Did God Create hell?

[simonpeter]

Leviticus 19:  18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

SP... The reason for the difference is because they are two myths coupled togegther that should have never been.  Jesus fails the tests of The Messiah in more ways than one. Besides, looks like in Revelations that his YHWH psyche return.

 

If that was long winded, I'd hate to see short! LOL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You bring up an interesting point concerning the Messiahship. I did a fair amount of research about the Messiahship, reading various writings from several rabbi's. I can see why the Jews of then and now reject Jesus as the Messiah. For example, in one of the Jewish writings the Messiah would be able to show where the location of the bones of Moses. Jesus didn't do that.

 

By the way, around 36AD, non-Biblical, Roman historical information informs us that Pilate was fired from his job and sent back to Rome because of his pursuit of a "proposed" Messiah. I can't remember his name but a leader of a group was claiming to be the Messiah and lead his followers up a mountain in Samaria to show them the bones of Moses. Pilate, fearing he was planning insurrection, took his soldiers and killed all of them. Rome doesn't like potential tax payers killed and Pilate was fired.

 

The scriptures are quite clear that the Messiah is a warrior and will conquor the foreign enemy and then establish his throne in Jersualem and rule the world. Jesus wasn't much of a warrior. However, he does fullfill many if not most of the prophesies.

 

You undoubtedly know the first theory about this: The prophetsies were metaphores. The enemy not really a foreign power but Satan and so on. However, for what it is worth, I subscribe to a different theory, stolen and not of my own.

 

On the basis the Bible is not inerrant, I believe the prophets got some of their information wrong. I believe in the possibility on a continuing "translation" problem between God and man. God inspired and man screwed up. History of almost all religions indicates that when man gets involved he has a tendency to enhance the local religion to suit his own needs and for the quest for power.

 

I also have my own concocted theory that works along side the "translation" theory. As a strong believer in spiritual warfare, I wonder if God provided Isaiah a certain amount of information to encourage the populace but couldn't reveal everything. For to do so would inform the enemy (Satan) of his battle plans.

 

Boy, I'm getting to sound like a true apologist. I subscribe to all three theories. For what it is worth, I am awe struck by Isaiah 53 which was written 800 years before Jesus was born.

[simonpeter]

You bring up an interesting point concerning the Messiahship. I did a fair amount of research about the Messiahship, reading various writings from several rabbi's. I can see why the Jews of then and now reject Jesus as the Messiah. For example, in one of the Jewish writings the Messiah would be able to show where the location of the bones of Moses. Jesus didn't do that.

 

By the way, around 36AD, non-Biblical, Roman historical information informs us that Pilate was fired from his job and sent back to Rome because of his pursuit of a "proposed" Messiah. I can't remember his name but a leader of a group was claiming to be the Messiah and lead his followers up a mountain in Samaria to show them the bones of Moses. Pilate, fearing he was planning insurrection, took his soldiers and killed all of them. Rome doesn't like potential tax payers killed and Pilate was fired. 

 

The scriptures are quite clear that the Messiah is a warrior and will conquor the foreign enemy and then establish his throne in Jersualem and rule the world. Jesus wasn't much of a warrior. However, he does fullfill many if not most of the prophesies.

 

Hold on: I have a brain fart ............

Concerning Revelations, I believe John was licking toads when he wrote this. I worry about any "Christian" who justifies their faith by using this book. I don't have the equipment to understand this book.

............................................................................

You undoubtedly know the first theory about this: The prophetsies were metaphores. The enemy not really a foreign power but Satan and so on. However, for what it is worth, I subscribe to a different theory, stolen and not of my own.

 

On the basis the Bible is not inerrant, I believe the prophets got some of their information wrong. I believe in the possibility on a continuing "translation" problem between God and man. God inspired and man screwed up. History of almost all religions indicates that when man gets involved he has a tendency to enhance the local religion to suit his own needs and for the quest for power.

 

I also have my own concocted theory that works along side the "translation" theory. As a strong believer in spiritual warfare, I wonder if God provided Isaiah a certain amount of information to encourage the populace but couldn't reveal everything. For to do so would inform the enemy (Satan) of his battle plans.

