Heaven and Eternal life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fidei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@ mailman. youve proven my point, if the soul is life, and the body is material (flesh and blood), why can mere man take away life (soul as you call it) when scripture says only God can kill the soul?
If somebody were to murder, wouldnt they also take away the life (soul) of their victim? this contradicts scripture that no man can kill the soul. God is Almighty, it shouldn’t be hard for him to destroy an immortal soul if he wills it since he “holds all things together”.

read a parallel passage:
Luke 12:4-5: “And I say to you, 'My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!”
I think you’re not getting my point. A man who commits murder takes away life – yes, but that is only temporary. His victim will live again because of the resurrection. So, in a way, he has not really killed him. What the scripture is saying is that man cannot claim to kill the soul because God will bring all the dead souls back to life.

To illustrate, suppose an assassin shoots his target “dead.” However, 30 minutes later in the hospital, the doctors were able to revive him. He recovered from his wounds and lived a normal, healthy life again. Has the assassin in this case killed his target? Of course, not. Although his victim was dead for 30 minutes, we still say he never killed the man.

Here, death lasted only for a few minutes. But the soul can be dead for thousands of years and still be revived in a resurrection. Had the assassin in our example successfully killed his victim, he would have killed his soul for a much longer period of time, even thousands of years. But when the resurrection happens, we can say that he wasn’t really successful in killing him.

The point made is that man does not possess the power to kill permanently; only God does.
hell is also often times called death since it was opened through sin. (Romans 6:23) therefore the “killing of the soul” means torment in hell.
Hell [as in hellfire, Gehenna in the Greek] and death cannot be used interchangeably. They are connected, yes, but they’re not the same. Death is the absence of life while hell [Gehenna] is the fire that will burn the wicked. They are connected in the sense that God will use hellfire to burn the wicked to death. But they are not the same.

Look at Romans 6:23 again. It says: “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

This teaching is plain and clear. We do not have to look for any hidden meaning to understand it. Notice it speaks of two contrasting extremes: Death and life – death as the penalty for sin and life as a gift of God. If you say death here means eternal torment in hell, then the penalty for sin is not death, but eternal life. But it says eternal life is given only as a gift through Christ. It is not given to all, specifically not to those who commit sin. If the penalty for sin is also eternal life, then this passage would not make any sense.
Why would Jesus have us fear our Father who can “kill the soul”? (Luke 12:4-5; Matt. 10:28)
because he can throw us into everlasting contempt.
Matthew 25:4 “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Look at that passage again. Does it say, “eternal life in torment,” or “eternal life in hell?” It does not. It says, “eternal punishment” – punishment that will last forever.

Now, is the punishment of death for all eternity an eternal punishment? God says the wages of sin is death – death for all eternity. If the wicked will remain dead forever, will not their punishment be eternal?

This passage in Matthew is again speaking of two extremes – death and life – specifically, eternal death and eternal life. It complements the passage in Romans in that it makes clear what kind of death awaits the wicked as God’s punishment for sin.

Daniel 12:2: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.”
Being thrown into a lake of fire and burned into a crisp would be a disgraceful exit indeed. And being “tread down” as “ashes under the soles of [people’s] feet” (Mal. 4:3) for all eternity would be subjecting oneself to everlasting humiliation and contempt, would it not?

God bless.
 
Hi everyone, I’ve been wondering something that pertains to this thread…

What did Jesus mean when he said “the Kingdom of Heaven is within you” in the Gospel according to St. Luke in the eyes of Christianity? I can’t tell you guys how many times I’ve read some New Ager go “See! This is proof that we’re all of the same essence as God and we need to get in touch with that Heaven part of our Selves!” I’m absolutely positive they’re just reading into it what they want to see, as there are so many ways to twist scripture into meaning whatever you want it to mean.

I’d be grateful for your insights!
 
Hi everyone, I’ve been wondering something that pertains to this thread…

What did Jesus mean when he said “the Kingdom of Heaven is within you” in the Gospel according to St. Luke in the eyes of Christianity? I can’t tell you guys how many times I’ve read some New Ager go “See! This is proof that we’re all of the same essence as God and we need to get in touch with that Heaven part of our Selves!” I’m absolutely positive they’re just reading into it what they want to see, as there are so many ways to twist scripture into meaning whatever you want it to mean.

I’d be grateful for your insights!
The Greek word entos, translated “within” is better translated “in the midst of” according to Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985 ed. Several translations, including the NASB, MKJV and Green’s Literal Translation, translate Christ’s words as “the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Jesus was talking of His reign or rule at the head of government, as the Messiah/King.

The Pharisees, who asked Jesus the question, had an erroneous conception of the Kingdom of God [as do many people today]. They knew, from the prophecies in their Scriptures that their Messiah was to come. But they overlooked the prophecies of His first appearing as the Lamb of God to be slain for the sins of humanity. What they saw was only the prophecies of His second coming as the all-conquering and ruling King. But even this they did not fully understand. They looked for Him to come as a purely Jewish Messiah, to liberate them from the Romans. They looked for a limited Jewish kingdom, located in only a small part of the world, with the Messiah ruling and letting the Jews lord it over the Romans.

This, the Pharisees anticipated as the Kingdom of God; and Jesus knew this when they asked Him “when the kingdom of God would come” (Luke 17:20). Jesus set them straight explaining that it would not be a limited kingdom for the Jews only. It would not be merely one of many visible kingdoms which men would point out or see, and say, “This is it, here”, or “that is the Kingdom, over there.” But He, Himself, was born to be King of that Kingdom (John 18:36-37). He was telling them that the very King of that soon coming Kingdom was, then and there, standing in their midst – He was there “among” them (NRSV, New Jerusalem Bible, NAB, New English Bible) but they did not recognize Him (The Bible uses the terms “king” and “kingdom” interchangeably - see Daniel 7:17-18, 23).

This is how the Moffatt translation renders the verse: "He answered them, 'The Reign of God is not coming as you hope to catch sight of it; no one will say, “Here it is” or “There it is,” for the Reign of GOD IS NOW IN YOUR MIDST.”

God bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top