brad_religion

This statement, specifically the one about Paul encouraging people not to gather together is less than accurate. I would appreciate a reference to the passage that you used to arrive at this conclusion. Specifically, where does Paul instruct people to avoid gathering together? Also the structure of people gathering together can be demonstrated as early as Acts chapter 2. It is not true that the concept of local congregations did not commence until insititiuted by Constatine. That is historically inaccurate 1st Corinthians 11:16-21 specifically addresses what I was saying. Also, in reference to "going to church", the apostles didn't do any such thing. The only local place they gathered that was central was the temple and/or synagogues. It was not to fellowship, it was to preach to the ignorant. They didn't borrow money from a local bank to buy land or to build a church building. They didn't beg their converts for money to build a church or pay a salary. The only real gathering they did as far as fellowship was in the homes of the believers. If only more Christians would open up their homes and their hearts to the true nature of fellowship (and not this synthetic religious system we call God's assembly). Thanks

Hi daughter, I want to assure you that the tradition of "going to church" is just that, a tradition. The only verse the "church going" people can use is Hebrews 10:25, but it has NOTHING to do with our modern church. It was written to jews living in Jerusalem. They were being persecuted by the jews. They became fearful about being seen as christians, so they forsook meeting one another out of fear. The author encourages them not to forsake assembly because the "day" was approaching them. What day? What day would jews in Jerusalem live to experience? The answer is the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The author was telling them that they would need to be strong as a group rather than separated individuals while the destruction was coming closer. Notice, it speaks about the "law of Moses" in the following verses. It was for them, not for people 2000 years later and it had nothing to do with "going to church". In the bible, people who had the purest form of wisdom and spiritual life often times were ALONE. A few examples would be Daniel the prophet, Jesus Christ, John the Revelator and Paul the apostle. Many times they were worshipping God all by themselves and that is when the word of God came to them the most powerfully. Not only that, Paul the apostle said the Corinthians had come together for the WORST, not the better. Why? Because when you gather together with other people, the natural effect is division and problems. So, Paul himself recommended it is better to not gather together. The tradition of "going to church" came out of the catholic church and originated primarily with Constantine. He built catholic churches many places and that way they could gather together. In protestant/evangelical churches, this tradition continued (being that all denominations come directly or indirectly from the roman catholic system). The traditions remained. So, don't let anyone tell you that you have to "go to church" to be a believer. God will guide your path and if He wants you to fellowship with people, then he will put people in your life to do it with. God bless

Jamie, I notice you believe Jesus won't save people, yet your scripture below your post says " Phillipians 2:5-11 5Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. 6Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. 7He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. 8And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal

You are teaching the heresy of "Universalism." That teaching is not received on this board, just so you know. That is interesting you call universalists "Heretics", that is exactly what the religious pharisees called Paul for preaching universalism! I didn't come to universalism because I follow the Koran, Vishnu or 8 fold path of buddhism. I found it plainly written in the scriptures that you claim to follow! You need to PROVE universalism is a heresy firstly. It is so easy to call people a heretic for disagreeing with you. It is much more difficult to prove it. Do you say Jesus is the saviour of the world, but not really believe it? Do you say God loves the world, but not really believe it? I could give countless examples of your view (whether free will or calvinistic) and how they fall short of God's love and power. If you wish to call me a heretic, that is fine, Paul was called one too If you wish to prove I am a heretic, then I challenge you to show me in the SCRIPTURES where any of the apostles or Jesus called a person a heretic for believing what they themselves wrote and preached (That Jesus would reconcile the world to God). The fact is that unless a person believes in Universal Reconciliation, they have NO ASSURANCE in God's love. Why? Because if calvinism is true, then God only loves a few people (the elect) and hates the majority of people. You may say that a person who is elect can have that assurance, yet even in that, there is no assurance, because one must "prove" their election to make it sure. And there are a variety of views on how to do that. If the other side (free will arminian) teaching is true, then it means God loves all people (but it is very conditional and weak love). It is the kind of love that a hypocrite shows (only loves those who love him). It is not reliable. So, if you believe in the free will gospel, then you still cannot have that assurance in God's love because your "free will" which consistently fails is the only way God can love you back (which means it is almost impossible). In either case, calvinism or arminianism do not give anyone true hope in God's love. The true gospel DOES produce hope in a person. One more thing, I noticed below your response, you say a few things about Israel and the Palestinians. You dare call me a heretic, yet you are a racist? You obviously believe zionism is a Christian philosophy (hmm, so I guess it is okay to HATE Palestinians and support jews who persecute Christians?) You need to study the issue of the middle east and dispensationalism. I can see now why you are so mean-spirited to anyone who disagrees with you. Until God puts His love in you, you will continue to hate palestinian people (including fellow Christians). That is another topic for another day. However, it does show me where your heart is right now (care more about a political philosophy (zionism) than the kingdom of God). Is it any wonder the world thinks Christians are the most gullible people in the world?