 

Boy, I'm getting to sound like a true apologist. I subscribe to all three theories. For what it is worth, I am awe struck by Isaiah 53 which was written 800 years before Jesus was born.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Vixentrox]

So, is it possible that God learned? In my opinion, it appears so and God I hope so. And, by the way, this Dr. didn't have all the answers either. Gratefully, he would admit it and just shrug his shoulders and say, "I don't know. What do you think?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What do I think? If god is still learning that means he's making mistakes. A being that makes mistakes absolutly isn't perfect OR unchanging (assuming he is learning from them). So, now you went from an all-powerfull, all-knowing, all-present god to a flawed god who makes mistakes and doesn't know everything. So is your next assertion going to be that god isn't everywhere? May as well ditch the last Omni- feature of god while your on a roll.

[simonpeter]

I do not agree at all that he fulfilled all or most of the prophecies.  That he did not do the above at the appointed time, according to scripture, he fits the identity of a false prophet according to Jewish Gods explicit instruction/warning per Deuteronomy.  It's all or nothing, not a few things.  Not to mention that when the Messiah came that was supposed to be it, no dying and then resurrecting, etc.

Um, no I am not aware of this theory nor do I think it applies to all scripture prophecy.  I'm not a bible scholar, to me it's just plain logic and reason.  For instance, I would apply metaphorically the description of the beast, etc.  However, Babylon literally meant Babylon, we can't metaphorically apply that to another time.  God's destruction is meant to be taken literally, not metaphorically.  You can't have the word "quickly" used throughout the whole bible literally mean "quickly" and then metaphorically change the definition to accomodate unfulfilled prophecies. 

Sorry simonpeter, that is yet just another excuse to explain away the inconsistencies of the bible as it was meant to be taken.  Why even bother with it?  Who decides what is true and false in the bible?  It's easy when you're not a believer.  You see the bible for what it is, a belief started by a tribe to control the people via fear of an invisible deity.  You see the NT as a book clearly put together by an evil church to do the same thing, only a couple milleniums later. 

 

Look at the Dark Ages.

 

You make good points. I don't believe that through all my rantings I referred to God as all-knowing and omni. I do believe He is faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall bldgs. in a single bound; i.e., All Powerful. For those of us who believe in spiritual warfare, Satan and the like, which includes most Fundamentalists, we don't have the answer on why God doesn't lift His little finger and wipe Satan out. The Resurrection is usually described as a major victory -- good conquored over evil -- but the battle rages on.

 

Man, I hate to use the "F" word at this point, but I have to. Pushing aside my postulations the fundamental basis of Christianity is "Faith." 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Ouroboros]

Dude, you need to get better on your "Quoting" abilities!

 

Your message is a bit messed up.

 

[ quote] starts a quote

[/ quote] ends a quote

[Ouroboros]

I feel that Isaiah 53 is an example of twisting scripture to meet one's needs.  If I'm not mistaken it WAS in fact supposed to be a prophecy, but had to do with the jewish people as a whole and nothing to do with Jesus or any messiah whatsoever.  A lot of jews are pretty disgruntled that this passage of the bible has been hijacked as a "christian prophecy"

Not only that, but if you write a fictious story about your "God son friend", you can write the story to match the "old prophesies".

 

I could write a story about a guy that fit all prophesies in the Bible, all of them and more, even fit to Q'uran and the Hitchhikers Guide, and then we have a proof that this "imaginary" friend was prophesied about, and must therefore be true.

 

The prophesy fitting stories in Jesus life are made up just for the purpose to fit the prophesies. So of course they fit.

[simonpeter]

Dude, you need to get better on your "Quoting" abilities!

 

Your message is a bit messed up.

 

[ quote] starts a quote

[/ quote] ends a quote

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My message is a mess. I suspect an evil being has crept in to stop me from postulating.

[Ouroboros]

My message is a mess. I suspect an evil being has crept in to stop me from postulating. 

Maybe the site is hooooh Demon Possessed... burrrh!

[crazy-tiger]

Maybe the site is hooooh Demon Possessed... burrrh!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah... It's name was Invictus1967...

[simonpeter]

Zoe, you are on here, that is EXACTLY what happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To Zoe & Thankful,

I can only say what I have said before. Most Bible scholars, whether Jewish or Christian, are in agreement the Bible needs to be studied in it's entirely with the objective of finding patterns. If one hangs there hat on a couple of verses they may be missing the essence of what is written.

