Was Jesus a hypocrite?

firedragon · Feb 22, 2016

[QUOTE="buddhist, post: 4645851, member: 59021"1. god giving its message in one specific historical language, 2. given to one people group, 3. given to intermediaries, etc.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain this to me if you have some time. I honestly dont get what you say here.

buddhist · Feb 22, 2016

firedragon said:
[QUOTE="buddhist, post: 4645851, member: 59021"1. god giving its message in one specific historical language, 2. given to one people group, 3. given to intermediaries, etc.

Can you explain this to me if you have some time. I honestly dont get what you say here.[/QUOTE]
It means that I have difficulty with the idea that an eternal god would:

1. give its message in one language - knowing the difficulties involved in translating its meaning successfully, much less figuring out its one meaning the god intends (knowing how words can often have more than one meaning);
2. give its message to one people group - why would an eternal god limit its message to one group, given at one point in time?
3. give its message through intermediaries - why would an eternal god give its message to selected intermediaries, and expect everyone else to believe them, instead of giving its message to everyone at once?

Prestor John · Feb 22, 2016

buddhist said:
So if you agree that our standard is to match Jesus' and his father's standards, then the way we forgive should be exactly like how he forgives, correct?

Incorrect.

The Lord Jesus Christ has been given both the authority and the ability to judge mankind with perfect judgment from the Father.

He, or those of His servants to whom He may delegate a portion of this responsibility, will judge all of mankind at the Final Judgment and that judgment will be perfectly Just as well as perfectly Merciful.

To relate the concept of the need for authority to your false conclusions I have a comparable example.

When I was very young my father told me that I was not allowed to cross the street without either himself or my mother present. It did not matter if I was with my friends or by myself. I was not allowed to cross without one of my parents.

However, I saw my older brother crossing the street whenever he wanted. I confronted him saying that father said that we were not allowed to cross the street without him or mother. He contended that my father had given him permission to cross the street because he was older and that only I and my younger siblings would need one of our parents to cross.

I became irritated by this and went to my father and complained, “Why can Jeremy cross the street whenever he wants to and I can’t?”

My father confirmed what my older brother had told me and even added (as a bonus kick to the ribs) that my older brother was more responsible than I was. My father did, however, issue a compromise that I could also cross if my older brother was with me.

So, in this situation, was my brother a hypocrite for himself crossing the street while telling me that I could not? Of course not. He had been given authority by our father to cross the street.

Would I have been justified in crossing the street to follow the “standard” set by my brother? No, because he had been given the authority to do so while I had not. It would have been wrong of me and I would have justly received a punishment.

Just because the Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us to forgive all others does not necessarily mean that He is required to do so and it certainly does not make Him a hypocrite. He has received authority from the Father to Judge.

Now, in terms of ability, the Lord Jesus Christ knows all the thoughts, feelings, inclinations, experiences, motivations, sufferings and actions of all mankind. He developed this ability by first creating our world and us and by doing many other things which included suffering on behalf of all mankind for their sins.

Because the Lord Jesus Christ knows us so well it would be as though we were judging ourselves at the Final Judgment. It will be a Perfect Judgment and He will know who deserves forgiveness. Since you and I (and all other human beings) do not know all the thoughts and feelings etc. of others, any judgment we make will not be perfect.

For this and many other reasons God commands us to forgive everyone.

I have a comparable example. I have a three year old son and I have told him on occasion, “Never touch the stove!” I have given this commandment to him because I don’t want him turning on the gas, starting a fire or burning himself.

However, would that make me a hypocrite if I were to command him in that manner and then turn around and use the stove? Would I be justified? Of course! I know how to use a stove. I have the understanding and ability to use it correctly without causing harm to myself, others or property.

In this same way, the Lord Jesus Christ is not a hypocrite for commanding us not to judge and to forgive all others while He Himself will forgive whom He will forgive because of His Perfect Judgment.

Prestor John · Feb 22, 2016

This is in response to buddhist's question,

"So, instead of forgiving everyone and preventing this death, he is condemning everyone to death."

He did forgive everyone. The only person that was blamed for the Fall of Adam was Adam, yet he has also been forgiven of it through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

However, our spirits are still separated from God which “technically” satisfies the definition of “spiritual death”.

