Contradiction In The Lake Of Fire Prophecy

[Neon Genesis]

According to the Book Of Revelation, all non-believers will be cast into the lake of fire when Jesus returns, but this prophecy is dependent upon the existence of non-believers in order to come true. So, if xtians convert everyone to Christianity or otherwise eliminate all non-believers, then this is a failed prophecy, and the bible was wrong. Expect Jesus said in Mark 16:16 to go into all the world and preach the gospel to all nations. But then if non-believers need to exist in order for the prophecy of the lake of fire to come true, then Christians can't possibly preach the gospel to all nations and convert everyone to Christianity. So, either the prophecy in Revelation must come true and Christians must disobey Jesus by not preaching the gospel to everyone and the bible is false. Or Christians must preach the gospel to everyone and Jesus was right, but the prophecy in Revelation was false and the bible was still wrong, anyway.

[Auracle]

According to the Book Of Revelation, all non-believers will be cast into the lake of fire when Jesus returns, but this prophecy is dependent upon the existence of non-believers in order to come true. So, if xtians convert everyone to Christianity or otherwise eliminate all non-believers, then this is a failed prophecy, and the bible was wrong. Expect Jesus said in Mark 16:16 to go into all the world and preach the gospel to all nations. But then if non-believers need to exist in order for the prophecy of the lake of fire to come true, then Christians can't possibly preach the gospel to all nations and convert everyone to Christianity. So, either the prophecy in Revelation must come true and Christians must disobey Jesus by not preaching the gospel to everyone and the bible is false. Or Christians must preach the gospel to everyone and Jesus was right, but the prophecy in Revelation was false and the bible was still wrong, anyway.

 

I don't think this argument quite works, because it seems to assume that everyone to whom the gospel is preached will believe it, which isn't true. I think even the most skilled and knowledgable preacher could preach until they're blue in the face and there will still be unbelievers.

 

So, Christians could preach the gospel to every last person on earth, AND the Revelation prophecy could still come true, because not everybody is going to believe in the gospel.

 

However, if the prophecy is saying that not only will Christians preach the gospel to every last person but every single one of them will also be converted, then yes, there is a problem.

[R. S. Martin]

The once-saved-always-saved doctrine of Calvinism is not at all universal. Thus, just because people convert does not mean that they will get to heaven. There is the constant danger of falling away. Thus we get apostates--like us. "As the tree falleth, so it lieth" was constantly preached at my church. In other words, if a person commits a sin and dies before repenting, that person will end up in hell even if that person had spent seventy years living a righteous life. That concept is in Ezekiel somewhere. So there could well be lots of people in hell. Not to mention that most Christian denominations think all other denominations are going to hell. As you and I know, the whole thing is too twisted to make any sense.

 

Did you know that there are Christians who profess to believe that hell is not a lake of fire? There is one guy on Reasonable Faith.org who thinks anyone who doesn't know that hasn't done much research. He's in the UK and I read yesterday in a book by an Anglican that the Church of England has decided something along that line.

 

I dunno, but in my mind, when the Church of England and the Church of Rome get to decide in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries how God has made the afterlife..........I mean, the men (hardly women) making these laws and rules and decisions are mere mortals who have not yet been there to see for themselves. Who do they think they are to decide what God can and cannot do with them after they are dead??? Who are they kidding but themselves??? I posted a whole batch of verses with fire imagery in them but the guy never responded to them directly. He discounted it in a quick post to someone else as "fire imagery" and nothing more than "imagery."

 

Like hell is it "mere imagery." Imagery is what nightmares are made of. How many of us have looked into a bonfire or wood stove and said to ourselves, "That is what it will be like for me--only much, much worse and for ever and ever--if I don't make it into heaven"? Imagery is powerful. And he just writes it off without explanation. I don't know what he thinks it is about. He excused himself from the conversation now.

[chefranden]

Like hell is it "mere imagery."

 

Then it seems to follow that heaven is mere imagery as well.

[Neon Genesis]

I don't think this argument quite works, because it seems to assume that everyone to whom the gospel is preached will believe it, which isn't true. I think even the most skilled and knowledgable preacher could preach until they're blue in the face and there will still be unbelievers.