[simonpeter]

Maybe the site is hooooh Demon Possessed... burrrh!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've always said that Satan is not the problem. It's only in how we resond to him.

[♦ ficino ♦]

To Zoe & Thankful,

I can only say what I have said before. Most Bible scholars, whether Jewish or Christian, are in agreement the Bible needs to be studied in it's entirely with the objective of finding patterns. If one hangs there hat on a couple of verses they may be missing the essence of what is written.

 

I don't get this. There were many authors who contributed to the collection of writings we call the Bible. Some of them wrote pieces of what now are unitary books attributed to authors of other names. We would expect at the outset that there will be many patterns, no? Some biblical scholars themselves even write books about how the theology of this writer is different from that one (e.g. Luke from John, or Isaiah from Deutero-Isaiah). Then there's the principle of intertextuality, i.e. a later writer incorporates memes from earlier writers and adds his own twist. So, as Zoe and others have pointed out, for example, one person's pattern about Satan throughout the Bible is another person's collection of misinterpretation and amalgamation of different figurs into one figure. I think the program you describe is almost like studying the works of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and their students and followers together. Lots of patterns are going to emerge.

 

Christian scholars of the late Roman period were convinced that all the bible, from Genesis 1 on down, should be read on several levels, one of which was Christological. Everything in the OT was seen by them as prefiguring Christ. Jewish scholars disagree with that. Same text, different patterns, heavy influence of doctrinal preconceptions.

 

This is part of the reason why I think the bible and theology are fascinating human documents, but that it's a titanic mistake to try to impress a code or system from them upon a whole society. That's what the black hats do in Israel and it's what fundamentalist Christians try to do here.

 

So far I think you're not that, simonpeter. I still don't think the pattern thing is going to yield normative truth, though.

[simonpeter]

I don't get this.  There were many authors who contributed to the collection of writings we call the Bible.  Some of them wrote pieces of what now are unitary books attributed to authors of other names.  We would expect at the outset that there will be many patterns, no?  Some biblical scholars themselves even write books about how the theology of this writer is different from that one (e.g. Luke from John, or Isaiah from Deutero-Isaiah).  Then there's the principle of intertextuality, i.e. a later writer incorporates memes from earlier writers and adds his own twist.  So, as Zoe and others have pointed out, for example, one person's pattern about Satan throughout the Bible is another person's collection of misinterpretation and amalgamation of different figurs into one figure.  I think the program you describe is almost like studying the works of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and their students and followers together.  Lots of patterns are going to emerge.

 

Christian scholars of the late Roman period were convinced that all the bible, from Genesis 1 on down, should be read on several levels, one of which was Christological.  Everything in the OT was seen by them as prefiguring Christ.  Jewish scholars disagree with that.  Same text, different patterns, heavy influence of doctrinal preconceptions.

 

This is part of the reason why I think the bible and theology are fascinating human documents, but that it's a titanic mistake to try to impress a code or system from them upon a whole society.  That's what the black hats do in Israel and it's what fundamentalist Christians try to do here.

 

So far I think you're not that, simonpeter.  I still don't think the pattern thing is going to yield normative truth, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmmm.... Good stuff. I may have not made myself clear concerning patterns. When I am studying/reading the Bible I am always looking for similar themes and patterns concerning the nature of God. Whether one excepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God or not, I think most of us can agree that it is a saga of God constantly reaching out to his children. The means may very but I see this continuing theme in each "half" of the Bible.

 

In my limited study of other religions I don't see that similar theme. The fault that we "Christians" have made through time is that too many of them have portrayed God as an God that must be appeased.

 

My two cents worth.

[John]

simonpeter, as I have read some of your posts, I have noted that you’re good at sidestepping issues.

 

God deliberately creates people, so they can fail His ridiculous test (genetics and the environment shape someone’s personality, duh). One just has to look at the ME (or any other regions with few or no practitioners of the Christian faith).

 

BEAR IN MIND, GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT INFLUENCES SOMEONE’S ACTIONS. LET’S SUPPOSE YOU’RE BORN IN BAHRAIN, YOU WOULD WITHOUT A DOUBT BE MUSLIM. IN FACT, YOU WOULDN’T EVEN HEAR ABOUT CHRISTIANITY!

