Poll: Do you think we are born with an immortal soul?

InvestigateTruth · Aug 21, 2013

captainbryce said:
True. Your problem is, you haven't provided an alternative interpretation of the scripture in question. All you've said is that I've taken it out of context, without actually pointing to the "proper context" (according to you) or even telling us what your interpretation of "no one can come to the father except through me" is. It's very easy to just say I've taken something out of context. But if you don't qualify that statement, then it carries no weight. It's just an opinion at that point, which is no more valid than mine.

Clearly shows you read one line of my reply and give an answer.

So, you wrote:

"Your problem is, you haven't provided an alternative interpretation of the scripture in question"

My comment:

Please try to read my post all the way, because you would realize I already gave you an interpretation that reconciles the Problem I mentioned to you.

I am fully aware of WHAT "generation" Jesus spoke to, as well as how to apply his teachings in context with that.

Exactly. So, the genration that was sinner was that particular time.

Your error is in assuming that his teachings CHANGE with each passing generation.

If my assumption is wrong then Why did Jesus change the Law of divorce?

THEY DON'T! From a scriptural standpoint, there are only TWO generations:
the time BEFORE the messiah and the time AFTER.

Simply wrong. Noah for example lived in His own generationS:

Gen 6:9 "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

Before the messiah, the Jews were given the ten commandments, along with mosaic laws. Those laws were applicable to those generations from the time the law was given up until the sacrifice of the messiah. Now, we are under the new covenant of Christ, and his teachings and commandments are not conditional on the generations that follow. Can you find one scripture in the new testament indicates a teaching of Jesus Christ that "changes" with each passing generation?

It is like a Jew tells you, the Jewish Law never changes. Can you look at the old Testament and find an example the Laws of Moses are 'Changed"?

Obviously you cannot. So, by your own logic, Jesus is a false Messiah, because He changed the Laws of Moses.

True. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ was given to US (ie: Jews and Gentiles who follow Christ).

And the Jews disagree that Jesus was their Messiah, because They say He did not fulfill the Prophecy of their Messiah.
So, what makes you think you are right, and they are wrong?

It also did not mention Krishna! If Krishna was so important, why wouldn't Jesus have mentioned him?

Why would God have sent Krishna to other people, then tell Christians that Jesus was the only way to the father? That makes no sense! Your interpretation requires a god who behaves illogically.

Something that you keep ignoring.
I asked you, did God send any Prophet or Scriptures to other People of the earth prior to Jesus?

Prior do Jesus, the Israelites were the only ones who acknowledged the existence and authority of God. Gentiles were pagans who worshiped other Gods. The Jews were the chosen people, not Gentiles. It's not that God didn't care about the rest of humanity, it's that the rest of humanity didn't care about God.

What you are missing is that, the Israelites acknowledged the existence and authority of God, Because God sent them Prophets and made them aware of Himself and His Laws. However, they rejected Jesus as their Messiah. So, same people who had been chosen and acknowledged God and His Revelation, rejected it when another Revelation came to them. That experience should tell us, that for example the Christian who had accepted and acknowledged Jesus, may similarly fail to recognize a Later Revelation from God. Why do you think that cannot be the case?

And without getting far from the point I am trying to make, if you say the rest of the World were not sent any Prophets prior to Jesus to make them aware of God, then how can acknowledging or rejecting make any difference? and how do you know the rest of the World did not acknowledge God?
As a matter of fact, The Muslims and Baha'is did acknowledge God and His revelation. And If you think any other Revelation after Christ is False, this type of thinking is similar to how the majority of Jews at the Time of Jesus thought about revelation of Christ.

Deuteronomy 7:6
For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Simly misinterpreting the verse.
This verse does not mean that before or in future God did not or would not choose another People other than Jews. It simply means that at that time and Age, God chose the Jews. By choosing means, He chose to send them Prophets to guide them. Not that God is racist.

It's like today the Sun is raised in USA, while Asia might be dark at that time. So, in that time the Sun chose USA. In just 12 Hours later the Sun appears in another part of the World and give them light.
So, do you think when the Sun appears in your country, it never appeared nor will appear in another country of earth? Let's try use a little fair judgement please.

You are quite mistaken my friend. Let me show you what else Jesus said:

Mark 16:15-16
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Matthew 24:14
14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Matthew 28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Creating too strong a dichotomy between Jesus’ mission to the Jews and the church’s mission to the Gentiles is unhelpful. As the long-awaited Messiah who fulfills Israel’s vocation, Jesus accomplishes the mission of Israel through his own life and work, thereby bringing the blessing of Abraham to the nations, as was promised in the Old Testament.

The mission to the Gentiles was not at the expense of mission to Israel, nor was it merely an extension. Instead, Israel was to be the catalyst through which God would accomplish his promises to the world.

Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel in order that through his regathering and reconstituting the true Israel, the blessing of salvation would be released to flow from Israel and into all the world, just as God promised in the Old Testament.
Why Did Jesus Say He Came Only for Israel? – Trevin Wax

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved

I tend to agree with you. But I am hardly "mainstream" if you ask the typical mainstream Christian.

Correct. At least all of the ones relevant to humanity in terms of our salvation.

I've just provided scripture where Jesus specifically tells his disciples that the gospel is meant for all the nations of the world. Therefore, the assumption IS biblical.

My point still holds my friend. I said Messiah was Promised to the Jews and That is a fact. I didn't say Gospel was not meant to be preached in other parts of the World.
What you quoted above does not change what i stated. Why Jesus did not go to other part of the World and do His Miracles so they believe too?
And If you think at that time travelling was difficult, then don't you believe Jesus could do Miracles?

And though you say you are not mainstream Christian, your interpretation of Bible for the most part comes from the way Mainstream Christians interprete it.

Thief · Aug 21, 2013

yoda89 said:
It's appetizers aside..lol

Many do take this stance yet in the bible there are contradictions. Passages suggesting opposite views. Thus as I said if you seek it metaphors you still must explain the metaphors that suggest killing etc. As you admit to as a Christian it is difficult to stick to the a book that was written 2000 years ago as times have changed. I know from experience. You may also want also view more than the bible to support you case. Because this debate has been going on for centuries.