For this reason, He sent His Only Begotten Son to suffer and die for Man, to redeem them from the effects of the Fall. This Atonement performed by the Lord Jesus Christ is infinite in its application and caused Adam to be forgiven of his transgression of partaking of the forbidden fruit.

As Eternal Beings, we needed this time of separation from our Father in Heaven so that we can learn and grow and mature.

Prestor John · Feb 22, 2016

buddhist said:
Why would the implementation change? Why choose a specific date in history to implement this change, if he is the eternal god?

Because we, His children, currently exist in Time. The creation of all these things has been for us and He has devised his Great Plan for our benefit.

Skwim · Feb 22, 2016

Prestor John said:
The verse you referenced in the book of Revelation does not at all claim that God will send anyone to the "lake that burneth with fire and brimstone". He only claims that those who meet the criteria mentioned "shall be in" that lake.

Matthew 18:9 ( KJV)
"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

OR

(NCV)
"If your eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away. It is better for you to have only one eye and live forever than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."

So who do you suppose has the authority to do all this casting or throwing if it isn't god?

However, since you brought up what was recorded in Jeremiah, I will comment on it. If you read the book in it's entirety you would have seen that the people of Jerusalem had committed great evils and the Lord warned them many times to change their ways or they would be destroyed. This destruction came as a consequence of their wickedness. The Lord can only tolerate so much wickedness before He must remove the wicked. Much like with the worldwide Deluge.

And how did he do this? by sending them to hell as punishment, which is the issue here. YOU said

" None of those verses claim that God "will punish" anyone. Neither do they claim that God will be "sending [anyone] to Hell".

And you could have a point here, neither verse actually says god is the punisher. However, Jeremiah. does:

Jeremiah 21:14
"But I will punish you according to the results of your deeds," declares the LORD, "And I will kindle a fire in its forest That it may devour all its environs."

The Lord did not "punish" these people because He just decided to do it. There was a Law given and the people had promised by covenant to keep that Law. Those people were aware of the positive consequences affixed to the Law if it was kept as well as the negative consequences to the Law if it was broken.

The reason is irrelevant.

In a judicial scenario, if someone is charged with a crime, taken to court and found guilty with a punishment given, do you consider the judge to be the "punisher" or is the criminal simply receiving the consequences of breaking the law?

Ask god. He's the one who said he was the punisher. "But I will punish you according to the results of your deeds," declares the LORD,

So, the upshot here is that god does indeed cast or throw people into hell, and he does so as punishment.

buddhist · Feb 22, 2016

Prestor John said:
Because the Lord Jesus Christ knows us so well it would be as though we were judging ourselves at the Final Judgment. It will be a Perfect Judgment and He will know who deserves forgiveness. Since you and I (and all other human beings) do not know all the thoughts and feelings etc. of others, any judgment we make will not be perfect.

So, once we're perfect, then we can judge like Jesus, right?

Thief · Feb 22, 2016

buddhist said:
I have no idea what you mean here.

your title of op
or did you get lost in the digressions?

Thief · Feb 22, 2016

buddhist said:
So, once we're perfect, then we can judge like Jesus, right?

we get to have the weigh scale we use......used on ourselves

buddhist · Feb 22, 2016

Thief said:
your title of op
or did you get lost in the digressions?

No, you didn't use a complete, well-formed sentence in your post.

buddhist · Feb 22, 2016

Prestor John said:
Because we, His children, currently exist in Time. The creation of all these things has been for us and He has devised his Great Plan for our benefit.

What happens to all those who never heard of Jesus, or don't believe in the correct things about him?

Thief · Feb 23, 2016

buddhist said:
No, you didn't use a complete, well-formed sentence in your post.

and that means you lost track of the conversation?

have you lost track of your op?
Jesus is a hypocrite?

I don't see that you have actually demonstrated any such thing

Prestor John · Feb 23, 2016

Skwim said:
Matthew 18:9 ( KJV)
"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."
OR

(NCV)
"If your eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away. It is better for you to have only one eye and live forever than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."

So who do you suppose has the authority to do all this casting or throwing if it isn't god?

This is a good question.

However, I still have to point out that the comment I made to which you are referring was made only about the verse from the book of Revelation that you had shared. I said, “The verse you referenced in the book of Revelation does not at all claim that God will send anyone to the "lake that burneth with fire and brimstone".

That will always be true no matter how many other Biblical verses you reference or quote. That one verse in Revelation does not record God sending anyone anywhere.