Before I respond to your other posts, I wanted to quickly address what you say here. The fact is that most of the "church" still teaches hell as a doctrine (even though people in those churches don't necessarily believe it anymore). If there is a church that doesn't talk about hell, it is because they are on the path to light. The attributes of Jesus are compassion, love, mercy, kindness, loving ones enemies, forgiving whether a person repents or not, joy, peace, longsuffering. The doctrine of hell is the opposite of all those things. His righteousness demands justice. That justice was paid for on the cross because he died for the sin (singular) of the world. Paul said that Jesus Christ reconciled the world to himself, NOT imputing their trespasses against them. Surely if they don't have their sins counted against them, then to say "His righteousness demands justice" and make it refer to the teaching of hell just isn't in the bible. We have had the doctrine of hell in the churches since the 6th century. It was inserted as a dogma of the catholic church and that is when the dark ages began (it isn't a coincidence). Since the doctrine of hell has come into the church, has the church shown the fruits of the Spirit or rather the works of the flesh? Historically, the church is responsible for almost every work of the flesh, primarily because of this teaching of hell. Nothing good has come of it, except that people can see how ridiculous it really is and they search for the truth. Let's see what the teaching of hell has caused in this world - depression, hopelessness, doubt, hatred, variance, strife, murder, torture, rape, robbery, lies, deceit, condemnation, idolatry, abominations, etc. Why do you think that is? Now, imagine a person teaches God reconciled the world to Himself through Jesus Christ. They don't teach about hell, because it isn't in the bible's original language. They teach God loves all men and will save all men. How do they behave in contrast to the hell teachers? Well, since they believe God loves all men, they have no problem to loving all men either. They can love their enemies, because they know God loves His enemies. It is not an obligation to love their enemies. However, if one believes in hell (and most people will go there), then they realize God does NOT love His enemies, but rather will torture his enemies forever in a fire. It would be very hard to love someone you know God himself does not love. Because it would be futile to waste your time and love on them (since they are most likely going to hell). I have to say I have been in the eternal torment camp (hell) and the annihilation camp (death) and both fall short of the victory in Christ the bible speaks about. Not only that, when I believed in hell, I felt like God hated me and I was no good and I was going there, because my church gave me "rules" to follow in order to not go there (and I could not do it). It turned me from a loving Christian boy into a hateful, angry, bitter prick. I lived how I wanted because I figured I was going to hell anyway, so I might as well enjoy my way there. I didn't know how much God loved me. I know from experience (as do MILLIONS OF PEOPLE), that the doctrine of hell is contrary to everything our Father in heaven is about. God himself said in Jeremiah that the very concept of hell (even temporarily) had NEVER ENTERED HIS MIND. If burning your own children temporarily was called an abomination and it never entered your mind, then certainly doing it for all eternity would definitly not enter your mind. I know what I believe is way better than what I did believe. I have the fruits of the Spirit in my life now. I am at peace. I can love others. I can love God again. This sadistic doctrine of hell does NOTHING for anyone, except bring them into more religious hypocrisy and bondage. Jesus said the truth would set us free. Just look at the fruit. The doctrine of hell creates bad people, the doctrine of reconciliation creates new creatures who love all men. Which would Jesus teach? Jas 2:19 You believe that there is one God; you do well: the demons also believe, and tremble. Mt 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with you, Jesus, you Son of God? have you come here to torment us before the time? 1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Your Doctrine is in deep error and may cause problems for you. As you are unprepared to defend yourself against the devil and his wiles. The devil doesn't just represent something. he is very real. The first problem is you seem to be taking "1 verse charlies" and inserting your own interpretation into the text. James does indeed say "devils" or "demons", but remember, "evil spirits" came from God, not some "devil" - see 1st Samuel 16:14. As far as Matthew 8:29, the evil spirit said Jesus was there to afflict them "before the time". What time? Well, Hebrews 2:14 says Jesus came to destroy him who had power over death, that is the devil. Paul said in Romans 16:20 that Satan would be shortly crushed under their feet. It obviously was a time that would happen in the lifetime of those Paul spoke to. As far as 1st Peter 5:8, that just proves my belief that satan was "cast down" and deceiving the nations like Revelation 20 says. The term "devil", "satan", "serpent" and "dragon" was used describing human beings, not some super angel (as our traditions have made satan to be). The word "satan" is not a name, it is a word that was left untranslated. It should have been consistently translated as "adversary". It usually referred to people, and even God himself (see Numbers 22:22 and 1st Chronicles 21:1/2nd Samuel 24:1). Jesus called other people "serpents" and a "devil" and "satan". Who tempted Jesus in the wilderness? Was it some super fallen angel or was it a group of human beings? Did not the pharisees and sadducees go into the wilderness to John? Would it be impossible to believe that the "devil" who tempted Jesus was the pharisees? Did not Jesus say the pharisees tempted him and didn't they say "if thou be the son of God"? And lastly, Ephesians 6:12 does say they should prepare for a battle against "the devil". However, look at the context - against principalities (which means "chief" in greek - an authority), and against rulers of "this age". What age was being ruled at that time? Jesus only mentioned 2 of them. "This age and the age to come". What age was Jesus living in? The MOSAIC age of the old covenant. What was the age to come? The new covenant age! So, the context of Ephesians 6:12-15 is NOT about fighting some supernatural fallen angel, but against fighting the ever vanishing old covenant rulers. Not only that, it says to the EPHESIANS, they need to be able to stand in the "evil day". I'm not a rocket scientist, but that either means the "evil day" has not happened yet and there are 2000 year old Ephesians living in the world OR it means the "evil day" that was "this age" was in THEIR lifetime. This also proves my point that "satan" and "demons" would be destroyed in their lifetime. I don't need to "prepare" myself against any "devil" because the "Devil" is DESTROYED. Unless Jesus failed? Could you show me a scripture that says that? Jesus isn't separate from "Death" in regards to us. For example, Paul said "I die daily". Yet, Paul was in Christ totally. I don't know if you are saying I personally am not wearing a garment of righteousness in Christ or you are talking about people in general. If you mean me, how can you make a judgment call with someone you don't even know? I don't wear a garment of anyone who desires my own throne. I base my righteousness on Jesus Christ, not myself. There is NO SCRIPTURE that says "the devil has been in rebellion against God's throne for some time". You are addressing several things that have nothing to do with each other. It appears you believe God had no control over this "rebellion" as you call it. But the bible says God does as He pleases and He has planned all this from the very beginning. Nobody will go to heaven without Christ and the bible says EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess Christ is Lord. So, all men will eventually go through Christ. As far as the "garment" idea, that had to do with the destruction of Jerusalem (see Matthew 22). If a person was wearing the wrong garment, it was because they didn't heed the call of the wedding properly. Being "cast into outer darkness" was referring to being killed and cast into gehenna (the valley of hinnom where garbage was burning). In other words, those who didn't heed the warning of Jesus to be ready for the wedding did NOT escape Jerusalem like he said and they were BOUND hand and feet and thrown into the valley of hinnom just like the parable says. What does death look like? It looks like you and me minus Jesus Christ. Peace, Dave We are all on our own path in Christ, but one thing must remain contant - love for one another. We may even disagree vehemently, but if we have not love, it is worthless. Godbless

Where do you find that in the Scriptures? If you read Deuteronomy 29, you will see almost identical language as 1st Corinthians 3:10-15 and Revelation 20-22. It referred to a temporal cursing for people who forsook the Lord. Notice Paul refers to "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;", which is identical to the false gods of Egypt mentioned in Deuteronomy 29. He was making a reference to that scripture to explain those who are outside the kingdom (every man builds their works on the foundation of Christ, but if they aren't in Christ, their works are judged and burned). So, what happens to the people who are condemned there? What is their ultimate outcome? The thing is that judgment in the bible is not based upon salvation, it is based upon works. Yet, we are told we are saved by grace, not works. Therefore, when it says in Hebrews 9:27 that after death comes the judgment, it is not saying people are not going to be saved or will be saved. The judgment is based upon the works of each person. If they are outside of Christ (Israel), then their name is not in the book of life (and therefore, like the law of Moses, they must die). When God judged someone, it had an ultimate work of reconciliation, it didn't happen for no reason. The Lord kills and the Lord makes alive. In other words, whoever was killed by the law would be made alive by Christ. And sure enough, that is what the new testament makes abundantly clear. The "ultimate outcome" of those not in the book of life is they will be saved (but as Jesus said, those who teach to break the least of the commandments will be least in the kingdom, not eternally lost). The "lake of fire" is better understood as "harbor of purification". The word "fire" in greek is pur, which we get words like purify, purity, purification, perfection, etc. It has an ultimate purpose for good, not evil. Paul the apostle said in many places not only is God the saviour of all men (1st Timothy 2:3-4, 4:10-11), but purposely blinds people until He decides to reveal the truth to them (Romans 11:7-12, 25-26). 2nd Corinthians 4:4 seems to be speaking about God doing the blinding (the greek word for "god of this world" should say "God of this age"). The problem is we think that while on earth, NOTHING is impossible for God, but 1 second after a person dies, everything is impossible for God. The main reason we think this is because we misinterpret Hebrews 9:27, not realizing it has nothing to do with the "saved" or the "unsaved", but rewards. The judgment seat of Christ is just that very thing. Paul said that Jesus was given a ransom for all, to be testified in DUE TIME. In other words, when God decides to testify to each person the truth of the gospel (which is truly good news), then people will know. The main problem I think is 3 fold. The first is our 21st century gentile world view of eschatology and salvation. We base our beliefs in scripture on the translation's accuracy. However, many words in English have changed meaning since the KJV was translated in 1611. The second problem is we literalize those English words as we define them today. Thirdly, the KJV translates (or better understood mistranslates) several greek and hebrew texts, which anyone can plainly see if they just do a simple word study of words like "sheol" or "aion" or "mello". Another issue is based upon eschatology. Prophetic language (which often times was highly cosmic and extreme language used to describe a national judgment). Revelation uses identical language as the old testament prophets. For example, when we see a phrase like "judging the world", we assume it must be at the end of time and everyone in the globe must be judged. Yet, in Isaiah 13, speaking about Babylon's downfall by the Medes (fulfilled according to Daniel 5), it says God would judge the world for its evil (yet it is referring to the fall of Babylon only). If we read that like we read eschatology in many churches today, we would still be waiting for it to be fulfilled (since the world wasn't literally judged in the fall of Babylon). But we should know that scripture defines terms, we do not. If scripture defines such a thing as a national judgment, then it must be applied in other places. There are just so many things to consider when doing a study on this subject (especially when there are a variety of views regarding eschatology and salvation). Anyway, I hope I could answer your question. God bless

Hi all, I'm new here, but I wanted to share what I have learned. The first issue would be the translation of key words such as "aion" or "aionios" or "aionion", which is translated as "eternal" or "everlasting". The second issue is the understanding that Revelation is a highly symbolic book not meant to be taken literally (especially in our 21st century gentile literalism). The "Devil" represents something, the "beast" represents something, etc. Think about it for just a moment. If the "lake of fire" is literal, how in the world can death be literally thrown into it? What death is cast into the lake of fire? What does death look like? I'm sure you would admit that such an idea is silly, yet we then assume when it says "whosoever" was not in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire is a literal thing. The resurrection issue is a multifold one. Let's just put it this way. Paul the apostle declared the resurrection of the just and unjust was the "hope of Israel" (Acts 23:6, 24:14-15, 26:6-8). Paul also said in Romans 9 that he had sorrow in his heart for his kinsmen of the flesh. They were about to be judged by God in Jerusalem and he knew it. He was sorrowful they would suffer many things as vessels of wrath. However, if the resurrection of the unjust was something even WORSE, why would Paul call the resurrection of the unjust the "hope of Israel"? Because it was a hopeful thing. So, in our modern view of the "resurrection of condemnation", we have got it backwards. Paul called it a hope, not a sorrowful thing. Another issue is that the word "hell" is not found in any scripture in the original language. the "hell" that is thrown into the lake of fire is hades (which is the greek equivalent of the hebrew place sheol). Paul the apostle said death and hell (the grave) are swallowed up in victory (1st Corinthians 15:53-55). So, when Revelation says that they are cast into the lake of fire, it is a victory, not a defeat. If Christ has victory over death and hades, then they are not eternal nor are men condemned to them forever. When it says those who practice the works of the flesh are outside of the city, that is obviously people who are still here who are not yet new creations in Christ. If they continue in those works, they will be hurt of the 2nd death (but it isn't a bad thing). Paul the apostle explained what occurs in 1st Corinthians 3:10-15. He said if any man doesn't build his works on the foundation of Christ (speaking about unbelievers), the man will pass through the fire, and suffer loss because his works (works of the flesh) will burn up, but he himself shall be saved. The problem is we assume (usually from church tradition) that the "book of life" is the same thing as "salvation". But Revelation borrows the idea of the "book" from the old testament. The book was a record of birth in the nation of Israel. Those who were not in the book were not considered members of Israel (and therefore didn't receive the blessings Israel received). It was a temporal thing, which had to do with this life now, not the afterlife. The "book of life" in Revelation would be identical in regards to the Israel of God (Jesus Christ). Those in Christ are in the book, because they have been "born again" in the new nation, while those who were not yet born again were not in the book. The "elect" in the book of life were similar to Israel in the fact they were chosen to bring the glad tidings to the world of God's reconciliation. Paul the apostle said to "command and teach" that God is the saviour of all men, especially them who believe. The question we have to ask is, have the elect done what God has commissioned them to do? Or have they tried to be greedy and keep the message to themselves and condemned those outside of Israel (Jesus Christ)? The pharisees did that very thing when it came to the physical nation of Israel and they didn't want to share God with the gentiles. Christians I believe have done this same thing and that is why the world is the way it is. Well, take it for what you want, but I thought I would share there are other views of these issues that you may not be aware of. I have had experience in the eternal torment camp and the eternal death camp (annihilation) and both really make Christ the ultimate failure who didn't succeed in his mission. Let us get back to the good news God wants us to give others. God bless, Matt