However to your unique souls theory cannot be supported as by physical evidence. Only of your own.(probably gets tiring hearing that.)

1. I cannot see how god can exist out of void
Your lack of vision?
2. Be all loving with his actions pertaining to us
And love may include a higher purpose and intent
3. My definition of Causality
Your imposition rather than mine?
4. Materialism
A temporary condition.
5. Evolution
would be God's handiwork

There are many more

If you can convince me or prove me wrong go for it. If you wish to go for it.

Never any proof....but you do have to think about it.
And there is a basic perspective missing.....

Out of the void.....all things.
Including that Spirit.....first in mind and heart.
Someone had to be First.
I would call Him God.....Creator and Almighty.

As for being unique...that is obvious.
Your body can do no other.
Your linear existence insures it.

danieldemol · Aug 21, 2013

captainbryce said:
You're reading WAY too much into that! Jesus' statement (along with the term "spiritually dead") is a metaphor.

In Matthew 8:22 Jesus said, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead." He was responding to a request from one of His followers who asked to be excused from his responsibilities to "go and bury [his] father" (verse 21). It might seem that he was asking to make funeral arrangements for his recently deceased father. However, he was actually asking Christ to excuse him from his spiritual responsibilities, so that he could return to live with his aging father until after his father died. Of course, that could mean the disciple would be gone for a long time. It seems he was skirting his spiritual calling and wanted Christ to give His blessing to this action. Instead, Christ told him to focus on his calling. A better sense of Jesus' statement would be, "Don't neglect the high spiritual calling I've given you; let the spiritually dead attend to the routine tasks of life."

All the unnecessary info about whether or not the father was physically dead is utterly non-relevant distraction. An unconscious person would be just as unable to attend the needs of a physically alive person as they would a physically dead person.

It depends on the context of the specific scripture in question. As I said, spiritually dead is a metaphor for someone who has no spiritual connection to God, and is just living life in a mundane way to serve only himself...
...As such, they are spiritually dead.

That is all "dead" means with reference to the human soul.

That's not what the bible says. The bible says that the soul can DIE and be DESTROYED.

Your interpretation of one "dead" as metaphorical, and another "dead", "die", "death" etc as literal relies on dubious logic.
You assume that the soul is merely conciousness, then on the basis of this assumption say that anywhere people who have undergone spiritual death and are concious that this context proves that the "death" referred to is metaphorical, then default to literalism elsewhere.

But that assumption is not founded. Instead it would make more sense to formulate the hypothesis that the soul is synonymous with consciousness, then test that hypothesis for consistency with the scriptures. When tested against the scriptures your hypothesis has no consistency, and requires the arbitrary insertion of metaphorical reading at specific points whilst insisting in all-caps that a person who interprets the same words (die, death etc) metaphorically elsewhere is unquestionably wrong without justification for such literalistic certitude to the extent where you won't even consider other possibilities.

danieldemol said:
(Jude 1:7)"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Obviously if at death the astray peoples from those tribes instantaneously cease to exist, they suffer fire at worst momentarily, and certainly not "eternally".

captainbryce said:
I agree. And that's exactly what I believe happens. Your point?

They can't suffer the vengeance of "eternal fire" if they are not there for eternity. They would at most suffer only a minuscule fraction of such vengeance.
Imo it implies that they are there for eternity.

What would be the point of running the fire for eternity if it's sole purpose was to destroy the wicked who would perish instantaneously, at which point the fire would no longer have any purpose and just be a useless source of global warming (not to mention a hazard for good people to fall into) for eternity?

At the end of the day I consider it best that we agree to disagree.

captainbryce · Aug 22, 2013

InvestigateTruth said:
Clearly shows you read one line of my reply and give an answer.

I'm not the one having a problem with context here you are. I was referring to all of your other posts PRIOR to the last one you gave OBVIOUSLY. I address your response later on in my reply (if you had bothered to read my whole reply).

InvestigateTruth said:
Please try to read my post all the way, because you would realize I already gave you an interpretation that reconciles the Problem I mentioned to you.

Except that it actually DOESN'T reconcile anything (as I explained in my reply).

InvestigateTruth said:
If my assumption is wrong then Why did Jesus change the Law of divorce?

A) He didn't "change" it, the law remained EXACTLY the same until the Jewish people decided to change it in accordance with secular law. What Jesus did was reinterpret the intent of the law for those who were just blindly following it. Jesus explained that people should NOT divorce even though the law says that you could. And he explained why people should not divorce despite the allowance given under the law.

B) Certain laws (namely Mosaic laws) no longer applied after Christ came. His sacrifice fulfilled the old laws. This represents ONE change in spiritual laws in how to apply them (for specified reasons) throughout the entire bible. That does not justify saying that God's law is constantly revised with each passing generation.

InvestigateTruth said:
Simply wrong. Noah for example lived in His own generationS:

Gen 6:9 "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

You're being obtuse here and completely missing my point. Of course there have been many generations counted in the bible, but we're obviously not talking about those kind of generations (genealogy). We're talking about generations as it applies to spiritual guidance. And those two generations are the OLD TESTAMENT (Hebrews) and the NEW TESTAMENT (Christians).

InvestigateTruth said:
It is like a Jew tells you, the Jewish Law never changes. Can you look at the old Testament and find an example the Laws of Moses are 'Changed"?

I don't have to. Jesus was Jewish and the prophesied messiah from the Old Testament. Mosaic laws BEGAN with Moses and ENDED with Jesus. And the reason they end with Jesus is because he died FOR ALL MANKIND (not just the Jews). Therefore Mosaic laws no longer apply because they cannot save us from sin. Only faith in Christ can save us and that applies whether we are Jewish or Gentile.

InvestigateTruth said:
Obviously you cannot. So, by your own logic, Jesus is a false Messiah, because He changed the Laws of Moses.

:no:

InvestigateTruth said:
And the Jews disagree that Jesus was their Messiah, because They say He did not fulfill the Prophecy of their Messiah. So, what makes you think you are right, and they are wrong?

First of all, that is a blanket generalization. All Jews do not disagree with me. Many Jews agree that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, all of Jesus' original disciples were Jewish. So the idea that "Jews" disagree as a whole is ridiculous. Secondly, I don't care what you say the Jews disagree with. It's not my responsibility to ensure that Jews agree with me, nor is it my intention to convince anyone to follow what I believe. You're allowed to believe in whatever you want to believe in. I'm just telling you what the bible actually says, so that you don't distort scripture or characterize Christian beliefs.

InvestigateTruth said:
Something that you keep ignoring.
I asked you, did God send any Prophet or Scriptures to other People of the earth prior to Jesus?

We've already discussed Moses and mosaic laws several times, so how could you possibly think I've ignored this? (did you fail to read my entire post

) Obviously the answer is yes. Your point?

InvestigateTruth said:
What you are missing is that, the Israelites acknowledged the existence and authority of God, Because God sent them Prophets and made them aware of Himself and His Laws.

God made himself aware to EVERYONE at that time. Pharaoh saw the power of God with his own eyes, yet he still believed that his false idol was more powerful. It isn't a matter of people not being aware of God. Clearly they were! The issue is, they rejected him.

InvestigateTruth said:
However, they rejected Jesus as their Messiah.

No. SOME of them rejected Jesus, others accepted him. You are getting your biblical history distorted. All of Jesus' disciples were Jewish remember?

InvestigateTruth said:
So, same people who had been chosen and acknowledged God and His Revelation, rejected it when another Revelation came to them. That experience should tell us, that for example the Christian who had accepted and acknowledged Jesus, may similarly fail to recognize a Later Revelation from God. Why do you think that cannot be the case?

Because that's not what Christ taught. He specifically taught that he is the only path to salvation and the judge of all mankind. What the experience of some Jews rejecting Christ tells us is that some people are just blind. And that has been a recurring history throughout the entire bible. Christ even said that people would reject him and his teachings, and persecute those who spread the Gospel. But he and his disciples also taught that FALSE PROPHETS would come after him. And I'm pretty sure I've already posted those scriptures.

InvestigateTruth said:
and how do you know the rest of the World did not acknowledge God?

Because I study history! It's very clear what "the rest of the world" practiced. The very existence of religions like Hindu proves that they didn't acknowledge God, because such religions are contrary to what God taught. It's a religion based on false gods and violates the FIRST commandment in the bible. Granted, there were some Gentiles who did not practice false religion. And even without being given God's word, they still followed God, and the bible acknowledges this.

InvestigateTruth said:
As a matter of fact, The Muslims and Baha'is did acknowledge God and His revelation.

But they reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, they are acknowledging God, but ignoring the one whom he sent and going against what he stands for by practicing false religion.

Matthew 7:24
Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock.

Matthew 7:26
But anyone who hears my teaching and doesnt obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand.

John 3:18
There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in Gods one and only Son.

InvestigateTruth said:
And If you think any other Revelation after Christ is False, this type of thinking is similar to how the majority of Jews at the Time of Jesus thought about revelation of Christ.

I don't know how the majority of Jews at the time of Jesus thought, AND NEITHER DO YOU or anyone else alive today!

InvestigateTruth said:
Simly misinterpreting the verse
This verse does not mean that before or in future God did not or would not choose another People other than Jews.

I'm not misinterpreting anything. First of all, I never said that God would not choose another people in the future. Let me remind you of your question:

Question: Prior to Jesus when Hebrew Scriptures was sent to Israelites only as you state it above, then what scripture or prophet did God send to the rest of humanity? You think God only cared about Israelites?

Nowhere in there did I see you ask about God choosing "other people" in the future. So please don't characterize what I say with straw man arguments.

InvestigateTruth said:
It simply means that at that time and Age, God chose the Jews. By choosing means, He chose to send them Prophets to guide them. Not that God is racist.

And that's exactly what I believe. So far, you are preaching to the choir! So why are you trying to act like I'm saying something different?

InvestigateTruth said:
Why Jesus did not go to other part of the World and do His Miracles so they believe too?

That's what his disciples were for! He actually commanded them to do so. What part about that do you not understand? :shrug:

InvestigateTruth said:
And If you think at that time travelling was difficult, then don't you believe Jesus could do Miracles?

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. What does "time travel" have to do with this conversation?

InvestigateTruth said:
And though you say you are not mainstream Christian, your interpretation of Bible for the most part comes from the way Mainstream Christians interprete it.

That's your opinion. But I'm not interested in your opinion because you aren't in full possession of the facts. The fact is, this happens to be ONE area of interpretation where my view is consistent with what you call "mainstream Christianity". But many of them would consider me about as "Christian" as you are based on how my interpretation of scripture typically differs from that of "mainstream Christianity".

captainbryce · Aug 22, 2013

danieldemol said:
All the unnecessary info about whether or not the father was physically dead is utterly non-relevant distraction. An unconscious person would be just as unable to attend the needs of a physically alive person as they would a physically dead person.

What? Where are you getting "unconscious person" from?

danieldemol said:
That is all "dead" means with reference to the human soul.

How do you figure? This has nothing to do with the human soul.

danieldemol said:
Your interpretation of one "dead" as metaphorical, and another "dead", "die", "death" etc as literal relies on dubious logic.

Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean that it is "dubious".

danieldemol said:
You assume that the soul is merely conciousness, then on the basis of this assumption say that anywhere people who have undergone spiritual death and are concious that this context proves that the "death" referred to is metaphorical, then default to literalism elsewhere.

It's not an assumption. It's based on the Hebrew treats the word Nephesh.

danieldemol said:
But that assumption is not founded. Instead it would make more sense to formulate the hypothesis that the soul is synonymous with consciousness, then test that hypothesis for consistency with the scriptures. When tested against the scriptures your hypothesis has no consistency,

Actually IT DOES. Here, let me help you: Nephesh

danieldemol said:
and requires the arbitrary insertion of metaphorical reading at specific points whilst insisting in all-caps that a person who interprets the same words (die, death etc) metaphorically elsewhere is unquestionably wrong without justification for such literalistic certitude to the extent where you won't even consider other possibilities.

