Moses said, Unto him ye shall hearken

[Ehav4Ever]

Why do you bring up lake of fire? Is it a Jewish concept and moreover, what do you think it is?

Instead of me stating what I think others think it is, I will let them speak for themselevs.

• Mark 9:43: "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out."
  
• Revelation 19:20: "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."
• Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
• Revelation 20:14-15 "Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."
• Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
• Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) pictured Hades, the abode of the dead, as containing "a lake of unquenchable fire" at the edge of which the unrighteous "shudder in horror at the expectation of the future judgment, (as if they were) already feeling the power of their punishment". The lake of fire is described by Hippolytus unambiguously as the place of eternal torment for the sinners after the resurrection.
  
• The Catholic Portuguese - Lúcia Santos reported that the Virgin Mary (Our Lady of Fatima) had given her a vision of Hell as a sea of fire:
  Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear.
  

 

[YoursTrue]

Instead of me stating what I think others think it is, I will let them speak for themselevs.

• Mark 9:43: "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out."
  
• Revelation 19:20: "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."
• Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
• Revelation 20:14-15 "Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."
• Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
• Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) pictured Hades, the abode of the dead, as containing "a lake of unquenchable fire" at the edge of which the unrighteous "shudder in horror at the expectation of the future judgment, (as if they were) already feeling the power of their punishment". The lake of fire is described by Hippolytus unambiguously as the place of eternal torment for the sinners after the resurrection.
  
• The Catholic Portuguese - Lúcia Santos reported that the Virgin Mary (Our Lady of Fatima) had given her a vision of Hell as a sea of fire:
  Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear.

Much of that is symbolic. And often very misunderstood. When HaShem spoke to Adam, He said, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." God never said anything about suffering or being happy at Adam willfully disobeyed Him. He said that he was from the dust and would go back to the dust.
(These visions declared by some do not have to be from God, by the way.) But thank you for explaining.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Much of that is symbolic. And often very misunderstood. When HaShem spoke to Adam, He said, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." God never said anything about suffering or being happy at Adam willfully disobeyed Him. He said that he was from the dust and would go back to the dust.
(These visions declared by some do not have to be from God, by the way.) But thank you for explaining.

So, if I understand you correctly all of those passages are symbolic and authors of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's writings, other writings, Revelations, etc. did not intend for anyone to take their words literally?

Yet, this brings up a few problems.

1. You say it is symbolic other Christians claim it is not. Why should a person trust your interpretation vs. theirs?
2. Is your interpretation the most ancient, authentic, and authoratative interprtation?
3. What evidence do you have that the your interpretation is what the author's meant? i.e. do you have evidence that your interpretation was passed down from the author through a source that can be fact checked?

If, as you say, the passages I presented are "symbolic" why not just say they are symbolic and here is the proof that the "authors" did not intend for thos passages to be taken literally? Why jump to a section of the Torah that you beleive is symbolic? I.e. if it is symbolic wouldn't it stand on its own as being symbolic?

If that is the case then maybe the following passages are also symbolic and not to be taken literally.

• Hebrews 9:22 - "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
• Matthew 1:1 "This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:"
• John 1:1-2 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
• John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
• Matthew 2:1 - "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”"
• In fact, maybe ALL of the book of Acts is symbolic and not to be taken as literal.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Much of that is symbolic. And often very misunderstood. When HaShem spoke to Adam, He said, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." God never said anything about suffering or being happy at Adam willfully disobeyed Him. He said that he was from the dust and would go back to the dust.
(These visions declared by some do not have to be from God, by the way.) But thank you for explaining.

This person seems to think that the idea that it is symbolic is wrong.

Is the Lake of fire or Burning Hell Real?

 

[YoursTrue]

This person seems to think that the idea that it is symbolic is wrong.

Is the Lake of fire or Burning Hell Real?

Many persons have many ideas, some claiming to worship God yet disagreeing vehemently with one another. The Almighty did not threaten Adam and Eve, his first human creations with eternal torture in some Lake of Fire if they displeased him. That would make him very very cruel, worse than the worst criminal in history, He told them they would die. Death is not life. It gets kind of deep after that in reference to the scriptures and the sayings of the prophets to Israel. But God is not like the god that (some of) the Israelites were offering their children to by fire. It is terrible that anyone could think that way.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, if I understand you correctly all of those passages are symbolic and authors of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's writings, other writings, Revelations, etc. did not intend for anyone to take their words literally?

Yet, this brings up a few problems.

1. You say it is symbolic other Christians claim it is not. Why should a person trust your interpretation vs. theirs?
2. Is your interpretation the most ancient, authentic, and authoratative interprtation?
3. What evidence do you have that the your interpretation is what the author's meant? i.e. do you have evidence that your interpretation was passed down from the author through a source that can be fact checked?

If, as you say, the passages I presented are "symbolic" why not just say they are symbolic and here is the proof that the "authors" did not intend for thos passages to be taken literally? Why jump to a section of the Torah that you beleive is symbolic? I.e. if it is symbolic wouldn't it stand on its own as being symbolic?

If that is the case then maybe the following passages are also symbolic and not to be taken literally.

• Hebrews 9:22 - "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
• Matthew 1:1 "This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:"
• John 1:1-2 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
• John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
• Matthew 2:1 - "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”"
• In fact, maybe ALL of the book of Acts is symbolic and not to be taken as literal.

In answer to your first question, in order to know God you must look for Him. While one must fear God, one really cannot love someone who threatens torture (forever) if they disobey. While I might be afraid of disobeying such a person if I believed I might suffer eternal literal torture (horrible thought), it really wouldn't be love as far as I conceive of love to obey such a person. Only abject fear. True fear of the Lord would be that which is also motivated by love because we wouldn't want to hurt, or displease him by going against his commandments or principles.
Deuteronomy 11:1 - Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Many persons have many ideas, some claiming to worship God yet disagreeing vehemently with one another. The Almighty did not threaten Adam and Eve, his first human creations with eternal torture in some Lake of Fire if they displeased him. That would make him very very cruel, worse than the worst criminal in history, He told them they would die. Death is not life. It gets kind of deep after that in reference to the scriptures and the sayings of the prophets to Israel. But God is not like the god that (some of) the Israelites were offering their children to by fire. It is terrible that anyone could think that way.

That is not what I was asking. The writers of the passages I quoted obviously felt that the words/imagery they were using was something that their readers would understand and take head to. Further, the authors seem to place some very strong importance on their readers making the right decisions about what they wrote. I.e. thinking that is symbolic if it is literal carries some pretty dire consequences if one one is wrong.

One Christian says that it is literal while another says it is symbolic. You take the side that it is symbolic. My first question is - do you get this from information passed down by the authors that received from some valid interpreter of the NT? Where did said interpreter get his information?

Further, who is to say that a lot of other potentially contraversial and contradictory passages in the NT like the ones I quoted are not simple symbolic also? These are the questions I am asking.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not what I was asking. The writers of the passages I quoted obviously felt that the words/imagery they were using was something that their readers would understand and take head to. Further, the authors seem to place some very strong importance on their readers making the right decisions about what they wrote. I.e. thinking that is symbolic if it is literal carries some pretty dire consequences if one one is wrong.

One Christian says that it is literal while another says it is symbolic. You take the side that it is symbolic. My first question is - do you get this from information passed down by the authors that received from some valid interpreter of the NT? Where did said interpreter get his information?

Further, who is to say that a lot of other potentially contraversial and contradictory passages in the NT like the ones I quoted are not simple symbolic also? These are the questions I am asking.

That is not what I was asking. The writers of the passages I quoted obviously felt that the words/imagery they were using was something that their readers would understand and take head to. Further, the authors seem to place some very strong importance on their readers making the right decisions about what they wrote. I.e. thinking that is symbolic if it is literal carries some pretty dire consequences if one one is wrong.

One Christian says that it is literal while another says it is symbolic. You take the side that it is symbolic. My first question is - do you get this from information passed down by the authors that received from some valid interpreter of the NT? Where did said interpreter get his information?

Further, who is to say that a lot of other potentially contraversial and contradictory passages in the NT like the ones I quoted are not simple symbolic also? These are the questions I am asking.

OK, I'll go into this more fully when I have more time. Briefly, however, in reference to the "Lake of Fire," which is in Revelation, it says right at the beginning it was given John in symbols or signs.
As I said, as for what interpretations God agrees with, I can give you my thoughts and decision on the matter, but I learned that only God can really give you the answer. For instance, if I believe that the "Lake of Fire" is symbolic of something and not literal, even if I explain it, which I hope to, let's think of it this way: When Moses went before Pharaoh, there was a time that Pharaoh promised to let the Israelites go after seeing the miracles. But then he rescinded his decision. What happened as a result? (It was opinion against opinion.) But I shall go into it later, time allowing.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In answer to your first question, in order to know God you must look for Him. While one must fear God, one really cannot love someone who threatens torture (forever) if they disobey. While I might be afraid of disobeying such a person if I believed I might suffer eternal literal torture (horrible thought), it really wouldn't be love as far as I conceive of love to obey such a person. Only abject fear. True fear of the Lord would be that which is also motivated by love because we wouldn't want to hurt, or displease him by going against his commandments or principles.
Deuteronomy 11:1 - Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always.

Again, that doesn't address the questions I posed.

Maybe this will help in understanding what I mean. This video details the Gospel of Thomas which seems to point to a non-deity/non-God/non-messiah Jesus who was ONLY speaking in secret parables which their complete understanding, according to the gospel of Thomas, were required in order to obtain Christian style salvation.

In this video see 12:52 to 19:58.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

OK, I'll go into this more fully when I have more time. Briefly, however, in reference to the "Lake of Fire," which is in Revelation, it says right at the beginning it was given John in symbols or signs.
As I said, as for what interpretations God agrees with, I can give you my thoughts and decision on the matter, but I learned that only God can really give you the answer. For instance, if I believe that the "Lake of Fire" is symbolic of something and not literal, even if I explain it, which I hope to, let's think of it this way: When Moses went before Pharaoh, there was a time that Pharaoh promised to let the Israelites go after seeing the miracles. But then he rescinded his decision. What happened as a result? (It was opinion against opinion.) But I shall go into it later, time allowing.

So, if I understand you correctly. All of Revelations is symbolic and is not to be taken literal? For example I once heard that Revelations was not at all literal and the whole this was a political protest against Nero.

In fact, is Mark 9:43 also symoblic and not literal? Also, how much of the gospels are symbolic and how much of them are meant to be taken literally? Maybe all of the historical information in this is symbolic and not literal. Especially the ones that contradict historical facts from the periods.

I understand that you are providing your interpretation, but I am actually not asking you to explain your interpretations - I am actually asking how one knows that your interpretation is what the the authors of the passages I quoted from the NT intended.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, that doesn't address the questions I posed.

Maybe this will help in understanding what I mean. This video details the Gospel of Thomas which seems to point to a non-deity/non-God/non-messiah Jesus who was ONLY speaking in secret parables which their complete understanding, according to the gospel of Thomas, were required in order to obtain Christian style salvation.

In this video see 12:52 to 19:58.

I don't believe those are accounts from God.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I don't believe those are accounts from God.

So you say. There were others who beleived that they were. Why should someone beleive you over them/

 

[YoursTrue]

So you say. There were others who beleived that they were. Why should someone beleive you over them/

Offhand, I can only imagine it's for the same reason that the Jews organizing the books of the Tanach did not accept all of them as inspired of God. Right now I'm absorbed in reading Exodus and so don't have the time to go over those books to find apropos reasons to concur or not with them. Sorry. But in general, just as it was detestable to HaShem for the Jews to sacrifice their children to the god Molech, He would never e-v-e-r torture anyone literally forever. And just as we're in this horrible predicament (life with sickness, sadness, and death) because of Adam and Eve -- He never promised them eternal torture. Not even symbolically. He said they would d-i-e. Period. He did not promise them anything but that if they went against Him.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not what I was asking. The writers of the passages I quoted obviously felt that the words/imagery they were using was something that their readers would understand and take head to. Further, the authors seem to place some very strong importance on their readers making the right decisions about what they wrote. I.e. thinking that is symbolic if it is literal carries some pretty dire consequences if one one is wrong.

One Christian says that it is literal while another says it is symbolic. You take the side that it is symbolic. My first question is - do you get this from information passed down by the authors that received from some valid interpreter of the NT? Where did said interpreter get his information?

Further, who is to say that a lot of other potentially contraversial and contradictory passages in the NT like the ones I quoted are not simple symbolic also? These are the questions I am asking.

Another reason if you can figure it out is this:
Jeremiah 32:35 = "They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded--nor did it enter my mind--that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin."
(Plus Jeremiah had a different idea about this than his fellow countrymen who were sacrificing their children to the notably false god Molek.)

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not what I was asking. The writers of the passages I quoted obviously felt that the words/imagery they were using was something that their readers would understand and take head to. Further, the authors seem to place some very strong importance on their readers making the right decisions about what they wrote. I.e. thinking that is symbolic if it is literal carries some pretty dire consequences if one one is wrong.

One Christian says that it is literal while another says it is symbolic. You take the side that it is symbolic. My first question is - do you get this from information passed down by the authors that received from some valid interpreter of the NT? Where did said interpreter get his information?

Further, who is to say that a lot of other potentially contraversial and contradictory passages in the NT like the ones I quoted are not simple symbolic also? These are the questions I am asking.

The symbolic references mean something. So, for instance, if a Lake of Fire is described, it means something. Also Babylon the Great means something as well. Either a person believes that Adam and Eve existed as written, or not. Either the breath of life (nephesh) was blown into Adam's nostrils, or it was not. In other words, when the tower of Babel was erected, men began speaking in different languages they could not understand.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Another reason if you can figure it out is this:
Jeremiah 32:35 = "They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded--nor did it enter my mind--that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin."
(Plus Jeremiah had a different idea about this than his fellow countrymen who were sacrificing their children to the notably false god Molek.)

Yirmeyahu is completely different. There was a method at his time that came from the Torah on how to determine which side was telling the truth.

What I am asking is deeper than did the authors of the NT beleive in a literal lake of fire. I am asking for the method the left behind, either written or oral, for Christians to know what parts of their writings were symbolic and what was meant to be literal. For example, maybe the entire geneology of Jesus is symbolic and not to be taken literal. Especially given that there are two different geneologies with no written explain for why there are two different ones. Thus, maybe the are symbolic and not literal. Maybe the authors were not really trying to record a geneology in the first place but were using the concept symbolically and thus the author may not have been really trying to trace Jesus to King David or anyone before or after him.

Maybe, John 1:1-2 is also symbolic and Jesus is not meant to be thought to be god or demi-god or connected in any way to the Source of creation. This is what I am getting at with these questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yirmeyahu is completely different. There was a method at his time that came from the Torah on how to determine which side was telling the truth.

What I am asking is deeper than did the authors of the NT beleive in a literal lake of fire. I am asking for the method the left behind, either written or oral, for Christians to know what parts of their writings were symbolic and what was meant to be literal. For example, maybe the entire geneology of Jesus is symbolic and not to be taken literal. Especially given that there are two different geneologies with no written explain for why there are two different ones. Thus, maybe the are symbolic and not literal. Maybe the authors were not really trying to record a geneology in the first place but were using the concept symbolically and thus the author may not have been really trying to trace Jesus to King David or anyone before or after him.

Maybe, John 1:1-2 is also symbolic and Jesus is not meant to be thought to be god or demi-god or connected in any way to the Source of creation. This is what I am getting at with these questions.

Oh, oh. It gets kind of deep shall we say. Deuteronomy 32 refers to the Almighty as a Rock. I can refer you to jw.org where these questions are examined. I decided to learn from them more because they were in the concentration camps because of their faith in God.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Oh, oh. It gets kind of deep shall we say. Deuteronomy 32 refers to the Almighty as a Rock. I can refer you to jw.org where these questions are examined. I decided to learn from them more because they were in the concentration camps because of their faith in God.

You are a JW? If not, you consider them to have the correct understanding of the NT author's and the author's intent? If so, why do you consider them to have such?

 

[YoursTrue]

Which Jews do feel claim to have read the NT but refer to other works? Also, what other works? Also, consider our perspective - what evidence do we Jews have that the NT (as modern Christians have it) is a valid source of information that we should even consider? Thus, we can't put the authorship issues aside because we are required to start right there.

Concerning your question. Yes, I have read the book of Acts. Let's for example start at Acts 2:1-11. Can you show me a source for Jews from the regions mentioned that witnessed this event? I.e. Jews from Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, Cretans and Arabs. Do you know of any Jews from these areas who claim to have been eye-witnesses to this event as Acts states it?

Hi. I hope you are well. I have a question to ask, this may mot be the forum for it, but if not, please let me know. Thank you.
Here is the question: Many people question the validity of the scriptures. Apparently you believe they are telling you the truth as far as it goes. I'll stick to Genesis to Deuteronomy for the moment. May I ask you if you believe the history there? If so, why? Again, thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are a JW? If not, you consider them to have the correct understanding of the NT author's and the author's intent? If so, why do you consider them to have such?

We accept the 66 books of the Bible as those inspired by God. Many, including Jehovah's Witnesses, have done great research into the history of both the written documents and the validity therein. As far as the understanding goes, there are certain fundamentals that I do not believe the Witnesses have ever been wrong about. One is what is the true state of the dead. (Solomon commented on that, also Moses wrote about the fate of Adam and Eve - no heaven/hell offered.) Another is that we do not believe in eternal literal physical or mental torture in hell. Another, and the thing that got me to listen to them is that they died in the concentration camps with the Jews and others because they would not salute Hitler. I hope that helps in part to understand my position.