jenwat3

This is wrong. The Bible ALWAYS refers to the Holy Spirit as person and a "being." The Holy Spirit can be grieved and lied to. He can be communed with and is also called a comforter and a teacher. The Holy Spirit is referred to as omnipresent in Psalm 139:7-10. He is said to lead us to Christ. In Roman 8:27, he is said to have a mind, and He is called God in 1 Corinthians 6:19. The Holy Spirit can speak according to Acts 1:16. Those are just a few examples, but I could list several more. The Holy Spirit fits the description of an actual being or person. The Holy Spirit is NEVER refer to as an "it" or an impersonal force like "the power of God." You need to have a more biblical based understanding of the Holy Spirit. Thank you for clarifying this .. Jenwatt please explain : Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the "unforgivable sin"? The unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is knowing that someone is working and performing miracles with the power of God, and denying that the power is actually from God, but calling it the work of the devil. This is what the Pharisees did with Christ. They knew He was a Man of God, and that His power came from God, yet they ridiculed Him and said He was casting out demons through the power of Satan.

I have a few questions of my own to ask. 1)How does the Father send the Son if they are the same being? 2)How could Christ be doing the will of the Father if they were the same being? Would He not be doing His own will? 3)How could Christ be our mediator if He is one part of a single being, meaning ALL parts would have the same thoughts and feelings! If Christ is one-third of the trinity, one part of God's mind would be mediating to the other 2 parts of the same mind. 4)God expects Christians to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ". 2 Peter 3:18. If the Holy Spirit is a being, how can it be increased within the Christian who has it? 5)luke 11:13 makes plain that the Holy Spirit is given by God to those who ask for it. It has to be something that God gives, it isn't a being that comes of it's own volition. In the O.T., the word "holy" is translated from the Hebrew word "qodesh", meaning "a sacred place or thing", and "spirit" is translated from the Hebrew word "ruach", meaning "wind, breath, or life". In the N.T., the word "holy" is translated from the Greek word "hagios", meaning "sacred", and the word "spirit" is translated from the word "pneuma", meaning "current of air, breath, or breeze". In these cases, we see that the Holy Spirit is Holy (because it is God's), and Spirit (because it is like wind).

This is wrong. The Bible ALWAYS refers to the Holy Spirit as person and a "being." The Holy Spirit can be grieved and lied to. He can be communed with and is also called a comforter and a teacher. The Holy Spirit is referred to as omnipresent in Psalm 139:7-10. He is said to lead us to Christ. In Roman 8:27, he is said to have a mind, and He is called God in 1 Corinthians 6:19. The Holy Spirit can speak according to Acts 1:16. Those are just a few examples, but I could list several more. The Holy Spirit fits the description of an actual being or person. The Holy Spirit is NEVER refer to as an "it" or an impersonal force like "the power of God." You need to have a more biblical based understanding of the Holy Spirit. With all due respect, Shiloh, my understanding is biblical. The power of God can comfort and teach. When we have the Holy Spirit within us, it can be lied to.

Then please explain this scripture. 1 John 5:6-7 This is He who came by water and blood

Actually, IMO, the Holy Spirit isn't an actual being. It is the unity and one-ness that God and Christ share. It is, in layman's terms, the power of God. And Christ and God are two separate beings, one family.

That is indeed the question Jenwat. There are some possibilities... Any particular ideas, Richard? I have my own theory, but what is yours? Pm if you don't want to post out loud. May I have a little time to think through my answer before giving it? Of course not! I want an answer immediately!

That is indeed the question Jenwat. There are some possibilities... Any particular ideas, Richard? I have my own theory, but what is yours? Pm if you don't want to post out loud.

What is the one thing, though, that would set Christians apart, and make them unable to buy or sell? Possibly even be unable to hold a job, since they would have no money to buy, or be unable to sell anything?

This is not intended to be rude but to make people stop and think what they are saying compared to what scripture teaches so, let's use a little common sense here, shall we? Why would God or the devil even, need a physical mark to identify when they have very clear eyes for both the physical and the spiritual? people are already bearing the seal or the mark....it's called fruit of the (s)Spirit and that is how we are told we can identify one another. Nope, no physical marks, implants being forced on someone could not be considered simply because we are all given the choice to whom we serve....makes no sense that a forced implantation would be the mark of the beast since people must choose their master..... Amen to that. The actual MOB is disobedience to God. God's mark is obedience.

Does anyone have a full grasp of exactly who God is? Does any denomination have it "exactly right"? There are so many denominations today, how does one determine the true Church?

No, easter bunnies and colored eggs = evil Christian eggs, cookies and rolls = good You got that right! But "christian eggs"? Never heard that term before...

Regarding Easter: I will leave that to the conscience of each to decide for themselves. For myself, I do not partake. Well, ok. I had meant for this to be a p.m. answer.

How awful. But in your last sentence, the sentence may be carried out by beheading. An eye for an eye?

Well said. As far as Joseph being unclean, I am not sure about that. But as it does state that the body had to be buried quickly, before the sunset, He was buried before the sun went down. So He would have risen 3 days later, on Saturday, before the sun went down. Or just barely making it before the sunset.

The English TERM yes, is derived from the word East which is believed to be derived by Bede. I realize that Pesach means passover, but go to Greece today and this is the term for Easter. Read the rest of Catholic Encyclopedia article that you like to quote-mine from and it will tell you this. Again, as stated previously, there is no original Greek word for Passover, so Easter was a substitute. The word does not mean Easter.

Hijack away This thread needs a little room to breathe anyway. It is covering a lot of ground. I'm waiting for a response. . . . I'm sorry, a response from me? What did you ask? I didn't know you wanted a response?

Yet, those who removed Him from the cross were Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. Two men who knew and loved Him. While the law may still have applied, I do not think that Joseph and Nicodemus were worrying too much about having everything done before sunset. As an aside: Of all of the holy days and feasts, did you know there is one that is allowed a second chance observance? Which one is it? For what reason(s) is that second observance allowed? In your opinion, why do you think that this one was allowed that opportunity while none of the others are? Hint: Numbers 9 To be honest, I am not exactly sure what you mean by a second chance observance. Please explain? And also, in Luke 23:53-56, it states that Joseph took down Jesus's body, wrapped it in linen, and buried it, "and the Sabbath drew near", which means it wasn't dark yet.

Have you ever lost anyone close to you? Someone you deeply and dearly loved? If you lost someone you really cared about and it was unlawful to attend to it upon a certain day, would you really care about the law? I lost my wife a little over four years ago, it was sudden, unexpected and she died in my arms. How much worse it must have been for those who witnessed His death. At the time, I observed shabat, do you think I really cared about shabat and the laws thereof compared to the tragedy that had just occurred? No. IMO: It would have been very close to sunset if not right at sunset by the time He was laid in the tomb. It could even have been just after, for having witnessed His death... I do not think they were that concerned about the law. I can understand your point, but the ones who crucified Him did not feel the way you do. To them Jesus was not the Savior, but just another man. Therefore the laws would still have applied to Him.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. I will rephrase and expound a little, perhaps you would be so kind as well, for I truly would like to fully understand and comprehend your point. Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. IOW: In the tomb. Not hours of death. It would have been very close to sunset by the time He was laid to rest in the tomb. IMO: He left the tomb about sunset saturday night. Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. Began to dawn: The Hebrew term would be shakhar, which is the time between 'dark' and 'sunrise'. The Greek here is epiphoskouse eis, or 'to grow light toward'. So this is very early in the morning and they found the tomb already empty. There is no indication as to exactly when 'Jesus' left the tomb. We simply know it was empty in the pre-sunrise hours of the day. I shall look forward to your response. It sounds as though we are close on this, I just want to be sure that I am understanding you correctly. Ok, 3 days and 3 noghts He was buried. He would have been buried before sunset, though, since Jewish law forbade anyone dead from being left on the cross on a sabbath, and they had to bury Him quickly before the sun set, since even the burial was considered work. So the 72 hour period would still have ended on Saturday, not Sunday morning. And it would have been before the sun went down.

If I may... and pardon my intrusion: If He gave up His spirit at 3, it would not have been til near sunset by the time He was placed within the tomb. IMO: It also would have been near/around/about shabat sunset that He arose... My point exactly. I am not understanding how someone can fit the "3 days and 3 nights" into the time period of Wednesday-Sunday. If He died on Wednesday, the only way for someone to fit a period of 72 hours into that time slot would be He had to have risen on 3 pm Saturday. To say He rose on Sunday morning would not fit in the 72 hour time period. Wednesday-Thursday=1day. Thursday-Friday=2 days. Friday-Saturday=3 days. 3pm Wednesday-3pm Saturday is 72 hours. Any more (or less) time than that would make Him out to be a liar. And if He lied about the actual time He was in the grave, then He sinned, and we have no Savior!

If that's how a real criminal would do it, does that make you a real criminal?

Sheol isn't a place of the living dead. Or existing dead, as you put it. Sheol is the grave. The dead know nothing when they die, so they cannot walk in their chosen evil, or praise God.

Hi jenwat3, I wish to start by saying that I do not seek to attack you personally in any way. I do not post very much by some standards. That is because my focus and therefore my posts lean more toward evangelism than anything else. Unfortunately, in today's modern church you don't see much of that anymore. What is being done is usually unscriptural and producing "counterfeit Christians" whose later condition is worse than their first. I believe that the issue of Hell is very relevant to evangelism. I believe that you have been misled about what the Bible says about Hell and therefore are perpetuating that misinformation. This is understandable. Many people have been taught similar concepts. It is the misinformation that I take issue with. With many modern churches focusing on a ministry of "love, peace and joy" rather than "repentance" things are already in a serious state of affairs. Teaching that Hell is not really such a big deal only serves to worsen that situation. Some borderline unbelievers begin weighing the options of living any way they want because in the end they simply cease to exist while truly Saved individuals shy away from witnessing because it really doesn't matter, the consequences simply aren't that bad. It also diminishes the sacrifice that God made. He sent his Son to die on the cross for all of our sins. Well, that would have been a bit of an over reaction if the final result of not accepting that gift is simply to cease to exist. Why then did He make such an enormous sacrifice? So that some could have salvation? Well, those that reject that salvation aren't really going to care very much when they are no longer sentient. I believe His purpose for making this sacrifice goes further than that. I believe it is because the alternative is much worse than annihilation. I believe that the scriptures teach us this. Quenched means to "put out" or "put and end to". You seem to agree with that much. Therefore when the Bible tells us that this fire will not be quenched I would assume that you would also agree that it means it "cannot be put out". If it cannot be put out then we are not really left with any scenario in which it goes out for any reason. If this is the case then what about those unsaved souls? They burn up? Cease to exist? Everlasting simply means to "last forever". Several of the scriptures that I quoted refer to this punishment as everlasting. The punishment is not something separate from the person being punished. When I was young and told to stand in the corner of the classroom I knew that I was being punished. After a time when I was allowed to return to my seat I knew that the punishment was over. There was not an invisible activity of punishment continuing in that particular corner of the classroom. "Everlasting punishment" tells us therefore that it goes on forever and for it to be a punishment someone has to experience it. The scriptures quite clearly tell us that the unsaved will be among those experiencing this punishment. Hades actually means something quite different than the grave. However, your exception to my post seems to focus mostly on the suggestion of an everlasting punishment for the unsaved. So, I don't really think that spending time on that particular topic in this thread would be very valuable. My concern is that if we diminish or allow to be diminished what the Bible teaches us about Hell then we make it easer for souls to slip into that place. Trying to convert sinners to Christ by scaring them with Hell is not very effective. Spurring the Saved on to greater efforts at witnessing to the unsaved is! ~Neeva Neeva, first I would like to say that I appreciate your tone when discussing this. I have had debates like this before where others weren't half as understanding as you. To cut to the chase, where in scripture does it say "the wicked will burn forever"? It plainly states "the wages of sin is death", not eternal burning. To quote John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believed in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Note how the term PERISH here is contrasted with everlasting life? If people actually burned forever, they would still have eternal life! But they PERISH. you guys are talking above me... I am even more confused Sorry, Angelique. The difference between hell and sheol? No difference if you are reading them correctly. Hell in Greek is Hades. One translation is the grave. Same with Sheol in Hebrew. Both simply mean the grave.