 

So, Christians could preach the gospel to every last person on earth, AND the Revelation prophecy could still come true, because not everybody is going to believe in the gospel.

 

However, if the prophecy is saying that not only will Christians preach the gospel to every last person but every single one of them will also be converted, then yes, there is a problem.

This is a good point, but I was mainly thinking of the fundies who think the world would be a better place if they can just get stone all the non-Christians to death, that if they get rid of all the non-believers, then they've just disproved the claims of their bible. But this brings up a question that since Jesus commanded Christians to not only to preach the gospel but to baptize everyone, if a Christian fails to baptize a non-believer, would that Christian then go to hell, too?

[orlando]

I think I read that the C of E now claims hell is just nonexistence or something, and the RC just vaguely claims it is seperation from God, but shys away from mentioning fire etc these days (while only a few decades ago catholic schools were famous for scaring the kids with blood curdling descriptions of hellfire and torments).

 

I think it is all PR -- these days, where they are trying to hang onto believers in the face of atheist arguments and other faith options etc, it doesn;t seem "nice" to mention hellfire. I think the Bible quite clearly refers to fire in a number of places (eg the sheep and goats story, where Jesus says: Then He will say to those at His left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

 

That seems pretty clear to me. And even if it is a "metaphor"I bet the thing it is a metaphor for is not intended to be much fun.

 

I think though the doctine of hell is quite confused. I mean is it a place people will be sent to after the Final Judgment, or a place you go to immediately after death? Catholic theology says the latter -- but after the FJ you get your soul reunited with an everlasting body so as to suffer in hell all the more (presumably even souls suffer somewhat though, otherwise being in hell up to that point would not have been too bad, presumably).

 

Also if hell doesn;t exist now, I don;t understand the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where it says they die and one goes to heaven and one to suffer in fire in hell.

 

If hell is just nonexistance, then what the curches have taught about eternal suffering all these years, has just beenn conveniently chucked out, if on the other hand it is "separation from God" then what is that like? Perhaps it is what Matthew refers to when he talks of people being cast out into outer darkness where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth -- hmm, that doesn;t sound that nice either! Surely they aren;t just trying to brush the nasty bits under the carpet to attract people to Alpha courses etc are they?? They wouldn't do that would they?

 

 

Oh, and how about this from the (unfashionable and not mentioned in churches --- I wonder why - but official for both Anglicans and Catholics) Athanasian Creed : "They that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire."

 

Sounds pretty clear to me.

[mwc]

According to the Book Of Revelation, all non-believers will be cast into the lake of fire when Jesus returns, but this prophecy is dependent upon the existence of non-believers in order to come true. So, if xtians convert everyone to Christianity or otherwise eliminate all non-believers, then this is a failed prophecy, and the bible was wrong. Expect Jesus said in Mark 16:16 to go into all the world and preach the gospel to all nations. But then if non-believers need to exist in order for the prophecy of the lake of fire to come true, then Christians can't possibly preach the gospel to all nations and convert everyone to Christianity. So, either the prophecy in Revelation must come true and Christians must disobey Jesus by not preaching the gospel to everyone and the bible is false. Or Christians must preach the gospel to everyone and Jesus was right, but the prophecy in Revelation was false and the bible was still wrong, anyway.

I'd have to read the whole thing to make sure the time line is right and the problem with comparing Revelation to G.Mark but aside from that it seems to me that preaching doesn't mean believing. So you die, go to hell (hades), get raised up, judged, tossed bodily into hell and tossed into the lake of fire.

 

What you should be asking yourself is what happens after the magic cube Jerusalem lands. Because it's stated that when that happens there are still "22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" on the outside of the the cube. The prior verse: "22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." So "for without" are those who are not allowed within. Those barred from access. Not in the past but in that present.

 

So why is it that in the "perfect" future of the new heaven and new earth are there "dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, murderers, idolaters and liars?" I'm not even sure how, with GOD and SON living in a 1500 mile transparent gold cube, you could manage to be an idolater. But what do I know? It still says there will be nations. Apparently division of management will still be required too.