 

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, then explain your position.

 

simonpeter and God are both sadist since they derive pleasure from pain (bizarre). For instance, Einstein is in Hell being tortured for eternity (with absolutely no justification for this punishment), while simonpeter and God are receiving pleasure from this. ROTLMAO!

 

Well, lets hear your justification.

 

How bout we put God in Bahrain, and see how well He would do. Of course, He would fail miserably.

 

Wouldn’t you agree? No one would deny this.

 

Of course, He deliberately created them that way, so they could sin. He could have created them with different personalities.

 

Agree or disagree? If you don’t, explain.

 

Quit arguing about this since the entire apple idea is absurd! Knowledge isn’t gained from eating stuff, duh.

 

This is the knowledge they had received:

 

3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

 

He is all-knowing! You don’t even know your own Bible! Also, God cannot be omniscient since He cannot know an infinite amount of things. He would still be learning. ROTFLMAO!

 

Yes, I have read what you believed. I think you came to that conclusion due to this verse:

 

2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

 

How could an all-knowing being “increase in wisdom”? And how could God increase “in favour with God”?

 

But . . . here are verses, which oppose yours:

 

Jer.23:24

Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth?

 

Acts 1:24

Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men.

 

Pr.15:3

The eyes of the Lord are in every place.

 

Jer.16:17

For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes.

 

You already contradicted the Bible since I’m responsible for Eve eating the forbidden fruit!

 

Very well, do you believe someone should be responsible for someone’s actions? A yes or no will be sufficient.

[shy1680]

I decided years ago I wouldn't make a very good Jew. If all I had was the O.T., Talmud and other ancient Jewish writings, I wouldn't be very close to God. If God orchestrated the O.T. to reveal Himself then I must say I see a lot of things I certainly don't understand and don't like.

 

However, we do have the N.T. I don't know about you, but in comparing the two, I see a different God. Jesus claims to be the Father; that, he and the Father are one. I believe this. It is unmistakingly clear the Old Covenant did not work: the old laws and the way God interacted with his people. Jesus brings in the New Covenant. I don't know what all of that entails, but what I see of Jesus I like. He also spent a lot of time amending or clarifying things. Moses: "An eye for an eye." Jesus: "Turn the other cheek."

 

So, is it possible that God learned? In my opinion, it appears so and God I hope so. And, by the way, this Dr. didn't have all the answers either. Gratefully, he would admit it and just shrug his shoulders and say, "I don't know. What do you think?"

 

This God, even though I believe Jesus and God are one, I can worship. I view Jesus as being a just God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

WAIT, I thought God was the creator of everything, nothing is supposed to exist or happen without his workings. And he is super smart and knows everything that will happen before it happens, so how can this mighty God make mistakes? And how can he learn from his mistakes that he already knew were going to happen? To me he is pretty dumb if he knows the outcome but still lets things go through. Hope you never use that arguement trying to convert anyone. Sorry I wont be worshipping a God that has no freaking clue to what he is doing and he is supposed to be holding the key to everything.

[Vixentrox]

Shy1680, earlier Simonpeter said that he didn't belive that the Xtian god was all-knowing. He set things in motion but didn't know every possible outcome and in the bible, acts almost suprised at certain things. While I agree it does make the Xtian god more feeble, it also make him more beliveable.

[shy1680]

Shy1680, earlier Simonpeter said that he didn't belive that the Xtian god was all-knowing.  He set things in motion but didn't know every possible outcome and in the bible, acts almost suprised at certain things.  While I agree it does make the Xtian god more feeble, it also make him more beliveable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for filling me in, this is about the best I have heard in a long time. And yes, I can see where someone would want to use that as an excuse to right the wrongs of their loving God. But I will take the abuser approach on the O.T god, once an abuser, always a .

 

If the Xtian god isnt all knowing, how does prophecy of the N.T. work then? Maybe Im digging too much into this one.

[Ouroboros]

True.  It's a bit of a circular argument. 

 

"How do you know that Jesus is the son of God?"

 

"He fulfilled all these prophesies."

