The Gates of Hell

[Murphy]

3 hours ago, RobertS said:

 

Slight problem with your "idiom" concept here:

 

Luke was not Hebrew; he was of the gentiles and wrote this account initially for his friend Theophilus:

 

If "40 days" meant simply "a long time" as you postulate, he would not have deliberately mislead Theophilus by saying "40 days" if it were not literal. The Gentiles at large would not have understood the "Hebrew idiom" and Luke would have had to explain it to him, and we do not find that in his gospel. Luke was writing an account for his friend so that he could understand better what he had been taught, and Luke was very careful to make an accurate historical account.

While some things in scripture are not meant to be taken literally , we have to go by the tone of the book they appear in as to gather that. We cannot read the Gospels the same way we would read another book, such as the Song of Solomon.

The danger one runs into when deciding that hell is just mere "annihilation" is that something or someone can be "destroyed" and still exist. One example: the word used by Jesus in Luke 11:17 is erémoó , which means "desolate (1), laid waste (4). " (Strong's Greek 2049). Not everything may be meant literally in every book of scripture, but Jesus was deadly serious about hell, and warned as such. Don't mistake the language He used for annihilation: He used the best words we could understand.

One last thing murphy: if you are going to call the clear teachings of scripture "fairy tales" and "idioms", then you're not taking the word of God seriously. Scripture tells us that we will give an account of ourselves (including every word and thought we ever thought, spoke or typed on a keyboard) before the Lord, whether before the Judgment Seat of Christ (for believers) or the Great White Throne (for unbelievers). Paul was not speaking allegorically or idiomatically when he mentioned about us giving an account of ourselves, nor was he speaking in such terms when he mentioned in Romans that the whole world would be judged by God.

So let me ask you this: what happens if you are wrong?

 

You make assumptions.

The bible is not a roman or greek story, it is a Hebrew story. Without the Tanakh, the NT does not exist. Torah has be preserved, for the most part, when the NT conflicts with Torah/Tanakh, I stand with Torah.

Who was Mr. Luke?

 

Go 40 days without food or water in the heat of the desert/wilderness and you will die.

40 days, days and nights, show up too many times, way too many times.

40 weeks is the gestation period of a baby, 40 years is the gestation period of a generation.

 

If I am wrong? If you are wrong? I'm not here preaching and proclaiming.

[Murphy]

2 minutes ago, angels4u said:

Are you a prophet?

That's funny, really.

 

No.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

15 minutes ago, Murphy said:

 

John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.
 

Read this verse again, 100 times if you have to. You as a believer have a serious problem.

John 3: 13 reflects the truth at that time.  But we have record of believers in heaven AFTER the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Quote

The Word is not what you think it is, I can show you a couple of things that would blow your mind, but you are not ready for it.

The Word is the inspired, infallible, inerrant, and immutable Word of God.  That's what we believe it is.   You don't even believe the Bible and you reject 2/3 of the New Testament.   You have nothing to say about the Bible that any true Christian should accept.  Unlike you, REAL Christians believe the whole Bible.

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

Those of you who have been participating in this thread, have probably noticed that it has become much shorter and that many of your posts have been deleted. We were getting complaints about one poster in particular here, suggesting that he should be banned, and in fact someone did that him.

I was looking for some of the posts that he had made to see what caused all the fuss. That brought me to this particular thread. I began to see some of the off-the-wall and bizarre non-scriptural ideas this person was promoting and in my judgment some of those should not be here as they could confuse people who are not that sophisticated in their Bible and theological knowledge.

The problem then became that if I deleted a particular post, there's somewhere later in the thread would be someone's reply to that post, and usually a quote of the post. Well, if there is a quote of the post then that person's heretical teachings are still on display. I could have got in to those replies and deleted the quoted parts but then the replies look sort of nonsensical and confusing without the context of what it is that was being replied to.

So it became necessary to delete some of the replies as well as the posts that were being replied to, but there was more to it than that.