 

mwc

[Jeff H]

The problem here is that there are a bunch of convoluted doctrines all squished into one book. It's interesting to know that the Jewish concept of "heaven" was the "New Jerusalem" or the "kingdom of God", which was not a place way up in the sky somewhere, but a new age on earth where God ruled directly (just like back in the good ol' days). Many, if not most, NT scholars would say that, as a Jew, this is most likely what Jesus taught - that's why you can have sorcerers, murderers, etc. outside the city limits. Then somewhere along the line, pagan influences crept in to give the notion of heaven and hell as places we go after we die.

 

I'm not entirely sure about the parables like the rich man and Lazarus or the sheep and goats parable, but likely the scholars that believe that Jesus taught the whole present-reality kingdom of God would either say that it was a later addition put into the mouth of Jesus, or else it was not meant to be a doctrinal statement about the actual places we go after death, but rather a tool used to describe the nature of judgment and reversal of fortunes.

[mwc]

The problem here is that there are a bunch of convoluted doctrines all squished into one book. It's interesting to know that the Jewish concept of "heaven" was the "New Jerusalem" or the "kingdom of God", which was not a place way up in the sky somewhere, but a new age on earth where God ruled directly (just like back in the good ol' days). Many, if not most, NT scholars would say that, as a Jew, this is most likely what Jesus taught - that's why you can have sorcerers, murderers, etc. outside the city limits. Then somewhere along the line, pagan influences crept in to give the notion of heaven and hell as places we go after we die.

I don't believe this is the "Jewish" idea of "heaven." I believe it's a reworked Jewish revenge scenario. They had been ejected from Rome in the past. Their city was destroyed. So they were going to get a great big new city and have exclusive access to it. This new city was also going to offer perks like eternal life and their "god" was going to actually live there. Nice. Take that losers. If you want a piece of this action you'll have to humble yourself before the folks you kicked around. Maybe it's "heaven" but in a different sense of the word. The xian crap gets in the way of the story.

 

I'm not entirely sure about the parables like the rich man and Lazarus or the sheep and goats parable, but likely the scholars that believe that Jesus taught the whole present-reality kingdom of God would either say that it was a later addition put into the mouth of Jesus, or else it was not meant to be a doctrinal statement about the actual places we go after death, but rather a tool used to describe the nature of judgment and reversal of fortunes.

Stories like the Rich man and Lazarus (and Revelation even) reveal big problems. If you die and go immediately to a "heaven" or a "hell" and then there's a "Day of Judgment" then that day of your death, when you go to "heaven" or "hell" is like a little "pre-judgment" isn't it? Is there a chance you could wind up in the other place between death and the actual judgment? So you die, go to heaven, then you're judged and go to hell? Or vice-versa? It doesn't seem that way. So upon death you're actually "judged" so the Day of Judgment is really a formality. Your fate is already sealed. This kind of defeats the whole point of "justice" and all that crap. It also seems (from the parable) that Moses and the prophets is what should convince a person and not a person returning from the dead.

 

mwc

[orlando]

The problem here is that there are a bunch of convoluted doctrines all squished into one book. It's interesting to know that the Jewish concept of "heaven" was the "New Jerusalem" or the "kingdom of God", which was not a place way up in the sky somewhere, but a new age on earth where God ruled directly (just like back in the good ol' days). Many, if not most, NT scholars would say that, as a Jew, this is most likely what Jesus taught - that's why you can have sorcerers, murderers, etc. outside the city limits. Then somewhere along the line, pagan influences crept in to give the notion of heaven and hell as places we go after we die.

 

I'm not entirely sure about the parables like the rich man and Lazarus or the sheep and goats parable, but likely the scholars that believe that Jesus taught the whole present-reality kingdom of God would either say that it was a later addition put into the mouth of Jesus, or else it was not meant to be a doctrinal statement about the actual places we go after death, but rather a tool used to describe the nature of judgment and reversal of fortunes.