Now, let’s discuss the words “cast” and “throw”. Since the different Bible versions use those words interchangeably, I will only refer to “cast” from now on because my preferred version of the Bible is the King James.

The word “cast” has various definitions and does not always mean that someone throws an object (or in this case a person) anywhere. It is possible for someone to “cast” themselves, such as onto a bed or into a lake. It is also possible for someone to “cast” light into darkness or to “cast” insight into a discussion.

There are other verses in the Bible that use the word “cast” when referring to someone who “casts” themselves down. Such as when Satan tempted the Lord Jesus Christ and asked Him, “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” (Matthew 4:6)

This is evidence that the use of the word "cast" does not always mean that someone is throwing an object or a person. It can refer to oneself. A person can "cast" themselves down.

Now, in the verse that you had quoted, the Lord Jesus Christ encouraged His followers to “cast” away any part of themselves that was offensive. He then claimed that it would be better to enter into life without that offensive portion of yourself then to enter into the “fire of hell” whole and complete.

So, my answer to your question of who has the authority to “cast” any portion of yourself or your whole being into the “fire of hell” would again be yourself. It is you yourself that has that authority.

Not only does the Bible use the word “cast” in reference to someone throwing themselves down, but the Lord Jesus Christ even spoke as if the individual person had the authority to not only “pluck” out offensive portions of themselves in the verse you quoted, but that the individual also had the authority to “cast” that offensive portion into the “fire of hell”. Needless to say, if the entirety of a person’s being ends up being offensive, they have the authority to “cast” their entire person into the “fire of hell”.

The Lord Jesus Christ also spoke of this principle during His Sermon on the Mount when He said, “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” (Matthew 5:13)

It is up to us whether or not we lose our “savor”. We choose to be disobedient and therefore “good for nothing”. We choose to be “cast out”.

Prestor John · Feb 23, 2016

Skwim said:
And how did he do this? by sending them to hell as punishment, which is the issue here. YOU said

" None of those verses claim that God "will punish" anyone. Neither do they claim that God will be "sending [anyone] to Hell".

And you could have a point here, neither verse actually says god is the punisher. However, Jeremiah. does:

Jeremiah 21:14
"But I will punish you according to the results of your deeds," declares the LORD, "And I will kindle a fire in its forest That it may devour all its environs."

The reason is irrelevant.

Ask god. He's the one who said he was the punisher. "But I will punish you according to the results of your deeds," declares the LORD,

So, the upshot here is that god does indeed cast or throw people into hell, and he does so as punishment.

That is incorrect.

The “punishment” that the Lord was going to deal out to the inhabitants of Jerusalem was the death and destruction that the Babylonians would bring. Physical suffering and death. That was the “punishment”.

Whether those who died during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem were righteous or wicked at the time of their death would dictate where they would go.

It is by our own choices that we choose to go to either Heaven or Hell.

Earlier in the chapter, when Jeremiah began to speak on behalf of the Lord, he said,

“I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath.

And I will smite the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast: they shall die of a great pestilence.” (Jeremiah 21:5-6)

These verses spoke of only temporal or physical death, not damnation. Later on the Lord directed Jeremiah to speak again unto the people, and He made it even more clear that the “punishment” that He was about to deliver to the inhabitants of Jerusalem was only temporal and not eternal. He said,

“Behold, I set before you the way of life, and the way of death.

He that abideth in this city shall die by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence: but he that goeth out, and falleth to the Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be unto him for a prey.

For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good, saith the Lord: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.” (Jeremiah 21:8-10)

Nowhere in Jeremiah 21 did God claim that he was sending anyone to Hell.

Prestor John · Feb 23, 2016

buddhist said:
So, once we're perfect, then we can judge like Jesus, right?

That is actually a very interesting topic.

Needless to say, no one will become perfected in this mortal life. Only the Lord Jesus Christ lived a perfect and sinless mortal life.

However, the Lord's authority and ability to judge is not necessarily unique to Him.

First of all, it was the Father that gave the authority to the Son to judge.

Secondly, the Lord Jesus Christ gained the ability to judge mankind perfectly because of His performance of the Atonement.

Not only this, but the Lord Himself claimed that He would also call His Twelve Apostles to sit upon thrones and to judge the tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28).

This could mean that by the time the Final Judgment arrives, the original Twelve Apostles may have obtained perfection.

I personally do not believe that to be the case. I know that they will be physically perfect by that time because the Resurrection would have taken place before the Final Judgment, but I don't believe they will have obtained perfection enjoyed by the Father and the Son.

This is why I do not believe that a Being needs to be wholly perfect in order to judge perfectly, but they would need the authority to judge (which would need to be given to them by the Savior Himself) and the ability to know the thoughts and feelings of others.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will choose those among His servants whose desires and wills are aligned with His own and then He will give them authority and insight to judge.

The Lord Jesus Christ will delegate this and other responsibilities to His chosen servants. I believe that He will only personally judge the wicked while His servants may judge the more righteous.

A lot of this is speculation because not much has been revealed on the topic.

Prestor John · Feb 23, 2016

buddhist said:
What happens to all those who never heard of Jesus, or don't believe in the correct things about him?

This is another interesting topic. What I have come to believe is based on the scriptures and the words of the prophets, but I will not go into any great detail here unless you ask me to expound on an idea.

All judgment is done on a case-by-case basis. Everyone will be judged according to what they knew. This is why Paul claimed that if there was no law then there was no judgment.

Little children that die before the age of accountability (when they start to discern Good from Evil) are blameless and inherit all the glories of the Father. This also applies to individuals who are not accountable (mentally handicapped) or otherwise cannot discern for themselves what is Good or Evil.

Those who never heard of the Lord Jesus Christ will be judged by whatever portion of light and knowledge they did have in life and how they lived according to it. This same principle applies to those who believe in incorrect things about the Lord. They will be judged by whatever truth they had among the falsehoods and how they lived according to it.

Upon physical death, when our spirits are separated from our mortal bodies, our spirits go to a place to await the time of our bodily Resurrection, where our spirits and physical bodies will reunite perfectly for all eternity which will take place before the Final Judgment.

A person's quality of living during this time and at this place set aside for all the spirits of Mankind will vary depending upon how they lived upon the Earth.

If they were righteous and accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and received Him through the covenant of baptism, they enter into a blissful state called Paradise where they are free from the bondage of sin. Those in Paradise continue to learn and grow and become even firmer in the truth and they use this power and knowledge to preach to those spirits in Prison.

Spirit Prison is a place set aside for those spirits who had not accepted the Lord in mortal life through the covenant of baptism, but they were not wicked. They lived to the best of their ability with what knowledge they had. The reason their state is called "Prison" is because they are not allowed to enter into Paradise until they have been prepared and have accepted the Lord through covenant. While in Prison these spirits remember the sins they committed in their mortal life and they continue to repent and change their ways. They are taught by spirits from Paradise and they continue to learn and grow until a mortal on Earth is vicariously baptized for them. Upon receiving this ordinance, the spirit in Prison is allowed to enter Paradise and will be forgiven of their sins. They will continue to learn and grow and eventually return to Prison to teach others.

There is another state in this spirit realm which is called Hell. It is an awful state where the wicked reside. They are constantly harrowed up by the memory of their many sins, but they still refuse to repent or change their ways. They spend their time entering into the Prison and trying to convince the spirits there to return with them to Hell, to be free of God and His commandments. Satan rules in this place of the spirit realm.

All the spirits of men wait in this place and continue to struggle against opposition. They can choose the right and grow, or they are free to choose the wrong path and shrink.

They wait in this place until the time of their Resurrection and then after that the Final Judgment will begin and all the children of the Father, who are the human family of Adam and Eve, will be placed in the sphere of God's kingdom where they belong and feel most comfortable.

I hope this clarifies some things. Feel free to ask any questions you want.

Skwim · Feb 23, 2016

Prestor John said:
This is a good question.

However, I still have to point out that the comment I made to which you are referring was made only about the verse from the book of Revelation that you had shared. I said, “The verse you referenced in the book of Revelation does not at all claim that God will send anyone to the "lake that burneth with fire and brimstone".

That will always be true no matter how many other Biblical verses you reference or quote. That one verse in Revelation does not record God sending anyone anywhere.

Now, let’s discuss the words “cast” and “throw”. Since the different Bible versions use those words interchangeably, I will only refer to “cast” from now on because my preferred version of the Bible is the King James.

The word “cast” has various definitions and does not always mean that someone throws an object (or in this case a person) anywhere. It is possible for someone to “cast” themselves, such as onto a bed or into a lake. It is also possible for someone to “cast” light into darkness or to “cast” insight into a discussion.