The thing is, that this thread actually has a topic. The problem was that it had not stayed on topic. It had gone off into discussions and speculations about what language the New Testament was written in, whether the New Testament was even valid, history of the church, a discussion of communion and even suggestions that participating in communion is a sin. There were personal attacks, attacks against denominations, and other ugly and irrelevant things to the thread topic.

It was so much work trying to undo all of the job that it became obvious to me that the only practical way to deal with this thread was to start at the end of its and work my way back to the beginning of the thread getting rid of all of the posts that have strayed from the topic. It was just the least complicated way to deal with the problem.

I was tempted to just delete the entire thread, certainly that would have been a lot easier, much less work for me. However, the thread as it began was legitimate so I really didn't want to destroy the whole thing, I only wanted it to be restored to something worthwhile.

I am sorry that this means that some posts which were well thought out and written were deleted in the process, and they would have been fine in the context of threads which were actually about the topics that were being discussed in some of the posts.

However, they were so inextricably interwoven with weird topics and bad posts and bickering, that I just had to really severely gut this thread to a large degree.

I am sorry that I had to destroy a lot of hard work that some of you put into this thread, but it was the only way I can see to reading it.

If anyone chooses to continue to participate in this thread, I suggest that you read the original post and see what the thread is about and reply to that topic.

I have spent almost 2 hours cleaning up this thread, is 4:33 in the morning, and I am tired, I need sleep, but I'm not through working on this thread. I expect I will be back after I've had some rest.

[angels4u]

8 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Those of you who have been participating in this thread, have probably noticed that it has become much shorter and that many of your posts have been deleted. We were getting complaints about one poster in particular here, suggesting that he should be banned, and in fact someone did that him.

I was looking for some of the posts that he had made to see what caused all the fuss. That brought me to this particular thread. I began to see some of the off-the-wall and bizarre non-scriptural ideas this person was promoting and in my judgment some of those should not be here as they could confuse people who are not that sophisticated in their Bible and theological knowledge.

The problem then became that if I deleted a particular post, there's somewhere later in the thread would be someone's reply to that post, and usually a quote of the post. Well, if there is a quote of the post then that person's heretical teachings are still on display. I could have got in to those replies and deleted the quoted parts but then the replies look sort of nonsensical and confusing without the context of what it is that was being replied to.

So it became necessary to delete some of the replies as well as the posts that were being replied to, but there was more to it than that.

The thing is, that this thread actually has a topic. The problem was that it had not stayed on topic. It had gone off into discussions and speculations about what language the New Testament was written in, whether the New Testament was even valid, history of the church, a discussion of communion and even suggestions that participating in communion is a sin. There were personal attacks, attacks against denominations, and other ugly and irrelevant things to the thread topic.

It was so much work trying to undo all of the job that it became obvious to me that the only practical way to deal with this thread was to start at the end of its and work my way back to the beginning of the thread getting rid of all of the posts that have strayed from the topic. It was just the least complicated way to deal with the problem.

I was tempted to just delete the entire thread, certainly that would have been a lot easier, much less work for me. However, the thread as it began was legitimate so I really didn't want to destroy the whole thing, I only wanted it to be restored to something worthwhile.

I am sorry that this means that some posts which were well thought out and written were deleted in the process, and they would have been fine in the context of threads which were actually about the topics that were being discussed in some of the posts.

However, they were so inextricably interwoven with weird topics and bad posts and bickering, that I just had to really severely gut this thread to a large degree.

I am sorry that I had to destroy a lot of hard work that some of you put into this thread, but it was the only way I can see to reading it.

If anyone chooses to continue to participate in this thread, I suggest that you read the original post and see what the thread is about and reply to that topic.

I have spent almost 2 hours cleaning up this thread, is 4:33 in the morning, and I am tired, I need sleep, but I'm not through working on this thread. I expect I will be back after I've had some rest.

 

Thank you very  much for for all the hours you worked  on this to clean it up!

I hope you got your sleep?

[Omegaman 3.0]

44 minutes ago, angels4u said:

I hope you got your sleep?

Not yet, but will try in a few minutes, thanks!

[St_Worm2]

On 5/19/2016 at 3:00 PM, Willa said:

David St Worm, I rather like the idea that the gates of hell cannot prevail when the church assaults it.  We have been given authority over demons and such.  We are able to rob satan's domain of the walking dead by evangelism so that they may be born again and have eternal life.  By that I mean that all are ascribed to hell by original sin and the bent toward pride, rebellion and selfishness.  So I think of all who are not saved to be the walking dead!  And the Church has been given the commission to spread the good news, that Christ obeyed the Father perfectly, died for the sins of the ungodly and arose from the dead, conquering death.  He ascended into heaven and sits in the place of authority and honor, praying for us.  God has given Him a name above every name!  Our God reigns!

Very well said Willa. Thank you  

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by St_Worm2

[St_Worm2]

10 hours ago, angels4u said:

Thank you very  much for for all the hours you worked  on this to clean it up!

I hope you got your sleep?

Agreed! Thanks Omegaman   Hopefully you have gotten some much needed   by now!

Thank you to everyone who has participated in this thread so far. Murphy derailed the thread early on, but I thought it was important for us to answer his unorthodox claims, for him and for anyone visiting us here (which is why I didn't try to get us back on track earlier). Unfortunately, he chose not to listen (hear) all the important things you guys had to say to him  

I appreciate everything everyone has said in response to my original post and I look forward to returning to discussions that are "on topic" again  (and I will also finally reply to several posts that I let go to the wayside when Murphy ran us down several different rabbit trails).

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - I'm also hoping that we reach the second half of Matthew 16:18 in Adult Sunday School tomorrow morning, so if I learn anything new and interesting there, I'll be sure to share it with you!

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2016 by St_Worm2

[Your closest friendnt]

On 5/14/2016 at 3:01 AM, St_Worm2 said:

The famous verse in question reads as follows:

I have always believed (because I was always taught) that Hell is waging an ongoing "offensive" against the church, but that it (Hell) will never prevail. But as I've considered it again recently, that doesn't seem to be what it's saying at all. Gates, for instance, especially in the ancient world, were defensive weapons, NOT offensive. And since that is true, does it not make more sense to understand that the church is the one on the offensive and that the "gates of Hell" will not prevail against our forceful advance (or keep the church at bay forever)? 

There are more things to discuss about the second half of this verse, but I wanted to get your thoughts on this first. 

What is your understanding of Matthew 16:18b? Are the, "gates of Hell", an offensive weapon aimed at destroying the church, or a defensive weapon used to try to hold the church at bay?

Or does it mean something else altogether??

If you wouldn't mind, please explain why you believe what you do?

Thanks  

--David

 

 

 

The Gates of ............,

Does it matter if we complete the sentence with the word, " Hades" or "Hell". 

Does the meaning of the message remains the same or it is changing.

Because I could not help it, to notice that you started with the word " Hades", and then without any explanation you switch, and you have substitute the word "Hades", with the word " Hell", and for there on you never went back to the ORIGINAL word "HADES",

And why? you own to your readers an explanation. 

Hope so....

 

[St_Worm2]

Though I am principally a NASB user, I still have a lot of the KJV locked in my head. NASB, NIV, NKJV all use "gates of Hades", while the KJV and ESV both use "gates of Hell" (so it seems to me that either will do). Typically, I use the two words interchangeably to mean a place of flame, torment, etc. the afterlife abode of unbelievers. I also use Hell AND/OR the Lake of Fire to mean to final abode of the reprobate and the devil, normally hoping that context will shed light on the exact place I am talking about.

In contrast, the good place or places I refer to as "Heaven", or "Paradise" or "Abraham's Bosom" (though when I use the latter two I am normally speaking of the temporary abode of the OT "saints").

Hope that helps

--David

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by St_Worm2