 

Yes, I gues this might be the case. I do think personally that Jesus'main thrust was teaching a literal KIngdom of God, ie a transformation of the physical world (or possibly a kind of coming together of Heven and Earth) , with glorified, everlasting bodies for the faithful to enjoy it in. I think though that he might have literally thought there was a place - possibly uder the Earth - under the earth where the unfaithful people would go instead. I finf the Bible and Christian doctrines confusing about finala things, including the initial state of people after death, and an ultimate state after the Final Judgment. Even NT WRight, who insists on the "original"teachings of physical resurrection into a renewed physical world etc, and says "the soul going to Heaven" is not what it's about, refers to people "sleeping"in heaven first, from what I remember. I'm not sure how this "soul sleeping" stuff is meant to work. It also seems to contradict eg jesus statement "today you will be with me in Heaven" (as does, for that matter, the belief Jesus died and spent three days in Hell or if not the firey punishment version at least some sort of Underworld or Limbo). I have read some intersting quotes from Justin Martyr and Inenaeus in the 2nd C who spoke out vigorously against the idea that CHristians should focus on "going to Heaven"and not resurrection, saying this was mere Pagan philosophy. I have read, which seem s plausible, that the modern emphasis on going to heaven may be influenced by the decision of Matthew's Gospel to use the phrase Kingdom of Heaven instead of Kingdom of God, even though something different from the usual sense of Heaven, as the abode of God and the angels is meant

[orlando]

Stories like the Rich man and Lazarus (and Revelation even) reveal big problems. If you die and go immediately to a "heaven" or a "hell" and then there's a "Day of Judgment" then that day of your death, when you go to "heaven" or "hell" is like a little "pre-judgment" isn't it? Is there a chance you could wind up in the other place between death and the actual judgment? So you die, go to heaven, then you're judged and go to hell? Or vice-versa? It doesn't seem that way. So upon death you're actually "judged" so the Day of Judgment is really a formality. Your fate is already sealed. This kind of defeats the whole point of "justice" and all that crap. It also seems (from the parable) that Moses and the prophets is what should convince a person and not a person returning from the dead.

 

mwc

 

I agree this doctrine makes no sense at all -- and even so it is formalised in Catholic dogma as a "particular judgment"after death and then a general judgment when Christ returns to Earth and raises the dead. As you say, it appears that will be a mere formality, apart from the fact that you also get a body back, so as to enjoy or suffer more, -- up to then you were apparently just living in heaven or hell as a spirit

 

I don;pt personally though think that the KIngdom of God on Earth thing only dates fom the Jews feeling upset after the destruction of the temple etc. I think it dates to earlier persecutions/occupations -- they were fed up of being the under dog so they imagined a glorious future when God would sort everything out. A bodily resurrection and a coming Kingdom of God was, I understand, quite a common belief among Jesus'contemporaries. They literally thought the Messiah would usher in this new golden age and all the faithful would sit down to a big banquet with him - this banquet with the Messiah is also mentioned in the gospels somewhere

[Jeff H]

I don't believe this is the "Jewish" idea of "heaven." I believe it's a reworked Jewish revenge scenario. They had been ejected from Rome in the past. Their city was destroyed. So they were going to get a great big new city and have exclusive access to it. This new city was also going to offer perks like eternal life and their "god" was going to actually live there. Nice. Take that losers. If you want a piece of this action you'll have to humble yourself before the folks you kicked around. Maybe it's "heaven" but in a different sense of the word. The xian crap gets in the way of the story.

Sorry, I think we're saying the same thing in different words. I put "heaven" in quotes because what Christians think of what will happen in heaven, the Jews would have thought it would happen on earth. So the Jewish concept of heaven would have been the abode of God/angels, and nothing else. The "afterlife" for them would involve the resurrection of the dead, and then the new age on earth with God ruling them directly.

 

Yes, I gues this might be the case. I do think personally that Jesus'main thrust was teaching a literal KIngdom of God, ie a transformation of the physical world (or possibly a kind of coming together of Heven and Earth) , with glorified, everlasting bodies for the faithful to enjoy it in. I think though that he might have literally thought there was a place - possibly uder the Earth - under the earth where the unfaithful people would go instead. I finf the Bible and Christian doctrines confusing about finala things, including the initial state of people after death, and an ultimate state after the Final Judgment. Even NT WRight, who insists on the "original"teachings of physical resurrection into a renewed physical world etc, and says "the soul going to Heaven" is not what it's about, refers to people "sleeping"in heaven first, from what I remember. I'm not sure how this "soul sleeping" stuff is meant to work. It also seems to contradict eg jesus statement "today you will be with me in Heaven" (as does, for that matter, the belief Jesus died and spent three days in Hell or if not the firey punishment version at least some sort of Underworld or Limbo).