It requires no such thing. It's very clear upon the proper and consistent interpretation of the world soul as rendered in the bible, that it describes a being capable of thought, self-awareness, free-will, and emotions. These attributes are collectively referred to as "nephesh" (soul) and it is that which is destroyed upon death (as scripture says). Spiritual death is a metaphorical term that has nothing to do with the soul (there is a difference between soul and spirit by the way). It simply means "separation from God".
Spiritual death in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is you who needs to learn what terms actually mean before you start throwing them around arbitrarily. This is explains your confusion on the issue.

danieldemol said:
They can't suffer the vengeance of "eternal fire" if they are not there for eternity. They would at most suffer only a minuscule fraction of such vengeance.
Imo it implies that they are there for eternity.

That doesn't even follow. It's illogical to consider destruction by fire as something one can experience eternally when the body and soul are destroyed by fire! Furthermore, it's contrary to what the bible actually says about the soul dying.

danieldemol said:
What would be the point of running the fire for eternity if it's sole purpose was to destroy the wicked who would perish instantaneously, at which point the fire would no longer have any purpose and just be a useless source of global warming (not to mention a hazard for good people to fall into) for eternity?

"Eternity" in this context is also just an expression. Remember that the entire book of Revelation is symbolic. It is a common way of speaking in biblical Hebrew because the language was much smaller than English. And Christ spoke in parables! We know that the lake of fire (which is represented symbolically by Gehenna) is not literally eternal because the bible clearly teaches that death is temporary. The lake of fire is the second death! The "eternal" part has to do with being destroyed eternally (ie: forever) with no hope of salvation. It is eternal separation of God in a state of death. But it does not denote "consciousness" or imply that the soul somehow survives physical death.

danieldemol said:
At the end of the day I consider it best that we agree to disagree.

As opposed to what exactly?

yoda89 · Aug 22, 2013

Thief said:
Never any proof....but you do have to think about it.
And there is a basic perspective missing.....

My idea of proof differs from yours. You read a book thats outdated and trust in it. My method differs. I trust fact and what we have discovered

Out of the void.....all things.
Including that Spirit.....first in mind and heart.
Someone had to be First.
I would call Him God.....Creator and Almighty.

Using science and physics explain to me your theory.

As for being unique...that is obvious.
Your body can do no other.
Your linear existence insures it.

Do you speak in riddles in real life also?

I.S.L.A.M617 · Aug 22, 2013

yoda89 said:
Do you speak in riddles in real life also?

Riddles imply mystery... There needs to be a question as to whether or not what was said is complete nonsense. I'm afraid the comments of our esteemed poet don't apply.

danieldemol · Aug 22, 2013

captainbryce said:
What? Where are you getting "unconscious person" from?

From my original question about how a person with a "dead" soul would be able to "bury their dead" if the soul was defined as conciousness, and their soul had died.

That doesn't even follow. It's illogical to consider destruction by fire as something one can experience eternally when the body and soul are destroyed by fire!

A point worth reflecting on.

As opposed to what exactly?

As opposed to me constantly replying to your every point forever until everyone dies (figuratively or otherwise) of boredom.

yoda89 · Aug 22, 2013

I.S.L.A.M617 said:
Riddles imply mystery... There needs to be a question as to whether or not what was said is complete nonsense. I'm afraid the comments of our esteemed poet don't apply.

Agree do I
For my answer is what you know but do not realize.
Well you probably do. Sick I became of his riddles.
Same are his responses and comments.
His comments display he has turned his back on the bright side

But it's cool for me too riddle every now and then...my name is Yoda lol

rusra02 · Aug 22, 2013

SonofSonofGod said:
I don't think so but I take my inspiration from the Bible which states that Jesus was the only one born with an immortal soul.

What does your particular religion teach? Soul Immortal or no?

No, the Bible clearly teaches the soul can and does die. (Ezekiel 18:4) Jesus himself was given immortality after his resurrection. He was not born with an immortal soul. (Romans 6:9)

InvestigateTruth · Aug 22, 2013

captainbryce said:
We've already discussed Moses and mosaic laws several times, so how could you possibly think I've ignored this? (did you fail to read my entire post ) Obviously the answer is yes. Your point?

God made himself aware to EVERYONE at that time. Pharaoh saw the power of God with his own eyes, yet he still believed that his false idol was more powerful. It isn't a matter of people not being aware of God. Clearly they were! The issue is, they rejected him.

Here you seem not to understand my question.
You are saying "God made himself aware to EVERYONE at that time"

How in your view God made Himself aware at that time to the Persians, Indians, Arabs, American Indians, South Americans? Chinese?(Note we are talking about prior to Jesus)

Remember you had already said, the Mosaic Laws came for the Isrealites in you previous posts. You admitted that the Mosaic Laws were not given to other people than the Isrealites. So, can you name some of the Prophets that were sent to other People such as Persians, Arabs, Indians, etc etc.... (Use Bible only, as you believe that's the only Revealed Scriptures that has all the names of Prophets of God)

captainbryce said:
I'm not the one having a problem with context here you are.
Except that it actually DOESN'T reconcile anything (as I explained in my reply).

A) He didn't "change" it, the law remained EXACTLY the same until the Jewish people decided to change it in accordance with secular law. What Jesus did was reinterpret the intent of the law for those who were just blindly following it. Jesus explained that people should NOT divorce even though the law says that you could. And he explained why people should not divorce despite the allowance given under the law.

B) Certain laws (namely Mosaic laws) no longer applied after Christ came. His sacrifice fulfilled the old laws. This represents ONE change in spiritual laws in how to apply them (for specified reasons) throughout the entire bible. That does not justify saying that God's law is constantly revised with each passing generation.

The Law of God does not change with every passing generation as you think I am saying.
First I have to tell you, your usage of the term generation may cause misunderstandings.
You have divided people before Jesus as one generation, and after Him another generation.

But a better term to use is 'Age'.

People who lived at the time of Moses were in a different Age than people who were living at the time of Jesus. Hence Jesus abrogated SOME of the Laws of Moses as they were revealed for an older Age. He also changed some of the Laws, such as divorce:

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. Mattew 19:9

So, Jesus came and had a new covenant, eventhough Moses had a new Covenant comparing to the Covenant of Abraham, and Abraham had a New Covenant comparing to the Covenant of Noah. Each appeared in a different Age.
After Christianity, there are Two covenants. Islam, and Baha'i Faith.
Since we are living in a new Age, a New covenant has come for our Age.

As Jesus said:

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." John 16:13

Notice although Jesus is talking to His disciples, He is telling this to Everyone, as He said:

"What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!'" Mark 13:37

What Jesus was saying, is He had still many teaching to Tell Us, but at that time people were not ready. Hence when the Next Manifestation of God appeares, He would reveal those things in the New Age. He alluded to Him as 'Spirit of Truth"

As Baha'u'llah revealed:

"Announce thou unto the priests: Lo! He Who is the Ruler is come. Step out from behind the veil in the name of thy Lord, He Who layeth low the necks of all men. Proclaim then unto all mankind the glad-tidings of this mighty, this glorious Revelation. Verily, He Who is the Spirit of Truth is come to guide you unto all truth. He speaketh not as prompted by His own self, but as bidden by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.
Say, this is the One Who hath glorified the Son and hath exalted His Cause. Cast away, O peoples of the earth, that which ye have and take fast hold of that which ye are bidden by the All-Powerful, He Who is the Bearer of the Trust of God. " Tablet to the Christians

You're being obtuse here and completely missing my point. Of course there have been many generations counted in the bible, but we're obviously not talking about those kind of generations (genealogy). We're talking about generations as it applies to spiritual guidance. And those two generations are the OLD TESTAMENT (Hebrews) and the NEW TESTAMENT (Christians).

Old Testament and New Testament are Not Generations. They are Covenants.

Moreover, The New Testament is too Old now. For Baha'is it is an Old Old Testament. and For Muslims it is Old Testament.

I don't have to. Jesus was Jewish and the prophesied messiah from the Old Testament. Mosaic laws BEGAN with Moses and ENDED with Jesus. And the reason they end with Jesus is because he died FOR ALL MANKIND (not just the Jews). Therefore Mosaic laws no longer apply because they cannot save us from sin. Only faith in Christ can save us and that applies whether we are Jewish or Gentile.

That still does not answer the question I asked. If Jesus death is the cause of saving Mankind, what was the cause of saving the Mankind before Jesus?

First of all, that is a blanket generalization. All Jews do not disagree with me. Many Jews agree that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, all of Jesus' original disciples were Jewish. So the idea that "Jews" disagree as a whole is ridiculous. Secondly, I don't care what you say the Jews disagree with. It's not my responsibility to ensure that Jews agree with me, nor is it my intention to convince anyone to follow what I believe. You're allowed to believe in whatever you want to believe in. I'm just telling you what the bible actually says, so that you don't distort scripture or characterize Christian beliefs.

Here your usage of the Term Jew is not correct my friend.
Any Jew who believes in Jesus being Messiah is no longer called a Jew. He would be called Christian, or Muslim, or Baha'i.

But they reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, they are acknowledging God, but ignoring the one whom he sent and going against what he stands for by practicing false religion.

That is simply incorrect. Both Scriptures of Quran and Baha'i Faith confirm Jesus as the Messiah, and confirms the Gospel to be from God.

I don't know how the majority of Jews at the time of Jesus thought, AND NEITHER DO YOU or anyone else alive today!

This can be seen from the New Testament. The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, and kept arguing with Him, and eventually planed to cruicify Him. The Jewish Community follows their Religous Leaders, and trusted them. Hence, when their Religious Leaders rejected Jesus and anounced Him a False Messiah, the followers of these Jewish Leaders also rejected Jesus. For the Jewish community learns the Interpretations of Hebrew Scriptures from their Religious Leaders. It is obvious when according to New Testament the Jewish leader opposed and rejected Jesus, likewise their followers did in their foot steps. You are correct that the Disciples were Jews before. But that is a very minor population of Jews at that time who accepted Jesus as their MEssiah.

captainbryce · Aug 22, 2013

danieldemol said:
From my original question about how a person with a "dead" soul would be able to "bury their dead" if the soul was defined as conciousness, and their soul had died.

The scripture doesn't say their soul is dead. It is referring to people who are "spiritually dead" (which is a metaphor). Again, there is a difference between soul and spirit.

danieldemol said:
A point worth reflecting on.

For you perhaps, but for me the answer is very clear. The soul is NOT immortal! If it can be killed or destroyed, then that rules out "immortality". We've come full circle!

yoda89 · Aug 22, 2013

ZooGirl02 said:
I definitely believe that I, and every other person ever conceived, has an immortal soul. I believe that the soul will never cease to exist. Even after death I believe that the soul will continue to exist either in Heaven or in Hell for eternity. I also believe that most people who die and go to Heaven will have to go to Purgatory for a while first to have temporal consequences and venial sins purified from their souls.

I am interested in your scientific and metaphysical beliefs that support your hypothesis. Can you actually support this concept if not your ideas are merely a shot in the dark. You can transform sheep back and forth. However these sheep do not hold the value of those who speak for themselves.

captainbryce · Aug 22, 2013

InvestigateTruth said:
So, can you name some of the Prophets that were sent to other People such as Persians, Arabs, Indians, etc etc.... (Use Bible only, as you believe that's the only Revealed Scriptures that has all the names of Prophets of God)

I never said that God sent prophets out to such people before Christ. What I am saying is that God has made his presence known to people who were never given his word or visited by prophets.

InvestigateTruth said:
The Law of God does not change with every passing generation as you think I am saying.
First I have to tell you, your usage of the term generation may cause misunderstandings.
You have divided people before Jesus as one generation, and after Him another generation.

But a better term to use is 'Age'.

Fair enough. From now on, I shall use the term age.

InvestigateTruth said:
As Jesus said:

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." John 16:13

Notice although Jesus is talking to His disciples, He is telling this to Everyone, as He said:

"What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!'" Mark 13:37

What Jesus was saying, is He had still many teaching to Tell Us, but at that time people were not ready. Hence when the Next Manifestation of God appeares, He would reveal those things in the New Age. He alluded to Him as 'Spirit of Truth"

I agreed with everything you said, right up until the end. That's where you went from what scripture actually says to your interpretation of it (which frankly, I find unsupportable). The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God. It does not imply some NEW manifestation of God or some other gods.

InvestigateTruth said:
As Baha'u'llah revealed:

Baha'u'llah was not the Spirit of the truth, that is the Holy Spirit.

InvestigateTruth said:
Old Testament and New Testament are Not Generations.

No, but they represent the word of God for the different "ages".

InvestigateTruth said:
They are Covenants.

No, actually they're not. They are both collections of books that refer to inspired works written by and for Hebrews (OT) and Christians (NT). They do both contain covenants!

InvestigateTruth said:
Moreover, The New Testament is too Old now. For Baha'is it is an Old Old Testament. and For Muslims it is Old Testament.

That's fine for people who reject Jesus as the Son of God. But we feel that Jesus' word applies for all that follow, and that his message of salvation is just as relevant today as it was back when he spoke to the disciples.

InvestigateTruth said:
That still does not answer the question I asked. If Jesus death is the cause of saving Mankind, what was the cause of saving the Mankind before Jesus?

It has always been Jesus! He was the prophesied messiah in the Old Testament. He was always meant to redeem mankind from sin! That includes men who came before him. The only exceptions I can think of would be the men who were already judged and condemned by God (Adam, people who died in the flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc).

InvestigateTruth said:
Here your usage of the Term Jew is not correct my friend.
Any Jew who believes in Jesus being Messiah is no longer called a Jew. He would be called Christian, or Muslim, or Baha'i.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. And frankly, I'm sure there are many self identified Jews who would find that comment rather offensive.

Messianic Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

InvestigateTruth said:
That is simply incorrect. Both Scriptures of Quran and Baha'i Faith confirm Jesus as the Messiah, and confirms the Gospel to be from God.

Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, died for all mankind, judges all mankind, and that nobody comes to the father except through him? If the answer is no, then you have rejected the Gospel of Christ.

InvestigateTruth said:
This can be seen from the New Testament. The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, and kept arguing with Him, and eventually planed to cruicify Him. The Jewish Community follows their Religous Leaders, and trusted them. Hence, when their Religious Leaders rejected Jesus and anounced Him a False Messiah, the followers of these Jewish Leaders also rejected Jesus. For the Jewish community learns the Interpretations of Hebrew Scriptures from their Religious Leaders. It is obvious when according to New Testament the Jewish leader opposed and rejected Jesus, likewise their followers did in their foot steps. You are correct that the Disciples were Jews before. But that is a very minor population of Jews at that time who accepted Jesus as their MEssiah.

Well, again, you're entitled to that interpretation. We can agree to disagree on this point as well. The fact is, there are a great many more Christians in the world than there are Jews (or any other religion for that matter). According to you, any Jew who accepts Christ is no longer Jewish. Under that perspective, it's no wonder that you think the vast majority of Jews rejected the messiah. All the ones that accepted him are no longer Jewish. So by your definition 100% of all Jewish people rejected the messiah. But since you and I define "Jew" differently, then we will obviously come to a different interpretation. Read Romans 3. Paul speaks about Jewish and Gentile followers of Christ. Therefore you are WRONG.

InvestigateTruth · Aug 22, 2013

captainbryce said:
What I am saying is that God has made his presence known to people who were never given his word or visited by prophets.

How did God do that in a practical sense?
Support your claim with the verses of Bible please as you say:

"I am saying is that God has made his presence known to people who were never given his word or visited by prophets"

I agreed with everything you said, right up until the end. That's where you went from what scripture actually says to your interpretation of it (which frankly, I find unsupportable). The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God. It does not imply some NEW manifestation of God or some other gods.

Baha'u'llah was not the Spirit of the truth, that is the Holy Spirit.

Many of the Prophecies regrading Messiah was unknown to be related to Messiah in the eyes of Jewish Learned Men who were the leaders. Take for instance 'Immanual' .
It became known only after the Propmised One came.
Likewise many of the Prophecies regarding Baha'u'llah in Bible were unknown untill He came and revealed it for us.

That prophecy is clearly explained in Baha'i Scriptures:

"In the Gospel of John, in speaking of the Promised One Who was to come after Christ, it is said in chapter 16, verses 12, 13: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak."
Now consider carefully that from these words, "for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak," it is clear that the Spirit of truth is embodied in a Man Who has individuality, Who has ears to hear and a tongue to speak. In the same way the name "Spirit of God" is used in relation to Christ, as you speak of a light, meaning both the light and the lamp. " Abdulbaha - Some Answered Question.

No, but they represent the word of God for the different "ages".

True. But for old Ages.

Not our Age.

That's fine for people who reject Jesus as the Son of God. But we feel that Jesus' word applies for all that follow, and that his message of salvation is just as relevant today as it was back when he spoke to the disciples.

Simply wronge. The Son was the title of Jesus, which signifies a spiritual relationship.
If you think God literally had a Son, and that is a physical relation, off course your interpretation is not Biblical.
I accept Bible, but not a man-made interpretation as by Christian Leaders.

It has always been Jesus! He was the prophesied messiah in the Old Testament. He was always meant to redeem mankind from sin!

Well, obviously you have no answer for my question. So, if you think you have answer for yourself, keep your beliefs.
Good luck.

That includes men who came before him. The only exceptions I can think of would be the men who were already judged and condemned by God (Adam, people who died in the flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc).

Can you support by Bible what you say, that by Jesus even those before Him were saved, the way you say it:

"That includes men who came before him."

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. And frankly, I'm sure there are many self identified Jews who would find that comment rather offensive.

Messianic Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, died for all mankind, judges all mankind, and that nobody comes to the father except through him? If the answer is no, then you have rejected the Gospel of Christ.

Well, again, you're entitled to that interpretation. We can agree to disagree on this point as well. The fact is, there are a great many more Christians in the world than there are Jews (or any other religion for that matter). According to you, any Jew who accepts Christ is no longer Jewish. Under that perspective, it's no wonder that you think the vast majority of Jews rejected the messiah. All the ones that accepted him are no longer Jewish. So by your definition 100% of all Jewish people rejected the messiah. But since you and I define "Jew" differently, then we will obviously come to a different interpretation. Read Romans 3. Paul speaks about Jewish and Gentile followers of Christ.

Fine, we agree to disagree.

Therefore you are WRONG.

Did you think I was trying to prove you are wronge? No, I only wanted to make you aware of some truth. When your religious view does not have a logical answer for my reasonable question, obviously there is something wrong! But keep you belief if it makes sense to you logically.

captainbryce · Aug 22, 2013

InvestigateTruth said:
How did God do that in a practical sense?
Support your claim with the verses of Bible please as you say:

"I am saying is that God has made his presence known to people who were never given his word or visited by prophets"

Romans 2:14-15
14 Even Gentiles, who do not have Gods written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that Gods law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

InvestigateTruth said:
Many of the Prophecies regrading Messiah was unknown to be related to Messiah in the eyes of Jewish Learned Men who were the leaders. Take for instance 'Immanual'. It became known only after the Propmised One came.

The point is, it WAS prophesied that the messiah would come. And when he did in the manner that he did, that proved that the prophecy was fulfilled. There was no biblical prophecy of Baha'u'llah in Bible, by name or description. That's the difference. Baha'u'llah is NOT the the Spirit of Truth that Jesus fortold. That belongs to the Holy Spirit!

InvestigateTruth said:
True. But for old Ages. Not our Age.

Okay, if that's what you choose to believe. You choose to reject the word of Christ, and I choose to accept it. Therin lies the fundamental difference between us. I don't see any reason for a "new" scripture in the current age. There is no wisdom that can be imparted unto us with regard to our salvation that Christ hasn't given us.

InvestigateTruth said:
Simply wronge. The Son was the title of Jesus, which signifies a spiritual relationship.
If you think God literally had a Son, and that is a physical relation, off course your interpretation is not Biblical.
I accept Bible, but not a man-made interpretation as by Christian Leaders.

You say you accept the bible. What you really accept is the man-made interpretation of a false religion, based on a false god that had nothing to do with Jesus OR the bible. That's what the evidence shows I'm afraid.

InvestigateTruth said:
Well, obviously you have no answer for my question.

I've given you the answer, which was very simple. The fact that you don't like the answer and choose to ignore it is not my problem.

InvestigateTruth said:
So, if you think you have answer for yourself, keep your beliefs. Good luck.

Thank you, I will. But I don't require "luck". Luke is a virtue of false religions and misguided superstitions. I have faith in Christ as the one and only messiah, and that's all I'll ever need. But since you don't have that, then I'll say "good luck" to you (since you deem it of value).

InvestigateTruth said:
Can you support by Bible what you say, that by Jesus even those before Him were saved, the way you say it:

"That includes men who came before him."

Sure can!

John 5:28-29
28 Dont be so surprised! Indeed, the time is coming when all the dead in their graves will hear the voice of Gods Son, 29 and they will rise again. Those who have done good will rise to experience eternal life, and those who have continued in evil will rise to experience judgment.

Acts 17:30-31
30 God overlooked peoples ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him. 31 For he has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man he has appointed, and he proved to everyone who this is by raising him from the dead.

1 John 2:1-2
My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous. 2 He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sinsand not only our sins but the sins of all the world.

2 Timothy 1:9-10
For God saved us and called us to live a holy life. He did this, not because we deserved it, but because that was his plan from before the beginning of timeto show us his grace through Christ Jesus. 10 And now he has made all of this plain to us by the appearing of Christ Jesus, our Savior. He broke the power of death and illuminated the way to life and immortality through the Good News.

And here is the Old Testament validation of these claims:

Job 19:25-27
25 But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
and he will stand upon the earth at last.
26 And after my body has decayed,
yet in my body I will see God!
27 I will see him for myself.
Yes, I will see him with my own eyes.
I am overwhelmed at the thought!

Job is the oldest book of the bible, written by a prophet well before Jesus came. And Old Testament prophet who claimed that he will see God with his own eyes AFTER death. This proves that their IS a resurrection of ALL who have ever died (both before and after Jesus) because that was God's plan from the beginning. :yes:

InvestigateTruth said:
Did you think I was trying to prove you are wronge?

It's not what I think, it's clearly what you attempted to do when (in this very post) said point blank "Simply wronge" (spelled wrong again I might add), followed by your attempt at an explanation for why I am wrong (according to you).

InvestigateTruth said:
No, I only wanted to make you aware of some truth. When your religious view does not have a logical answer for my reasonable question, obviously there is something wrong!

But I HAVE answered all of your questions. And you haven't pointed out in any way how any of my answered lack logic (according to scripture). Therefore, the simplest explanation is that you just don't like/agree with my answers, and choose not to acknowledge them. But that doesn't mean there is something wrong with my answers, it just means that you don't like them.

Thief · Aug 22, 2013

yoda89 said:
My idea of proof differs from yours. You read a book thats outdated and trust in it. My method differs. I trust fact and what we have discovered

Using science and physics explain to me your theory.

Do you speak in riddles in real life also?

In the same book it is written ....Question everything and trust no one.

Science relies on cause and effect.
'In the beginning'......there was the Word (Cause)
The creation is the effect.

And if I seem as a riddle to you.....how then shall you stand before Something Greater?

InvestigateTruth · Aug 22, 2013

captainbryce said:
Romans 2:14-15
14 Even Gentiles, who do not have Gods written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that Gods law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

You have used an inaccurate Translation. No where in the Greek it says God's written Law.
This is mostly related to Moral Laws.
And you had claimed God had made Himself known to Them. This verse in no wise shows your point.
Moreover, It again works against your theology. If Following the Moral Law is enough, then why NT emphasizes so much on Faith in God.

The point is, it WAS prophesied that the messiah would come. And when he did in the manner that he did, that proved that the prophecy was fulfilled. There was no biblical prophecy of Baha'u'llah in Bible, by name or description. That's the difference. Baha'u'llah is NOT the the Spirit of Truth that Jesus fortold. That belongs to the Holy Spirit!

The reason you think this way, is because you are new in to this topic.
Baha'u'llah not Only Fulfilled ALL the Prophecies of the Return of Christ, but also ALL the Prophecies of other Religions.

"Say, O followers of the Son! Have ye shut out yourselves from Me by reason of My Name? Wherefore ponder ye not in your hearts? Day and night ye have been calling upon your Lord, the Omnipotent, but when He came from the heaven of eternity in His great glory, ye turned aside from Him and remained sunk in heedlessness." Baha'u'llah

You should familiarize yourself, so you can speak factually. This website gives you a good overview of all the Prophecies fulfilled by Baha'u'llah.

Baha'i: Prophecy Fulfilled Homepage

Moreover, I had already discussed this in details in this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/136643-signs-end-bahai-view.html

I prefer to continue this topic in its own thread. So, If you like to continue please post it there.

Okay, if that's what you choose to believe. You choose to reject the word of Christ, and I choose to accept it. Therin lies the fundamental difference between us. I don't see any reason for a "new" scripture in the current age. There is no wisdom that can be imparted unto us with regard to our salvation that Christ hasn't given us.

Obviously, Baha'u'llah fulfilled whatever was Prophesied in Revelation, even as It was written:

Behold, I am making all things new. Rev 21:5

And as Baha'u'llah appeared He prophesied that a New Age would come with all new things, which is fulfilled:

"Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen."
"Bestir thyself, and magnify, before the entire creation, the name of God, and celebrate His praise, in such wise that all created things may be regenerated and made new."

You say you accept the bible. What you really accept is the man-made interpretation of a false religion, based on a false god that had nothing to do with Jesus OR the bible. That's what the evidence shows I'm afraid.

What's the evidence that shows? would you care to explain?

I've given you the answer, which was very simple. The fact that you don't like the answer and choose to ignore it is not my problem.

Thank you, I will. But I don't require "luck". Luke is a virtue of false religions and misguided superstitions. I have faith in Christ as the one and only messiah, and that's all I'll ever need. But since you don't have that, then I'll say "good luck" to you (since you deem it of value).

You cannot have faith in Christ when He has returned and you do not recognize Him.

John 5:28-29
28 Dont be so surprised! Indeed, the time is coming when all the dead in their graves will hear the voice of Gods Son, 29 and they will rise again. Those who have done good will rise to experience eternal life, and those who have continued in evil will rise to experience judgment.

This Prophecy is Fulfilled.

"the dead in their graves" is a Metaphor for spiritually dead people that were to be raised to the Life of Belief and that was a Prophecy regarding Baha'u'llah's revelation through which the Spiritually Dead is raised to the Life of Belief.

"Say: The shout hath been raised, and the people have come forth from their graves, and arising, are gazing around them. Some have made haste to attain the court of the God of Mercy, others have fallen down on their faces in the fire of Hell, while still others are lost in bewilderment. The verses of God have been revealed, and yet they have turned away from them. His proof hath been manifested, and yet they are unaware of it."

"Arise, and lift up your voices, that haply they that are fast asleep may be awakened. Say: O ye who are as dead! The Hand of Divine bounty proffereth unto you the Water of Life. Hasten and drink your fill. Whoso hath been re-born in this Day, shall never die; whoso remaineth dead, shall never live." Baha'u'llah

Shermana · Aug 22, 2013

captainbryce said:
What? Where are you getting "unconscious person" from?

How do you figure? This has nothing to do with the human soul.

Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean that it is "dubious".

It's not an assumption. It's based on the Hebrew treats the word Nephesh.

Actually IT DOES. Here, let me help you: Nephesh

It requires no such thing. It's very clear upon the proper and consistent interpretation of the world soul as rendered in the bible, that it describes a being capable of thought, self-awareness, free-will, and emotions. These attributes are collectively referred to as "nephesh" (soul) and it is that which is destroyed upon death (as scripture says). Spiritual death is a metaphorical term that has nothing to do with the soul (there is a difference between soul and spirit by the way). It simply means "separation from God".
Spiritual death in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is you who needs to learn what terms actually mean before you start throwing them around arbitrarily. This is explains your confusion on the issue.

That doesn't even follow. It's illogical to consider destruction by fire as something one can experience eternally when the body and soul are destroyed by fire! Furthermore, it's contrary to what the bible actually says about the soul dying.

"Eternity" in this context is also just an expression. Remember that the entire book of Revelation is symbolic. It is a common way of speaking in biblical Hebrew because the language was much smaller than English. And Christ spoke in parables! We know that the lake of fire (which is represented symbolically by Gehenna) is not literally eternal because the bible clearly teaches that death is temporary. The lake of fire is the second death! The "eternal" part has to do with being destroyed eternally (ie: forever) with no hope of salvation. It is eternal separation of God in a state of death. But it does not denote "consciousness" or imply that the soul somehow survives physical death.

As opposed to what exactly?

Now for the verse the Millerites run away and duck and cover from every single time: Psalm 43:5

Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.

(which is represented symbolically by Gehenna

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Gehenna was just symbolic in the text, whatsoever. The connection to the valley of burning may just be that they named this purgatorical afterlife after where they threw their trash to burn, or vice versa, but there is simply no solid concrete reason to assume the Jews did not believe in such a literal place of burning in the hereafter.

captainbryce · Aug 22, 2013

InvestigateTruth said:
You have used an inaccurate Translation. No where in the Greek it says God's written Law.
This is mostly related to Moral Laws.
And you had claimed God had made Himself known to Them. This verse in no wise shows your point.
Moreover, It again works against your theology. If Following the Moral Law is enough, then why NT emphasizes so much on Faith in God.

Right! :sarcastic Okay, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. It doesn't matter what the New Testament says to you because you don't follow it. You'll always come up with some excuse to get around it or some reason why you should interpret it differently from what it says. You've choose to reject the teachings of Christ, so your criticism of it is pointless. You ask me to provide scripture, but that is pointless because you will always make it what YOU want it to mean. You will always twist it so that it coincides with your false, anti-Christian religion and your fake God. It doesn't matter what I say or what evidence I provide, you will never see it the way that I do because you have been blinded by false prophets. So I'm essentially wasting my time by arguing with you. I knew better than to argue religion with someone of a different faith and I don't know how I got drawn into this in the first place because this is generally something I avoid doing. Religious debates are pointless because nobody ever wins.

Instead, I'll pray for you!

Poll: Do you think we are born with an immortal soul?

Do you believe you are born with an Immortal Soul?

Yes

No

Well-Known Member

Rogue Theologian

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

On Xtended Vacation

Illuminatus

Well-Known Member

On Xtended Vacation

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

On Xtended Vacation

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Rogue Theologian

Well-Known Member

Heretic

Active Member