There are other verses in the Bible that use the word “cast” when referring to someone who “casts” themselves down. Such as when Satan tempted the Lord Jesus Christ and asked Him, “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” (Matthew 4:6)

This is evidence that the use of the word "cast" does not always mean that someone is throwing an object or a person. It can refer to oneself. A person can "cast" themselves down.

Now, in the verse that you had quoted, the Lord Jesus Christ encouraged His followers to “cast” away any part of themselves that was offensive. He then claimed that it would be better to enter into life without that offensive portion of yourself then to enter into the “fire of hell” whole and complete.

So, my answer to your question of who has the authority to “cast” any portion of yourself or your whole being into the “fire of hell” would again be yourself. It is you yourself that has that authority.

Not only does the Bible use the word “cast” in reference to someone throwing themselves down, but the Lord Jesus Christ even spoke as if the individual person had the authority to not only “pluck” out offensive portions of themselves in the verse you quoted, but that the individual also had the authority to “cast” that offensive portion into the “fire of hell”. Needless to say, if the entirety of a person’s being ends up being offensive, they have the authority to “cast” their entire person into the “fire of hell”.

The Lord Jesus Christ also spoke of this principle during His Sermon on the Mount when He said, “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” (Matthew 5:13)

It is up to us whether or not we lose our “savor”. We choose to be disobedient and therefore “good for nothing”. We choose to be “cast out”.

So, I assume in your mind a clearer rephrasing of Matthew 18:9 would be:

"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, and casting oneself into hell fire."

Sorry, but this simply doesn't follow from

"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

The "to be" too strongly implies a doer other than the self; particularly when the object of the "to be" is a disagreeable one.

Why would a person want to put themselves into hell fire? They wouldn't.

Nope, your reasoning simply fails here. God is the one casting/throwing people into hell fire.

Skwim · Feb 23, 2016

Prestor John said:
That is incorrect.

The “punishment” that the Lord was going to deal out to the inhabitants of Jerusalem was the death and destruction that the Babylonians would bring. Physical suffering and death. That was the “punishment”.

Whether those who died during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem were righteous or wicked at the time of their death would dictate where they would go.

It is by our own choices that we choose to go to either Heaven or Hell.

Earlier in the chapter, when Jeremiah began to speak on behalf of the Lord, he said,

“I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath.

And I will smite the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast: they shall die of a great pestilence.” (Jeremiah 21:5-6)

These verses spoke of only temporal or physical death, not damnation. Later on the Lord directed Jeremiah to speak again unto the people, and He made it even more clear that the “punishment” that He was about to deliver to the inhabitants of Jerusalem was only temporal and not eternal. He said,

“Behold, I set before you the way of life, and the way of death.

He that abideth in this city shall die by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence: but he that goeth out, and falleth to the Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be unto him for a prey.

For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good, saith the Lord: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.” (Jeremiah 21:8-10)

Nowhere in Jeremiah 21 did God claim that he was sending anyone to Hell.

Doesn't matter one wit what the punishment consists of. In god's eyes what he does is punishing, and that's all that matters here.
And interestingly enough, one of these punishments is casting people into hell.

Prestor John · Feb 23, 2016

Skwim said:
So, I assume in your mind a clearer rephrasing of Matthew 18:9 would be:

"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, and casting oneself into hell fire."

Sorry, but this simply doesn't follow from

"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

The "to be" too strongly implies a doer other than the self; particularly when the object of the "to be" is a disagreeable one.

Why would a person want to put themselves into hell fire? They wouldn't.

Nope, your reasoning simply fails here. God is the one casting/throwing people into hell fire.

You are free to believe what you want, but you are inserting your own opinion into the text.

Try to reason it out logically:

Who is supposedly "cast" into hell fire?
-The wicked.

Why are they wicked?
-Because they decided to commit sin rather than obey God and keep His commandments.

Did someone force them to choose sin over righteous living?
-No, they chose it all on their own.

Were they warned about the eventual consequence of committing sin?
- Yes, God sent many servants to the world, including His Son, to teach these things and to have them written.

Do the wicked want to go into hell fire?
-No, they do not.

Do the wicked fulfill the requirements to enter into Heaven?
-No, they do not.

Are the wicked worthy to enter Heaven?
-No, they are not.

Did anyone force them to be unworthy?
-No, they became unworthy as a consequence of their sinful living.

If they cannot get into Heaven, where will the wicked go?
-A place prepared for them outside of Heaven.

Did God force them to live sinfully?
-No, He did not.

Did God cause the wicked to be unworthy of entrance into Heaven?
-No, He did not.

Why can't God let them into Heaven anyway?
-That would make God a liar.

Can't God do whatever He wants?
-No, He is a Perfect Being and cannot do anything contrary to His nature, such as lying.

Who decided that the wicked would go to Hell?
-The wicked made the choice to sin and to rebel against God and to break His commandments which caused them to be unworthy of entrance into Heaven.

How are the wicked cast into Hell?
-Through their sinful actions they cast themselves into Hell.

Your argument about the "to be" is very weak. The "to be" is simply the future tense of the eyes being cast into hell fire in the "rather than" scenario. It is better to do one thing rather than the other thing. It is similar to saying that the two eyes will be cast into hellfire, in the future sense, except the Lord was using the "rather than" scenario. "It is better to go to Heaven with only one eye than to be cast into hell fire with two eyes." It in no way implies a third party. It is simply a matter of future tense being used in a "rather than" scenario.

The wicked who cast themselves into hell fire do not want to go there, but they did want to sin and rebel against God. They wanted to sin without receiving the consequences of such living. It is akin to those who want to have sex outside of marriage, but they don't want to be committed to another person/have children or certain responsibilities etc. However, avoiding certain consequences this life throws at you is only possible here, where we are free to choose Good or Evil for ourselves. But when this life ends, we will be held accountable for our actions according to the Law and if we did not receive a forgiveness of sins through the Lord Jesus Christ, then there is only the one place where we can go and we put ourselves in that place by living in sin.

Skwim · Feb 23, 2016

Prestor John said:
You are free to believe what you want, but you are inserting your own opinion into the text.

Can't God do whatever He wants? . . . .

. . . .-No, He is a Perfect Being and cannot do anything contrary to His nature, such as lying.

Completely irrelevant.

Who decided that the wicked would go to Hell?
-The wicked made the choice to sin and to rebel against God and to break His commandments which caused them to be unworthy of entrance into Heaven.

God did. Who else would have had the power to decide what kind of people deserved to go to hell? What you describe here is only a reason for being sent there, and obviously doesn't answer your own question: "Who decided that the wicked would go to Hell?" Please read your question more carefully.

How are the wicked cast into Hell?
-Through their sinful actions they cast themselves into Hell.

You're not even answering your own question here, that of "how," but instead "why." Again, please read your questions more carefully.

Your argument about the "to be" is very weak. The "to be" is simply the future tense of the eyes being cast into hell fire in the "rather than" scenario. It is better to do one thing rather than the other thing. It is similar to saying that the two eyes will be cast into hellfire, in the future sense, except the Lord was using the "rather than" scenario. "It is better to go to Heaven with only one eye than to be cast into hell fire with two eyes." It in no way implies a third party. It is simply a matter of future tense being used in a "rather than" scenario.

I didn't imply any third party (don't know where that came from). I simply said that "'to be' too strongly implies a doer other than the self; to be cast into hell fire." And despite your recap here, what you've said in no way changes that.

The wicked who cast themselves into hell fire do not want to go there, but they did want to sin and rebel against God. They wanted to sin without receiving the consequences of such living. It is akin to those who want to have sex outside of marriage, but they don't want to be committed to another person/have children or certain responsibilities etc. However, avoiding certain consequences this life throws at you is only possible here, where we are free to choose Good or Evil for ourselves. But when this life ends, we will be held accountable for our actions according to the Law and if we did not receive a forgiveness of sins through the Lord Jesus Christ, then there is only the one place where we can go and we put ourselves in that place by living in sin.

Consider:

"And if you rob a bank it is better to plead guilty and be sentenced to three years in jail than not plead guilty and to be sent to jail for ten years."

Who's doing the actual sending, you or the court? But before you answer, say you read a newspaper headline that says "Skwim Sent to Prison for Bigamy," do you immediately think that Skwim sent himself to prison, or was it the court? If it's the first, then I don't believe you.

Was Jesus a hypocrite?

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Rogue Theologian

Rogue Theologian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rogue Theologian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member