You're right, it is pretty confusing. As far as the thief on the cross, though, Jesus says that "today you will be with me in Paradise", which if I understand correctly, is a little different. Jews, I think, believed that in between death and the resurrection, the souls of people (at least the Jews, I don't know about anyone else) would go to a place called Paradise (or Abraham's bosom, like in the Lazarus story), and await the resurrection. It was kind of a lobby area, I guess. I don't know about the magazine selection there. But at any rate, it's difficult to determine what they would say happened to the evildoers. Perhaps by Jesus' day, the concept of hell was there, and so the Lazarus story is an accurate reflection. But I think it's easier to say that there was a wide variety of beliefs among Jews around that time period, so you had people like the Sadducees that didn't believe in any resurrection at all, and then likely some Jews that believed in some sort of hell or place of torment.

[orlando]

Sounds about right to me. And then of course why would we really expect it to make good sense, since we know it's all a bunch of made up theories by pretty ignorant people anyway

[Auracle]

Well, whatever the deal is with Judgment Day, apparently it is coming, and our fate on that day is all about whether we vote pro-life or pro-choice...

 

 

[R. S. Martin]

I don't know if this fits exactly into this thread but I'd like to share it because of how much it meant to me. There are Christians these days who tell us that hell is not a lake of fire. I got one person to tell me on what scriptures this idea is based.

 

Hell is described as a place of eternal darkness. Flames would light things up. Flames also consume things which would seem to be contrary to a place of eternal torment.

 

Hebrews 12:29 says that God is a consuming fire but nobody really thinks of God as a literal fire. It is figurative.

 

Acts 2:3 describes tongues like flames of fires. Once again, figurative.

 

I can't find the verse at the moment but it's written that Jesus will return surrounded by flames. The flames seem to be figurative for His judgement - much like when metals are placed into a fire it separates the purities from the impurities.

FROM here, Post 40

 

In a later post, the same person said: I refer you to this article on Hell by J.P. Moreland:

http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000347.cfm

 

I looked at that article by Moreland and basically it is full of contradictions. All I need to know is that there are legitimate ways to interpret the hell verses not to read lake of fire into them. I know the whole thing is superstitious but superstition that had been drilled since childhood, and around which all life decisions had been made for the first forty years of my life, and which still affects my life directly because of the way close relatives treat me--knowing that the very basis of that superstition can legitimately be understood to be mistaken means a LOT to me.

 

This is probably all muddled but I felt a very deep relief when I got that post. I started a brand new thread "I'm saved from hell at last!" Not surprisingly the Christians are not very pleased.

[Manditag in AK]

Referring to the Original Poster, it says to preach to all the nations, not even every person. For example, that just means some missionary has to have been to China, Japan, Russia, Germany, etc......so of course there will be unbelievers!

[ogilvy]

[quote name=

 

So why is it that in the "perfect" future of the new heaven and new earth are there "dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, murderers, idolaters and liars?" I'm not even sure how, with GOD and SON living in a 1500 mile transparent gold cube, you could manage to be an idolater. But what do I know? It still says there will be nations. Apparently division of management will still be required too.

 

mwc

that might be talking about the 1000 yr period before the new heavens come down. i dont know though.

[Ouroboros]

Well, whatever the deal is with Judgment Day, apparently it is coming, and our fate on that day is all about whether we vote pro-life or pro-choice...

And that's another contradiction. If it's true that in the last days there will be a ruler, anti-christ, and the beast, and all that stuff (I don't remember what is what anymore), then if they pray and vote for a "Christian" leader, then they are delaying the return of Jesus every time. Jesus can't come back until the 7 years of tribulation under Anti-Christ. So if they keep on praying Anti-Christ away, and voting for the "Christian" candidate, they will never see the tribulation! Do they even know what they believe?

[MathGeek]

What has bothered me is the fractions of death after the judgments. By the end, how many people will be left alive after the ultimate judgment? Furthermore, if the earth already has a finite population, how is it possible for an endless stream of humans to be worshipping God if the majority of them are going to be cooked, fried, crushed, mutilated and the like? Does this include the humans that have been judged prior to the final judgment or were those humans judged already and are free to bow down before Yahweh for the remaining time prior to the judgment?

 

I need to reread those judgments and actually come up with a workable scenario.

[mwc]

that might be talking about the 1000 yr period before the new heavens come down. i dont know though.

Nope. It's most certainly talking about the time when everything else has already happened. That's what makes it so fun.

 

mwc

[mwc]

What has bothered me is the fractions of death after the judgments. By the end, how many people will be left alive after the ultimate judgment? Furthermore, if the earth already has a finite population, how is it possible for an endless stream of humans to be worshipping God if the majority of them are going to be cooked, fried, crushed, mutilated and the like? Does this include the humans that have been judged prior to the final judgment or were those humans judged already and are free to bow down before Yahweh for the remaining time prior to the judgment?

 

I need to reread those judgments and actually come up with a workable scenario.

Are you going to try to harmonize everything or just work with Revelation? If you try to harmonize everything, well, good luck. If you're going to work with just Revelation, well, you'll get closer.

 

It's really very easy though. There's a judgment. After that judgment Death and Hades get tossed into the lake of fire. Whatever happens before this event doesn't even matter because there's no other judgments that happen after this event. So there could be a billion judgments that come before but who cares? This one is the one that really matters. So things (death and hades) go into the old lake of fire and other things don't.

 

There's a new heaven and earth. A New Jerusalem. The freaky lamb marries the New Jerusalem (forget Paul because Revelation says the bride of the lamb is the city...and fundies oppose gay marriage). But the lamb isn't jesus. Jesus is specifically called jesus. The lamb is something else (likely the "church" but it's hard to say...I still support a "chosen" or "elect" group of some sort). The lamb "marries" the city. The lamb also rules with god from within the city where the tree of life is (it gives fruit each month). So the lamb is with god in the city (it's bride) and rules (an elect group of people in their special city).

 

Outside the city, never to enter, is the dregs of society. They can't get direct access to the tree or the river that flows from god (I forgot there is no water on the new earth). So the people inside (the elect) would provide the outsiders what they need at their discretion. The fruit "heals the nations" (I think that is the quote). But the people inside gain eternal life by partaking of the tree and river as they please. That's the gimmick. It's not some special heaven place or whatever but a variation of the Garden of Eden with this group as the caretakers.

 

But inside the city are the "chosen" and outside are the "dogs" and they both co-exist basically for eternity. The only difference appears to be that maybe the ones outside are subject to the normal life-cycle though "death" was dispatched into the lake so maybe not. They may just live less than ideal lives. Look at my previous post in this thread and it will mention that the people will still not believe in god and do all sorts of other things. The ones that get "judged" and tossed into the lake are the enemies of the "chosen" ones (the lamb) and they are removed via a genocidal type war so the Lambites can have this new world and live happily ever after.

 

Anyhow, in Revelation the people inside the city could worship forever since they are there for the long haul and it appears that they could have children just like those outside the city seem capable of doing (just like there are also still nations outside the city). Though "worship" in this case is less harps and singing but more like to revere like one would a king as you went about your day to day business.

 

mwc

[ogilvy]

I don't know if this fits exactly into this thread but I'd like to share it because of how much it meant to me. There are Christians these days who tell us that hell is not a lake of fire. I got one person to tell me on what scriptures this idea is based.

 

Hell is described as a place of eternal darkness. Flames would light things up. Flames also consume things which would seem to be contrary to a place of eternal torment.

 

Hebrews 12:29 says that God is a consuming fire but nobody really thinks of God as a literal fire. It is figurative.

 

Acts 2:3 describes tongues like flames of fires. Once again, figurative.

 

I can't find the verse at the moment but it's written that Jesus will return surrounded by flames. The flames seem to be figurative for His judgement - much like when metals are placed into a fire it separates the purities from the impurities.