 

"How do you know he fulfilled anything?  How do you know that the stories weren't just written like that to make it look true?  Do you have proof he fulfilled prophesies...How do you know Jesus even existed in the first place?"

 

"But what about the prophesies?"

 

 

Doesn't the Bible say in OT "He will fulfill the prophesies", so by saying that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies then he fulfilled the prophesy to fulfill the prophesies!

 

Wow! It's proven!!!

 

Wait... I feel the spirit of prophesy coming over me... In the near future I will say something stupid...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Something Stupid.

 

 

WOW! I fulfilled the prophesy, and also I am a prophet. Cool. I can quit my job.

[Vixentrox]

You'll have to ask him his viewpoints on it. I was mearly parroting what he mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Ouroboros]

Shy1680, earlier Simonpeter said that he didn't belive that the Xtian god was all-knowing.  He set things in motion but didn't know every possible outcome and in the bible, acts almost suprised at certain things.  While I agree it does make the Xtian god more feeble, it also make him more beliveable.

I realised that this approach to give God human nature, more fallible and unknowning, is a way to make the Christian God more acceptable to people that have the concerns we have.

 

What worries me is with this idea, people will easier get converted and with time, the Christian dogma can go back to the fundie version when everyone has been included.

 

What's wrong all along is to have one book that dictates the liturgy and orthodoxy. It's better to just believe in a higher power like in deism, and just leave it at that. Give God any attributes you want, but never require someone to become a follower of a pre-defined, restricted religion.

[Mike D]

If the Xtian god isnt all knowing, how does prophecy of the N.T. work then?  Maybe Im digging too much into this one.

Hmm, another biblical contradication? It seems to me that if God isn't all-knowing then he can't be god. If there is even one infinitesimal piece of knowledge he lacks, then he isn't infinite, he isn't omniscient, he isn't omnipotent and he isn't omnipresent. If he isn't all-knowing, then he is only slightly better than humans.

[Vixentrox]

It seems that many other gods/godess were not all knowing. They were specialized over diferent things. Maybe a fertility goddess here and a god of scribes there. I don't think (I'm not an expert) that these sorts of gods were considered all-knowing.

[Ouroboros]

Hmm, another biblical contradication?  It seems to me that if God isn't all-knowing then he can't be god.  If there is even one infinitesimal piece of knowledge he lacks, then he isn't infinite, he isn't omniscient, he isn't omnipotent and he isn't omnipresent.  If he isn't all-knowing, then he is only slightly better than humans.

He becomes the god of Aristotle, a demiurge god.

 

Or he becomes the faulty and unpredictable creator god of Gnosticism.

 

It's interesting to look at the Gnostic faith, since the NT is pointing them out as heretic. But the truth is that the Gnostic faith is very different from Christianity, so how could it even have been a heretic teaching? To be a heretic you have to be a part of it, and then fall away from it, to fall of the teachings. But Gnostic is totally different from Christianity.

[Mike D]

It's interesting to look at the Gnostic faith, since the NT is pointing them out as heretic. But the truth is that the Gnostic faith is very different from Christianity, so how could it even have been a heretic teaching? To be a heretic you have to be a part of it, and then fall away from it, to fall of the teachings. But Gnostic is totally different from Christianity.

I don't know much about gnosticism, as far as how those teachings differ from mainline Christianity. I always figured the gnostics were like a denomination of Christianity, like today you have Mormons, JW's, etc. who are usually accused of being heretics by the other demoniations. Heck i've even heard Baptists call Pentecostals heretics and vice versa. Let us not forget, the only Christians who are not heretics are the True Christians ™

[Ouroboros]

I don't know much about gnosticism, as far as how those teachings differ from mainline Christianity.  I always figured the gnostics were like a denomination of Christianity, like today you have Mormons, JW's, etc. who are usually accused of being heretics by the other demoniations.  Heck i've even heard Baptists call Pentecostals heretics and vice versa.  Let us not forget, the only Christians who are not heretics are the True Christians ™ 

From what I remember, I could be wrong but this is how I remember it, that the Gnostic believed in salvation through knowledge, not faith or grace. They also believed the world was created by a lower level god that was less powerful than the highest God.

 

This is an interesting article by the Catholic Press about Gnosticism.

They admit its not a Christian faith, but even predates Christianity.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm