[chrisl]

Turning the tetragammaton into a word which might be right and saying "this is the name of God" (ever so emphatically in the case of the WTBTS) is just plain wrong.

That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth. -- Psalm 83:18 (ASV)

And in that day shall ye say, Give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name, declare his doings among the peoples, make mention that his name is exalted. -- Isaiah 12:4 (ASV)

And I will magnify myself, and sanctify myself, and I will make myself known in the eyes of many nations; and they shall know that I am Jehovah. -- Ezekiel 28:23 (ASV)

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call. -- Joel 2:32 (ASV)

After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. -- Matthew 6:9 (ASV)

and I [Jesus] made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them. -- John 17:26 (ASV)

Bah. Your whole line of reasoning is fallacious. In effect, you are saying that we should ignore God's command to make his name known because we can't pronounce it as it was originally pronounced. If that is your position, what ground do you have for using any name or word in the Bible? Or for making translations from the original languages of the Bible?

No, that line of reasoning abandons the Bible by ignoring the teachings of Jesus and God's plain commands. It asks us to believe that God told his worshippers to use his name and make it known--and then made it impossible by hiding it from them! Absurd.

The Bible is clear: we must use God's personal name, however it is said in our native tongue, and Jehovah is a valid English translation.

I wonder if God feels the same way?

:rolleyes:

Well, I wonder how God feels when he asks us to use his name, but some who profess to worship him instead remove it from their Bibles and openly ridicule and persecute those who refuse to do the same?

Chris

[Morganite]

I'd love to extol the virtues. .

You would have to know what they were first, but you do not. Ah, ignorance will reveal itself every time, though you hide it in a torrent of words.

I hardly know where to begin, and from experience I am not sure that you will read or understand what I say. But it is only fair that I give you the opportunity.


But the evil and death and destruction that Christianity has done over the ages far and away overshadow th good that was done.

That is not correct. Evil is evil and good is good, and it is not a balancing of account. Each stand on its own. But an acknowledgement that much good has resulted does not require a confession of faith, only simple honesty.

There have been more wars fought over religion then were ever fought over territory.

Please prove your statement.

The crusades, the inquisition The Inquisition, wicked as it was, was NOT a WAR,

The Children's Crusade, led by a mad monk in which 150,000 children perished before they even reached the coast to name a few.

They were acts of madness. Were they led by a monk?

In this year (1212) occurred an outstanding thing --- About the time of Easter and Pentecost, without anyone having preached or called for it and prompted by I know not what spirit, many thousands of boys, ranging in age from six years to full maturity, left the plows or carts which they were driving, the flocks which they were pasturing, --- This they did despite the wishes of their parents, relatives, and friends who sought to make them draw back. --- and began to journey to Jerusalem.

As to them being led by a "mad monk," you have forgotten your history.

Also known as Cucu Peter, Little Peter or Peter of Amiens, Peter the Hermit is considered one of the main instigators of the First Crusade.

Peter the Hermit may have visited the Holy Land in 1093, but it wasn't until after Pope Urban II made his speech in 1095 that he began a tour of France and Germany, preaching the merits of crusade as he went. Peter's speeches appealed not only to trained knights, not to children, who usually followed their princes and kings on crusade, but to laborers, tradesmen and peasants. It became known as "The People's Crusade" or "The Crusade of the Poor People." He had nothing to do with the Children's Crusade.



Hell! Bush has us in the middle of a religious war over in Iraq even as we speak.

That is your opinion, but critical analysis of the situation shows that religion is of no importance.


In case you forgot, there was once a time when Christianity ruled the world.

I have not forgotten, becaiuse it never happened. The world is much larger than Europe, and there are vast tracts of sub-Saharan Africa, all of Asia, and the Indian sub-continent that Christianity did not rule, and over which it had no control.


History will forever call that time, "The Dark Ages".

The "Dark Ages" is a pejorative title that has been applied backwards to the Middle Ages by men of the Renaissance. It has to do only with the Roman Church's attitude towards learning and the sciences. It has nothing to do with Christians ruling the world, nor could it because they never have.

As for who's controlling your mind? Yes?


If you believe the Bible's the Word of God and can't be questioned

STOP! You are setting up a straw man so that you can demolish him. You can only say what I believe from what I have said about any thing. You must not invent things that are not true. That is not freedom of thought, it is feckless knavery.

And that the "miracles" can't be brought under skeptical analysis

There you go again! What have I said that brings you to that point? Are you a mind

And discredited then your faith /religion's controlling your mind.

There you go again! Don't you ever tired of putting words into the mouths of others? Are you just a little bit afeared that someone will bite your fingers?

When you lose the ability to question

There you go again! You don't know me, You don't now what I beleve and what I don't believe. Get real. That's not thinking. That is assuming, and assumption has no place in science nor in rational thought.

You have lost the ability to control your own mind.

Oh, have I? You have a brazen cheek and deserve to have your mouth rinsed out with lye soap. Does that sound like someone not controlling their own mind?

Where you went wrong in your thinking is when you made your first assumption, namely that all Christians think alike. THEY DO NOT!

Your second asumption is that you know anything about the history of Christianity. The holes in your understanding of a fascinating history are glaring.

Your third assumption, and I will make this the last one to avoid causing you further embarrassment, is that you have any kind of grasp ion the psychology of religion or the mental processes that are concerned with religious faith.

Having made those three gross errors, you waded in to lecture me about what I thought, about what Christian history has been, and how I have lost my mind, and how your thinking is superior to mine. I don't ususally get into this kind of quarrell, but I am forced to say that if, as tou suggest, my thinking is worse than yours, then God help me!

"God said it! I believe it! And that settles it!!

Ah, the impudence of the unbeliever.

Follow your own logic, speedball. If, as you say, "God said it," then you admit there is a God, even if only for the pourposes of the example you have supplied . And, if there is a God, and if he is interested in human history and happiness, thenonly a fool would not take his advice.

I do not know which God it is that you do not believe in, and you do not say which one it is. I dare say that we could go through a list of gods and find several that neither of us believes in. So what? I know which God I believe in, and I do not need anyone telling me that I am a cretin because I do.


Why do you think the words, "Freethinker" or "Rationalist",(of which I count myself as one) are such dirty words in the Christian lexicon?

I have several Christian lexica, and in none of them are Freethinker and Rationalist described in any disrespectful way. What is your problem? You are jumping at your own shadow. Fighting ghosts.


It's because we question, STOP - I said they are not used as dirty words. Christians question. Christians question. Christians question. Got it?


we analyze using logic and rational thought

If the twaddle you have written here is either analytical, logical, or rational, then I am Whittington's cat!

What "we" have done here is to present prejuidice, which is never rational, assumption, which is never logical, and a very poor attempt at history which can not be described as analytical. If you think you are any of these then you are wrong at the top of your voice.

rather accept on faith and belief.

If you are saying that there is nothing in the whole wide world that you accept on the basis of faith and belief alone without concrete proof, then you must live a miserable existence.

For example, you can never be sure that anyone loves you or that you love anyone, because it cannot be mathematically demonstrated or re-created in the laboratory

Yopu can never believe anything anyone says, whether they make you a promise or tell you something that is outside your experience, because you have not experienced it yourself. What a miserable life. Unable to trust anyone, and not expecting anyone to trust you. Perhaps that is where your bitterness comes from.

And I'm sorry Sport! But faith and belief are not, and can never be, knowledge.

You do not know that for certain.

Yet you say it so emphatically that one might think that you really knew your statement to be true knowledge. I will analyze your words so that you can see what you have said.

"Faith and belief are not, and be never can be, knowledge." Who is arguing with that?

Faith is a hope, an expectation of a promise to be fulfilled. Belief is an attitude or an opinion firmly held that something not proven is so. Do we differ on that? I do not think we do.

But you overlooked something of vital importance. You left out knowledge, except to say what it was not. You cannot define something by its negative and call yourself analytical, logical, or reasonable. That is downright dishonest, screamingly illogical, laughably unreasonable, and mendacioulsy irrational, and it does not pass the litmus test of reasoned thought.

Knowledge is what comes into the believer's experience, from which experience he knows what he knows. And because you have not experienced what he has experienced, and have no knowledge ot the knowledge it has provided to him, you are ill-placed and unqualified to make any comment on its reality, place, quality, structure, purpose or function. All, that you can do is feebly disagree, as you have done.

There is nothing you can say that will persuade a believer who has had direct spiritual experiences of the presence of God that his experience was not real, nor can you dislodge his knowledge from his heart and mind, no, not even with your barge pole.

You see, he has gone where you have not gone.
He has seen what you have not seen.
He has felt what you have not felt.
And he knows what you do not know! Sport!

Just a few observations from a Freethinker

Iif your observations had been served to me in a restaurant, I would have sent them straight back into the kitchen with a complaint about their quality I asked for steak, not the sweepings fro the butchery floor, Sport!



MORGANITE


:)

[phildebenham]

That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth. -- Psalm 83:18 (ASV)

And in that day shall ye say, Give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name, declare his doings among the peoples, make mention that his name is exalted. -- Isaiah 12:4 (ASV)

And I will magnify myself, and sanctify myself, and I will make myself known in the eyes of many nations; and they shall know that I am Jehovah. -- Ezekiel 28:23 (ASV)

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call. -- Joel 2:32 (ASV)

After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. -- Matthew 6:9 (ASV)

and I [Jesus] made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them. -- John 17:26 (ASV)

Bah. Your whole line of reasoning is fallacious. In effect, you are saying that we should ignore God's command to make his name known because we can't pronounce it as it was originally pronounced. If that is your position, what ground do you have for using any name or word in the Bible? Or for making translations from the original languages of the Bible?

No, that line of reasoning abandons the Bible by ignoring the teachings of Jesus and God's plain commands. It asks us to believe that God told his worshippers to use his name and make it known--and then made it impossible by hiding it from them! Absurd.

The Bible is clear: we must use God's personal name, however it is said in our native tongue, and Jehovah is a valid English translation.


:rolleyes:

Well, I wonder how God feels when he asks us to use his name, but some who profess to worship him instead remove it from their Bibles and openly ridicule and persecute those who refuse to do the same?

Chris

I have stated, Chris, that I use the name Yahweh because it is as close as were going to get. "Jehovah is a valid English translation" only because you have been told by the WTBTS that it is. The only valid translation is YHWH. That is a translation... inserting the vowels is an educated guess. My point to you was not that you misuse God's name, but rather that you choose "Jehovah" over "Yahweh" not because it is more likely correct, but because the WTBTS tells you to. That is; thinking for yourself is discouraged by the WTBTS. That is where I have a problem, not with your use of "Jehovah." That was merely an example, and was expressed as such. In the bible God has a number of different names and is called by them all. Each one expresses a part of His character, His attributes. Not the least of those names is Jesus.

Be blessed,

Phil

[chrisl]

"Jehovah is a valid English translation" only because you have been told by the WTBTS that it is.

That's just ignoring the facts, and really just shows that you are unreasonable and want to argue and attack.

I'm not going to rehash the history of translating the divine name with you. It's easy to research in just about any public library in the world--if you really want to know. But you don't care about that, anyway. As soon as that point got settled, you'd just switch to another attack, as you've already done.

I've wasted enough time answering the same old tired accusations, PD. Your actions reveal what is in your heart. Unless you have anything constructive to add, I will ignore you from here on out. (2 Tim 3:5)

Chris

[Morganite]

I have stated, Chris, that I use the name Yahweh because it is as close as were going to get. "Jehovah is a valid English translation" only because you have been told by the WTBTS that it is. The only valid translation is YHWH. That is a translation....inserting the vowels is an educated guess. My point to you was not that you misuse God's name, but rather that you choose "Jehovah" over "Yahweh" not because it is more likely correct, but because the WTBTS tells you to. That is; thinking for yourself is discouraged by the WTBTS. That is where I have a problem, not with your use of "Jehovah." That was merely an example, and was expressed as such. In the bible God has a number of different names and is called by them all. Each one expresses a part of His character, His attributes. Not the least of those names is Jesus.

I don't want to get in between you two good buddies, but the use of Jehovah is widespread throughout the Catholic and Protestant communities. It has been so since the AV was published, and owes the J to a best effort by those who translated from the Greek of LXX. The Greeks like the Hebrews have no such consonant.

Do we continue to call John John? Or do we call him Iohannes after the Greek form of the Hebrew? Then we have to decide what to do with James, Joseph, Jambres, and Jerusalem, and all the other names that English speaking people start with the non-existent J.

If, as you say, "it is the best we can do," then Jehovah, YHVW,mYHWH, Yaweh, Yahoweh (as Hebrew scholars suggest, tentatively), or Yahovah are equally "the best we can do" because if we face the head face on, no one really knows, and one man's educated guess is the same as another man's educated guess, and the particular religion he holds is a smokescreen if that is held up the be the cause of him choosing one form of the divine name over another.

My guess would be that God does not mind what he is called, especially as people of different tongues around his world speak and pronounce the same words differently.

That the believer has in his mind the Divine Personage in whom they believe is, I aver, of far greater importance than how his name is pronounced in their mouths.

If you want to pick holes in the WTBTS there are much better things to find fault with that using Jehovah, as the majority of English speaking Christians do who are not Jehovah's Witnesses.

I would like to see a discussion with more substance than educated guesses as the basis for complaint.





MORGANITE



:)

[STONY]

Hi Bobbye,
I Think Just As There Are Differing Rewards In Heaven That There Are Also Different Levels Of Damnation In Hell. I Do Not Believe The Man Who Robs Banks For A Living Will Receive The Same Punishment As A Man Who Rapes Children. Can You See My Point Of View On This Matter?

[phildebenham]

That's just ignoring the facts, and really just shows that you are unreasonable and want to argue and attack.

I'm not going to rehash the history of translating the divine name with you. It's easy to research in just about any public library in the world--if you really want to know. But you don't care about that, anyway. As soon as that point got settled, you'd just switch to another attack, as you've already done.

I've wasted enough time answering the same old tired accusations, PD. Your actions reveal what is in your heart. Unless you have anything constructive to add, I will ignore you from here on out. (2 Tim 3:5)

Chris

Once again I am sorry that you feel "attacked." I am not attacking you, Chris. I am truly confused by what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and more importantly, why they believe it. If you choose not to discuss this I fully understand, but please understand that discussion is what I am after. Clearly I disagree with your position, but just as clearly you disagree with mine. That is ground for fruitful discusion I'd say.

I have not once attacked you Chris. I have endeaverd to be kind in challenging your position. I have not called you names, neither will I.

I feel that to follow any, and I mean any, group without challenging the beliefs of the group individually and personally is intellectually dishonest (to onesself) and destructive (also to onesself). To challenge that position is not an attack on a person, Chris, nor is it unreasonable.

As for my statement you quoted above, I told you how the name "Jehovah" came into being earlier. I have explained why it is not as close to correct as "Yahweh." Obviously I have reasearched it, so how is it that you say I don't care about that? I use the name of God, Chris. I use the New American Standard Bible. In the place of YHWH the NASB renders it LORD. However I don't read it as LORD, I read it as Yahweh. I have done so since 1973. I don't think that is the action of someone who does not care.

Again, I have no problem with your use of "Jehovah." That was never the issue, only an example of the issue: Following blinding the teachings of man as if they were the teaching of Yahweh without challenge. That is the issue.

Peace to you and yours,

Phil Debenham

[Morganite]

We are called to study the scriptures and question our beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. Christianity does not tell us to believe blindly, but to know what we believe and why.

Phil Debenham

Is it possible that Jehovah's Witnesses also study the sciptures and question all kinds of beliefs, and that when they arrive at what they accept, they know what they believe and why?

If after their studies they all arrive at the same conclusions, is that somehow evil or unworthy?

The New Testament is constantly calling for unity among the saints, and it does not say they can believe different things if they want. Paul writes of a unity of the faith, and about them not being carried about like a rudderless boat by every little breeze of doctrine that wafts into their ears.




MORGANITE

:)

[phildebenham]

Is it possible that Jehovah's Witnesses also study the sciptures and question all kinds of beliefs, and that when they arrive at what they accept, they know what they believe and why?

If after their studies they all arrive at the same conclusions, is that somehow evil or unworthy?

The New Testament is constantly calling for unity among the saints, and it does not say they can believe different things if they want. Paul writes of a unity of the faith, and about them not being carried about like a rudderless boat by every little breeze of doctrine that wafts into their ears.




MORGANITE

:)

Morganite,

I believe you must know something of Jehovah's Witness doctrine, and I have to say that much of it is like a "rudderless boat" upon which JW's are set adrift. Doctrine which is unbiblical and non-Christian. Certainly they study the scripture, but only in the manner they are told to. They read, nearly exclusively, the Watchtower and Awake magazines, and WTBTS literature. Their quotes of Christians scholars come from those sources and not from the original sources themselves. They are followers, Morganite, of their leadership rather than the Bible. Followers of the WTBTS rather than Jehovah. That is why when the WTBTS changes its teachings and its prophecies they follow along blindly, accepting because they were told to. This is why I challenge JW doctrine (though none of them seem to want to discuss it). Not to challenge the individual, but the WTBTS itself.

Be blessed,

Phil

[Morganite]

Morganite,

I believe you must know something of Jehovah's Witness doctrine, and I have to say that much of it is like a "rudderless boat" upon which JW's are set adrift. Doctrine which is unbiblical and non-Christian. Certainly they study the scripture, but only in the manner they are told to. They read, nearly exclusively, the Watchtower and Awake magazines, and WTBTS literature. Their quotes of Christians scholars come from those sources and not from the original sources themselves. They are followers, Morganite, of their leadership rather than the Bible. Followers of the WTBTS rather than Jehovah. That is why when the WTBTS changes its teachings and its prophecies they follow along blindly, accepting because they were told to. This is why I challenge JW doctrine (though none of them seem to want to discuss it). Not to challenge the individual, but the WTBTS itself.

Be blessed,

Phil

Phil,

Thanks for your reply. I know something about the JW's and their beliefs, although I am not of their number and do not imagine becoming one.

I think my question suggests that most Christians who belong to a church, denomination, sect, or whatever, stay close to what their teachers and interpreters have handed down. You see this as a problem. I will put it no stronger. It has been my experience that followers of other paths are no different. When a person identifies with a particular denomination, it becomes an 'all or nothing' thing.

As a minister you will understand that in any Sunday morning congregation there are very few 'Bereans' who check things out with the Bible. They are most likely to be infuenced by a book they bought from a Christian bookshop, or by their pastor.

I don't want to make hard work of this, but what I am saying is that there that is different? Perhaps there are different sources of information, but if we were left with only the Bible and no one to explain to us what it meant, there would be, IMO, no recognizable denominations, sects, or groups, etc.

Religious teachers have to take a point of view, that not all will agree with, so another little splinter here, and another little splinter there, but I really do not think that that is what Jesus expects from us.

I hope I have not complicated what is a simple thought.




MORGANITE



:)

[phildebenham]

Phil,

Thanks for your reply. I know something about the JW's and their beliefs, although I am not of their number and do not imagine becoming one.

I think my question suggests that most Christians who belong to a church, denomination, sect, or whatever, stay close to what their teachers and interpreters have handed down. You see this as a problem. I will put it no stronger. It has been my experience that followers of other paths are no different. When a person identifies with a particular denomination, it becomes an 'all or nothing' thing.

As a minister you will understand that in any Sunday morning congregation there are very few 'Bereans' who check things out with the Bible. They are most likely to be infuenced by a book they bought from a Christian bookshop, or by their pastor.

I don't want to make hard work of this, but what I am saying is that there that is different? Perhaps there are different sources of information, but if we were left with only the Bible and no one to explain to us what it meant, there would be, IMO, no recognizable denominations, sects, or groups, etc.

Religious teachers have to take a point of view, that not all will agree with, so another little splinter here, and another little splinter there, but I really do not think that that is what Jesus expects from us.

I hope I have not complicated what is a simple thought.




MORGANITE



:)

Personally I do not think God has designed denominational Christianity either, but, on the other hand, I do not see how it can be avoided. Chuck Smith started Calvary Chapel in the 60's partly to avoid the restrictions and problems of denominationalism, but now Calvary Chapel is a denomination in itself. The same could be said about Kenn Gullicksen and the Vineyard. I don't think that denominationalsim is a huge problem. The problems with Christianity, in any form, is the individuals that call themselves Christian. That is the problem you have noticed that there really aren't too many "Bereans" in today's churches. People want to be told what to believe and how to act, not by God, but by men. They want to believe that they are following God so they take what "Christian" books, their pastors, their teachers, etc. say as the word of God. They make little or no attempt to listen to God, or to speak to Him. They give Him an hour or two a week and think they are OK. They are not OK. God wants more than Sundays and Wednesday nights! He wants to be Lord of all of our lives, not just parts of it.

That is where the problems lie, Morganite, not in denominations or even cults, but in individuals who want their ears tickled. That's why "Christians" will pay to hear some famous ear ticklers speak and won't spend an hour in prayer of worship apart from their schedualed meetings.

May you truly know Him,

Phil

[Morganite]

My belief of which I garnered from the Word of God is that "hell" is a place of "eternal" punishment and sorrow, it is real.

In the OT, Psalm 49:10-15 hints of hell.

Matthew 5:21-30 and Romans 8:1-16 tells us to avoid it.

Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 relates it is for evildoers

2 Thessalonians !:3-12, Jude 5-13, and revelation 20:11-14 speaks of punishment in hell.

Jude 17-23 speaks of keeping others away from hell.

Hell is real!!!

Bless you,
MaggieB

"Hell" was not used to mean the hot place until 1590-1600. The Hebrew word, sheol has no such meaning. It means only the abode of the dead or of departed spirits.

Hades, in Greek, or Sheol in Hebrew, signify a world of spirits. Hades, Sheol, paradise, spirits in prison, are all one: it is a world of spirits.

Before the resurrection of Christ, the wicked were shut up in darkness and were not visited. In this awful state they suffered the torment of their consciences not knowing what their fate would be. It is the gloomy abode of departed spirits; it is the place the wicked go to await the day of their eventual resurrection. The connotation surrounding its usage is one of evil, sorrow, and anguish. In some instances the Authorized Version of the Bible translates sheol as grave (Gen. 44:29, 31; Job 7:9; Ps. 30:3), or pit. (Num. 16:30, 33; Job 17:16.)

In Greek the word for hell is hades. It is a place of outer darkness where the spirits of the wicked go at death to await the day of their eventual resurrection. Sorrow, anguish, and "the fiery indignation of the wrath of God" attend those cast down to this fate. (Luke 16:23.)

Outside Jerusalem, to the south and west, lies the Valley of Hinnom or Gehenna. In the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah, infants were sacrificed to Molech at a Topheth or high place built in this valley, causing it to take on a sinister significance and be called "the valley of slaughter." (2 Kings 23:5, 10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Isa. 30:33; Jer. 7:31-34; 19:6, 11-15.)

Thereafter Gehenna was further desecrated as a garbage and rubbish heap and as a place where bodies of criminals were thrown out; to help prevent pestilence, overburning fires were kept smoldering in this infested refuse.

Under these conditions, it was natural for the prophetic mind to use the term gehenna to signify the burnings, torment, anguish, and unspeakable horrors of hell. Jesus Christ himself made frequent use of gehenna to signify hell and its attendant horrors. (Matt. 5:22; 29:30; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 12:5; Jas. 3:6.)

His statement, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48), becomes even more expressive when viewed in the light of the numerous crawling things and perpetual burnings of that Gehenna of which his hearers had personal knowledge.

Hell will have an end. Viewing future events, John saw that "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." (Rev. 20:13.)

David received the promise: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." (Ps 16:10; Acts 2:27.)

Christ descended into hell to preach the gospel or good news to the spirits languishing there that he might draw them to himself and save them.

1 Peter 3:18 - 20

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


Peter knew what Jesus was doing and had already affirmed that:

1 Peter 4:6

For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Mediaeval theologians made somehting of Hell that the bIble never intended, except for the final destination for Satan and his angels.



MORGANITE

[SSchultz0956]

I would have to say I completely agree with Morganite. Hell is a world of spirits where they await resurrection. That's not to say however they will all enter heaven after their resurrection. This spirit world is also considered to some to be a place of "two." There is a paradise, and prison. One for the righteous, and one for the "departed sprits" or those who suffered from spiritual death, or in other words, through sin, distanced themselves from God. Christ did preach, as Morgantie stated, to those in prison. I must ask morganite, what religion are you if you don't mind answering. Though I understand if you prefer not to.

[STONY]

IF HELL DID NOT EXIST, THEN WHY BOTHER MENTIONING IT AT ALL?
Romans 8:28
[ More Than Conquerors ] And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

MAYBE THE PROPHESY IS THE CHOICE AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE.

[Morganite]

IF HELL DID NOT EXIST, THEN WHY BOTHER MENTIONING IT AT ALL?
.

It is a simile. The Bible uses many genres of literature and literary devices.

The 'hell' in AV translated from Deut 32:22 is sh'owl or shol a Hebrew noun that has a wide range of possible meanings, including:

Sheol
Underworld
Grave
Hell
Pit (prison)
The underworld
The OT designation for the abode of the dead with no reference to good or evil
Place of no return
Without praise of God
Wicked sent there for punishment
Righteous not abandoned to it
Of the place of exile (figurative)
Of extreme degradation in sin.

Trying to make it mean only one of these possibilities run counter to the spirit of Biblical writings and the meanings assigned to its original words.

Isaiah uses sheol as he uses maveth (death or th eplace of the dead wihtout reference to goodness or evil of the dead) to restate the idea he first uses, and not as a separate place.

Isaiah 28:18
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

Note that 'disanulled and 'shall not stand' mean the same thing. The restatemenbt of the same thought in different words is a Hebrew literary genre that is found all though the Old Testament. It is not saying two different things, but saying the same thing, expressing the same thought, in two different ways, but conveying only one idea.


In the New Testament, the trsndlations that are preserved in English as Hell are even more interesting.

Hell in Revelation, is hades, which is Greek with several possible menaings, including:

The personal name of Hades or Pluto, who is, according to the pagans the god of the lower regions, or

Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead, with no reference to their moral or spiritual condition.

In later use of this word it was used to signify the grave or death, with no reference to the condition of its inhabitants.



In 2 Peter 2.:4 'hell' is translated from 'tartaroo' which is a Greek verb having the following poissible meanings:

The name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds;

It is drawn from the Babylonian version of the underworld where unjust souls transformed into birds are kept in a dark and miserable place forever.

It also can mean, to thrust a should down to Tartarus, or to hold a soul captive in Tartarus.


Mark 9:47 refers to 'hell fire.' This is the English interpretation by the AV translators of the Greek 'geenna' Anglicised as 'gheh'-en-nah,' with whose possible meanings include:

The place of the future punishment called "Gehenna" or

"Gehenna of fire".

This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the dung and other filth, and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned, so became a symbol of the wicked and their future destruction, which was called to Gehenna of the Jews

Does the Bible insist that hell is a place of evrlasting torment, or does it speak of the redemption and freeing of the unfortunate souls consigned to it?

In the earliest versions of what eventually became the medieval Easter drama, the Harrowing of Hell, Satan and Death appear as rulers of different spheres. In the dialogue between them Death begs Satan to retain Christ in his realm, which is the earth, so that he might not descend and cause havoc in the underworld.

This idea also appears in the very old pseudo-gospel of Nicodemus, wherein Satan, boasting that he has overcome Christ on earth, asks Death to make sure that the Lord's mission is likewise frustrated in his kingdom below.

The parallel between the Lord's earthly and post resurrection missions is preserved even to the extent of having his coming in the spirit world heralded by John the Baptist.

Origen says John "died before him, so that he might descend to the lower regions and announce [preach] his coming." And again: "For everywhere the witness and forerunner of Jesus is John, being born before and dying shortly before the Son of God, so that not only to those of his generation but likewise to those who lived before Christ should liberation from death be preached, and that he might everywhere prepare a people trained to receive the Lord."

"John the Baptist died first," wrote Hippolytus, "being dispatched by Herod, that he might prepare those in hades for the gospel; he became the forerunner there, announcing even as he did on this earth, that the Savior was about to come to ransom the spirits of the saints from the hand of death."

Even in the medieval Easter drama, the "Harrowing of Hell," the arrival of Christ in hell is heralded by John the Baptist.

The question must be asked, what is the purpose of Christ's descent into hell? The preaching of the Lord and the apostles while in the world was to prepare their hearers for baptism. What purpose did his preaching to the souls in prison serve?

It is not surprising then to read in the Pastor of Hermas, one of the most trustworthy guides to the established beliefs of the early church, that not only Christ and John but also "these Apostles, and the teachers who had proclaimed the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God preached likewise to the dead; and they gave them the seal of the preaching.

They accordingly went down with them into the water and came out again. But although they went down while they were alive and came up alive, those who had fallen asleep before them (prokekoimemenoi) went down dead, but came out again living; for it was through these that they were made alive, and learned the name of the Son of God."

The Latin version reads: "These Apostles and teachers who had preached the name of the Son of God, when they died in possession of his faith and power, preached to those who had died before, and themselves gave them this seal. Hence they went down into the water with them; but they who had died before went down dead, of course, but ascended living, since it was through them that they received life and knew the Son of God."

Needless to say, this text has caused a great deal of embarrassment to interpreters, ancient and modern. The source of the trouble is obvious: there are two classes of living persons referred to, those who enjoy eternal life, and those who have not yet died on this earth.


The Biblical words translated into English as 'hell', the concepts behind them and their derivations, and the ancient beliefs of the early church, now uncovered, must make us question our long standing view of where and what hell is, who will enter it, and how long they will stay there, The traditional one-dimensional view of hell is shown to be flawed, and needs to be re-examined.




MORGANITE


:)

[STONY]

Setting New Parameters Does In No Way Nullify The Fact That Hell Still Exists, And I Think That Was The Original Question. I Look At It In These Terms, I Know How Hard Life Is When I Can Call On God Every Day. I Cannot Imagine What Existence Would Be If You Could Never Again Call On God. See My Point Here?

[Starman]

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine? It seems to me that in order to be a Jehovah's Witness you must be willing to have your mind made up for you. That has been my experience when talking to them. They are told what they do and do not believe and they do not deviate from that (if they do they are disfellowshipped). Odd behavior for those who claim to be seeking biblical truth.

Just my thoughts........

Phil

Truth doesn't contradict itself. If it did, then it wouldn't be real truth but only a subjective truth. The Bible doesn't teach subjective truth. If each person believed what he thought was right, there would be confusion. In fact, there wouldn't even be a need for a Bible since each one could simply make up his own rules as he went along which would lead to confusion and lack of unity.

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Romans 14:4-6 (in Context) Romans 14 (Whole Chapter) Romans 15:6
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

KJV

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Phil, I thought you were going to tell me something exciting :).

Saying Yahoweh or Yahoveh (Shephardic and Askenazi pronounce differently), is no better or different in essence than saying Jehovah, since all three are possibly wrong.

Jehovah has been accepted among English speaking Christians fo a very long time.

I have a Hebrew lexicon attached to my scriptures disc, and it reads OT renderings of Jehovah (AV) as: Yhovah, suggesting that it is vocalised as 'yeh-ho-vaw.'

It might be more accurate, if accuracy is the point, simply to express the consonants as they appear in the texts without any vowel pointing. 'yod he vav hey', or 'yod hey waw hey' depending on whether you follow the Shephardic or Ashkenazi rules of pronounciation?

I dunno either.


MORGANITE




:)

I also prefer the spelling Y-a-h-w-e-h as transliterated into the English language and pronounced [Yah' weh] over the supposed transliteration Jehovah.

I believe the name Jehovah to be an "impossible", "erroneous", "a hybrid name" and "a blunder" just to quote a few scholars.

I also believe that it is erroneous to refer to the letters of the so called "tetragrammaton" (Gr. Meaning 'four lettered word or name') as consonants. According to the Jewish historian Flavious Josepheus, they are vowels. They are also referred to as consonant-vowels or semi-vowels by a number of scholars of the Hebrew language.

For proof of this, please see my web pages on these subjects.

Consonants Or Vowels
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHF...sOrVowels.html

The Name Yahweh
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/Yahweh.html

As to the original topic of this thread, please see my web page:

Oh Hell!
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/OhHell.html

[Starman]

Setting New Parameters Does In No Way Nullify The Fact That Hell Still Exists, And I Think That Was The Original Question. I Look At It In These Terms, I Know How Hard Life Is When I Can Call On God Every Day. I Cannot Imagine What Existence Would Be If You Could Never Again Call On God. See My Point Here?

That's because you are a Godly person who values a close relationship with God. In contrast, most people enjoy their distance from God by living ungodly lives and generally feel quite content in being a law unto themselves. They feel that the requirements of God are an imposition on their free will--as a burden which they need to cast off just as Adam and Eve did. These become unhappy and agitated if they are told to get near God via prayer and good conduct. So the distance from God per se is not necessarily something which humans avoid at all costs. As a matter of fact, the majority seek it in one way or another via doing as they please and when they please.

i would have to say i completely agree with Morganite. Hell is a world of spirits where they await ressurection. That's not to say however they will all enter heaven after their ressurection. This spirit world is also considered to some to be a place of "two." There is a paradise, and prison. One for the righteous, and one for the "departed sprits" or those who suffered from spiritual death, or in other words, through sin, distanced themselves from God. Christ did preach, as Morgantie stated, to those in prison. I must ask morganite, what religion are you if you don't mind answering. Though i understand if you prefer not to.

At least I don't think he does! LOL

[Morganite]

The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?
MORGANITE

I can!! I resent ANYONE or ANYTHING telling me how to think or what to believe.
There are some of us who are not "sheep" and don't feel the need to be "led" by a "shepherd". This doesn't make us "bad people" or "evil". This just makes us poor followers.
We make our own minds up as to what or what not to believe without any outside help from religion, a preacher, or a televangelist that wants your money to guarantee your salvation .

"One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" not, "Any Lord you want, any faith you like, and any baptism that suits you"

That is Christianity. Anything other is something other.




M:)RGANITE