FROM here, Post 40

 

In a later post, the same person said: I refer you to this article on Hell by J.P. Moreland:

http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000347.cfm

 

I looked at that article by Moreland and basically it is full of contradictions. All I need to know is that there are legitimate ways to interpret the hell verses not to read lake of fire into them. I know the whole thing is superstitious but superstition that had been drilled since childhood, and around which all life decisions had been made for the first forty years of my life, and which still affects my life directly because of the way close relatives treat me--knowing that the very basis of that superstition can legitimately be understood to be mistaken means a LOT to me.

 

This is probably all muddled but I felt a very deep relief when I got that post. I started a brand new thread "I'm saved from hell at last!" Not surprisingly the Christians are not very pleased.

a jehovah's witness explained it to me that humans can't burn in hell for eternity, because humans are mortal, therefore after death, they can't live on. those that are born again of the spirit can live on, because they have eternal life, but those who are not born again remain 'dead', as they are said to be also 'dead' in this life. i might be getting a bit mixed up with who told me which bit, because i dont think jehovah's witnesses believe christians are 'born again', but anyway, it makes sense according to bible doctrine, that if there is such a thing as born again, those will be the ones who live eternally, and the rest would cease to exist. i would certainly prefer to cease to exist than to be tormented for eternity in hell. apparently, the devil and the beast can be tormented forever in the lake of fire because, being originally angels, they do have immortal life.

[MathGeek]

Man, I understand mathematics but this analysis of Revelation theology makes my brain hurt. Ouch!

[Neon Genesis]

But inside the city are the "chosen" and outside are the "dogs" and they both co-exist basically for eternity. The only difference appears to be that maybe the ones outside are subject to the normal life-cycle though "death" was dispatched into the lake so maybe not. They may just live less than ideal lives. Look at my previous post in this thread and it will mention that the people will still not believe in god and do all sorts of other things. The ones that get "judged" and tossed into the lake are the enemies of the "chosen" ones (the lamb) and they are removed via a genocidal type war so the Lambites can have this new world and live happily ever after.

 

Anyhow, in Revelation the people inside the city could worship forever since they are there for the long haul and it appears that they could have children just like those outside the city seem capable of doing (just like there are also still nations outside the city). Though "worship" in this case is less harps and singing but more like to revere like one would a king as you went about your day to day business.

 

mwc

This was always the thing that confused me most about this whole premillennialism thing. Where do premillenialists get this idea of Jesus coming back to Earth and establishing a kingdom here for Christians to rule? Didn't Jesus always say that his kingdom was not of this world and was against the idea of setting up an Earthly kingdom? Isn't that why the bible claims the Jews rejected Jesus? Because they wanted an Earthly kingdom and Jesus didn't? So, why would Jesus then contradict himself and come back in the future to set up the Earthly kingdom he was against from the start? I always just believed Jesus would come back, everyone would fly up in the sky to meet Jesus for the judgment, god would judge us and all the evil sinners would go to hell and the true Christians would go to heaven. I never believed in any of that stuff about Christians battling non-Christians or the whole thing about Christians ruling the Earth.

[mwc]

This was always the thing that confused me most about this whole premillennialism thing. Where do premillenialists get this idea of Jesus coming back to Earth and establishing a kingdom here for Christians to rule? Didn't Jesus always say that his kingdom was not of this world and was against the idea of setting up an Earthly kingdom? Isn't that why the bible claims the Jews rejected Jesus? Because they wanted an Earthly kingdom and Jesus didn't? So, why would Jesus then contradict himself and come back in the future to set up the Earthly kingdom he was against from the start? I always just believed Jesus would come back, everyone would fly up in the sky to meet Jesus for the judgment, god would judge us and all the evil sinners would go to hell and the true Christians would go to heaven. I never believed in any of that stuff about Christians battling non-Christians or the whole thing about Christians ruling the Earth.

Well, I skipped that part in my last post since mathgeek was looking for numbers and they become irrelevant at a certain point.

 

Here's the long answer to your question.

 

In chapter 20 we get all this stuff:

 

1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key of the great deep and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he took the dragon, the old snake, which is the Evil One and Satan, and

put chains on him for a thousand years

, 3 And put him into the great deep, and it was shut and locked over him, so that he might put the nations in error no longer, till the thousand years were ended: after this he will be let loose for a little time. 4 And I saw high seats, and they were seated on them, and the right of judging was given to them: and

I saw the souls of those who were put to death for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and those who did not give worship to the beast, or to his image, and had not his mark on their brows or on their hands

; and

they were living and ruling with Christ a thousand years

. 5

The rest of the dead did not come to life again till the thousand years were ended

.

