Or just couldn't stand to lose this beautiful woman that was beside him? How could he have have been fruitful and multiplied the earth by himself? Maybe he was thinking about his own sexual satisfaction? Just wondering. The calledoutPTLs

What preceeds deception? Can you be merrily sailing along in innocence, get a look at billboard or hear a comment and become decieved? Or do you have to open your mind to the idea.

You preceive, then accept and then you do or act. Just looking at something isn't wrong until the looking turns into fleshly wants and you put action to it. The woman saw the fruit and it looked good. By the serpent misquoting the truth, EVE was conveinced it was okay. Heard once that the best of lies always have some truth and logic to it. Now what kind of logic did Adam have to choose to eat the fruit? He could have refused.calledoutPTL

What preceeds deception?

Motivations.

Hank: If God transcends our ability to understand him then trying to use our finite limited language and concepts to understand him must be futile. So that brings to question everything that has ever been said about him. You can not have it both ways. Understanding in part might not be understanding at all.
As for "freewill" the challenge is still to define it in such a way that is is non contradictory in every instance that is thought to apply.
Hank; it is time for you to broaden your horizons and check out what some philosophers have to say about "freewill" "The word "freedom" does not mean "freedom from causality or materialism", it means "freedom from compulsion or restraint". Thus, if will exists, it can exert its influences through causal relations. Causality provides constraints, not unfreedom. Gravity limits the conditions under which a person can fly, but it does not prevent flying. The causal sequences by which nerve stimulation results in muscular action give the will the freedom to manifest itself in the world." continue at:http://www.benbest.com/philo/freewill.html. On a lighter note:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?ei=5088&en=7d7a58876163384d&ex=1325394000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewant
Hank; May i suggest to you that language is much more imprecise and fluid then we usually imagine. From my experience the more i try to understand some of these nebulous abstract ideas such as "free will" the wider the range of meanings apply.Though the idea of "God" has been studied to death, as far as I'm concerned.So in that sense it certainly has transcended my ability to grasp it or for that matter give it existential meaning.

Notg, did you decide if there was a heaven? The thread got off base quite a bit. calledoutPTL

it does not even resemble what I set out to study. There are alot of things we do not understand and will only "see" with faith. Even the most sceptical posters on this forum have ideas that they hold out that others find to farfetched too believe. When challenged we may waver and either find new footing or a slightly changed perspective. If the search is sincere it leads us the right way. If the goal is to find an easier road, we can find Doubting Castle's Dungeon like John Bunyun's pilgrim instead.

notg. I agree with you last post. (At times I or my spouse bring up the absurd just to make some people think about their statements.) We believe in a physical heaven and hell. Nobody has given enough logic or viewpoints that take in the whole Bible for us to believe otherwise. Faith comes in to play in a big way. God's ways are so much bigger then we could ever imagine. Keep searching, gold nuggets are found in the word every day. calledoutPTL

Alf; thanks for addressing me on the freewill issue. Even though I think I am tolerant of of my Calvinist friends (and I have plenty of them) I have been thinking the last few days that I do not come across as being tolerant. I also feel that this last year I have been beating on Scott ( I am sorry, Scott) and just need to lay off the subject.

On the other hand, am I supposed to dumb down, play I do not know, or agree with everyone, or do as if I do not have an opinion, and just pull into my own cocoon ?

You know Alf; we understand God and man the way we do... and why should I change this. I believe this subject comes down to a basic of who God is, how He made man, what responsibility God gave to man and what we can reasonably expect of man. Of course sin lies at each door and we are fallible. Of course the Bible is not totally clear on every bite of information. Of course culture and up-bringing plays into understanding and acceptable actions. And of course, finite man is not capable of understanding to totality of God's creation. But I know what is required of me (within my less then perfect and sinful nature). With this I try to guide my life. But I also believe that God is forgiving and extends this to me; and more forgiving then 70x7 which Jesus was a good number between individuals. And so I rest in my faith, not excluding others who have other ideas, but fraternally enjoying a good debate with others.

So far, I read one of the links you gave, the one of the chocolate dessert and I can relate to that. My wife's family ate more desserts then my family and so she likes her ice-cream. But she has an enviable different metabolism then I do and so my "free will" is often tested where she may be tested in other areas. I tell you this... it seems that often both our freewill ideas get chucked out the window.