This is the first coming back from the dead

. 6 Happy and holy is he who has a part in this first coming: over these the second death has no authority, but

they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will be ruling with him a thousand years

. 7 And

when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be let loose out of his prison

, 8 And will go out to put in error the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to get them together to the war, the number of whom is like the sands of the sea. 9 And they went up over the face of the earth, and made a circle about the tents of the saints, and the well loved town: and fire came down out of heaven for their destruction. 10 And the Evil One who put them in error was sent down into the sea of ever-burning fire, where the beast and the false prophet are, and their punishment will go on day and night for ever and ever.

 

As you can see this is where the whole millennium thing comes from. All who survive the beast and whatnot get to "rule" with with "Christ" (not jesus...this is an important distinction). Anyhow, this goes on 1000 years and then there's another battle for some reason then it's all over. Then comes the actual raising of the dead, the judgment and the tossing into the lake of fire.

 

So why do I say that "Christ" is distinct from "jesus?" Because of this (chapter 19):

 

11 And the heaven was open; and I saw a white horse, and he who was seated on it was named Certain and True; and he is judging and making war in righteousness. 12 And his eyes are a flame of fire, and crowns are on his head; and he has a name in writing, of which no man has knowledge but himself. 13 And he is clothed in a robe washed with blood: and his name is The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven went after him on white horses, clothed in delicate linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth comes a sharp sword, with which he overcomes the nations: and he has rule over them with a rod of iron: and he is crushing with his feet the grapes of the strong wrath of God the Ruler of all. 16 And on his robe and on his leg is a name, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. 17 And I saw an angel taking his place in the sun; and he was crying with a loud voice, saying to all the birds in flight in the heavens, Come together to the great feast of God; 18 So that you may take for your food the flesh of kings, and of captains, and of strong men, and of horses and of those who are seated on them, and the flesh of all men, free and unfree, small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, come together to make war against him who was seated on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet who did the signs before him, by which they were turned from the true way who had the mark of the beast, and who gave worship to his image: these two were put living into the sea of ever-burning fire. 21 And the rest were put to death with the sword of him who was on the horse, even the sword which came out of his mouth: and all the birds were made full with their flesh.

 

This kick-ass warrior is THE Christ. Basically, he's an emperor (from the title "King of Kings"). John knows how to say "Jesus" but he doesn't. This warrior christ, the one the Jews wanted, cleans house. If you believe that jesus is the christ then you'll associate the two but there's no reason to do so here. In the two sentences prior to the above it says:

 

9 And he said to me, Put in the book,

Happy are the guests at the bride-feast of the Lamb

. And he said to me, These are the true words of God. 10 And I went on my face before his feet to give him worship. And he said to me, See you do it not: I am a brother-servant with you and with your brothers

who keep the witness of Jesus: give worship to God: for the witness of Jesus is the spirit of the prophet's word

.

Clearly this John knows all about the lamb, god and jesus. Why he'd suddenly obfuscate things (and have jesus playing many, many roles) makes no sense.

 

The christ in the next section is a distinct character. The christ the Jews wanted, and hoped, would arrive to save them from Rome (it never happened which is why this is a revenge fantasy). This christ was to pave the way for the new, restored, Judea and Jerusalem. The "kingdom of god" right here on earth. Jews never went to "heaven" as it were (there were a number of beliefs really). One was rather "Greek" in that there were "ages" that repeated. The first was "good" but it ended. The other repeated. The final age would occur when "something" happened (a number of "somethings" were believed by different groups...ie. people had to change their hearts to be "good" or a huge apocalyptic battle where many, or few, live, etc.). Once that "something" occured the final "age" would come and it would "stick." There would be no more "ages." Essentially eternity would set it.

 

A "christ" figure was often the catalyst for this "something" this "change." In Revelation there is a "lamb" or a symbolic group of 7 spirits that allows the seals to be opened. This starts it all. The "christ" comes later. Then 1000 years. A final battle. Then judgment. Then finally a new "age" that goes forever.

 

mwc