The Apostles and Eternal Hell Teachings

[Cerise]

Pritish, I think it is easy to "speculate" that the reason this person was put to death is because of his lofty attitude about himself, putting himself above these other people and their laws... as the 'story' goes like this...

 

Regardless, this is a damned silly reason to execute a person. Also, it is petty and unworthy of any attribute which could be said to be "holy".

[SkepticOfBible]

Pritish, I think it is easy to "speculate" that the reason this person was put to death is because of his lofty attitude about himself, putting himself above these other people and their laws... as the 'story' goes like this...

 

Numbers

15:28

And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 

-----

15:30

But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously *, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger *, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 

15:31

Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. 

15:32

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 

 

The word 'presumptuously' is defined as I've "speculated" at this site:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew...311&version=kjv

 

I have found nothing indicating he just wanted to cook food. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Numbers 22-31 are just laws about unintentional sins and intentional sins. It is not talking a particular person.

 

Numbers 32-36 is just a story of how they found a man working on a sabbath. This story illustrate how important is the law to Jesus.

 

In these particular verses we do not know whether this man was forced to work out of hunger (ie collecting firewood) or whether he was having a lofty attitude. In fact there is a bit of confusion amongst the hebrews as to what is to be done.

 

He definately broke the law of working on the sabbath, but what were the reason for him for breaking the law is not given.

 

So would I be right to conclude from your defense of these verses that you consider working on a Sabbath a Sin?

 

I have another question

 

If one has a lofty attitude about himself and consider himself above "God's Given Laws", does that attract a death penalty?

[Amanda]

Numbers 22-31 are just laws about unintentional sins and intentional sins. It is not talking a particular person.

 

Numbers 32-36 is just a story of how they found a man working on a sabbath. This story illustrate how important is the law to Jesus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pritish, it seems to me that Numbers 22-31 creates the setting for Numbers 32-36. Perhaps that is why they are consecutive, a congruent continuation. The latter does not make sense without the prior.

 

I have another question

 

If one has a lofty attitude about himself and consider himself above "God's Given Laws", does that attract a death penalty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It would seem that by our standards today, absolutely not. Maybe that has to do with some of these changes Jesus made also, so these things no longer happen.

 

Of course, judging this story by today's standards, death does not seem fair to me... nor any other sane person. Yet, remember they did not have the highly structured society we have today, nor the sophisticated systems of protection, and the benefit of a lengthy ongoing compliance to well established laws. I suppose we would have had to be there to fully understand these implications. Whatever it was, I'm certainly thankful we've evolved out of that mess.

[Mythra]

Hell, that was just one guy. In 1 Samuel Chapter 6, the Philistines are trying to return the ark to the Israelites. God wipes out 50,070 people because a few guys from Beth-Shemesh looked at the ark.

 

50,070 people. Holy shit, God. Take a pill.

[Ouroboros]

Hell, that was just one guy.  In 1 Samuel Chapter 6, the Philistines are trying to return the ark to the Israelites.  God wipes out 50,070 people because a few guys from Beth-Shemesh looked at the ark.

 

50,070 people.  Holy shit, God.  Take a pill.

Heck, God seems bi-polar and needs an anger management class.

 

I wonder if he drinks too...

[All Gods Fail]

Hell, that was just one guy.  In 1 Samuel Chapter 6, the Philistines are trying to return the ark to the Israelites.  God wipes out 50,070 people because a few guys from Beth-Shemesh looked at the ark.

 

50,070 people.  Holy shit, God.  Take a pill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Nice one! I needed a good laff - thanx Mythra!

[SkepticOfBible]

It would seem that by our standards today, absolutely not. Maybe that has to do with some of these changes Jesus made also, so these things no longer happen.

 

As I said before these laws are considered are consider eternal and perfect. And it was supposed to be binding for all time. Where does the Old Testament confirm that the new covenant would replace God's existing Law with a new system human sacrifice? Where does it says in the OT that once you understand the purpose of the law you are exempt from it?

 

Of course, judging this story by today's standards, death does not seem fair to me... nor any other sane person. Yet, remember they did not have the highly structured society we have today, nor the sophisticated systems of protection, and the benefit of a lengthy ongoing compliance to well established laws.

 

So God's moral and absolute Law and code for his worshippers depends on which part of the world the live in and the time they were born?

 

You've pretty much reduced God's Law to moral relativism which fundamentalist Christians hate so much.

 

As far as unsophisticated societies goes, the Greeks, Indians, Aztecs and Egyptians had pretty sophisticated societies, while the Hebrews were still wandering in the desert. It is funny that God would choose his people to remain backward but will let other nation advance.

 

I suppose we would have had to be there to fully understand these implications. Whatever it was, I'm certainly thankful we've evolved out of that mess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well seeing the various interpration and denomination it seems that the mess has increased

[Ouroboros]

As far as unsophisticated societies goes, the Greeks, Indians, Aztecs and Egyptians had pretty sophisticated societies, while the Hebrews were still wandering in the desert. It is funny that God would choose his people to remain backward but will let other nation advance.

It's only because Moses was too proud to ask for directions... actually they pretty much killed anyone they met in the desert, so there were no one left to ask.

 

If they just had stopped killing, they probably could have walked to the promissed land in a few days!!!

[Amanda]

Hello Pritish!

 

As I said before these laws are considered are consider eternal and perfect. And it was supposed to be binding for all time. Where does the Old Testament confirm that the new covenant would replace God's existing Law with a new system human sacrifice?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The sacrifice of the lamb was portrayed in the OT as a shadow of things to come, even in the Exodus of Moses, IMO. Jesus knew he had to sacrifice himself, he that was immensely spiritually adept concerning the metaphysical aspects of life, in a way that has never been attained until then... could only do what is proposed by the NT in dwelling in our conscience and making our self the new temple, ending OT's request for continued sacrifices. God is no longer perceived as just 'out there', I've heard the term used here 'sky daddy', but is now within us. IMHO.

 

Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Where does it says in the OT that once you understand the purpose of the law you are exempt from it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pritish, while I can respect your recognition of the OT, since I do believe in Jesus, I give the NT priority over the OT. The laws of the OT have not been done away with, just given more clarity. Jesus was just emphasizing the meaning and purpose of these laws are what is important! He changed it from 'obedience' to the law, to a 'desire' to fulfill the law. The letter of the law, the strict literal interpretation of these laws kill. The old way of looking at the law created sin, guilt, condemnation... Jesus encouraged us to THINK and REASON.

 

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

[Mythra]

Pritish, while I can respect your recognition of the OT, since I do believe in Jesus, I give the NT priority over the OT. The laws of the OT have not been done away with, just given more clarity. Jesus was just emphasizing the meaning and purpose of these laws are what is important!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OH PUHLEEZE! STOP!

 

The Old Testament is so incompatible with the New that one of the first leaders of the christian church determined that it wasn't even the same God!

 

Marcion was the first to put together a new testament that was similar to today's accepted version. He rejected YHWH as a totally different God than the "Father" of Jesus. He was the last christian to make any sense.

 

Are the blinders on your eyes THAT bad? Do you just skim over the stuff we write here about the monster of the OT and dismiss it? We ain't making it up. It's right from the horse's mouth.

 

Here's the kicker: if Jesus has been with God from the beginning, and Jesus and God were one, we might as well say that the monster was Jesus.

[Amanda]

The OT has authority and if the New doesn't line up, it is to be discarded, which in this case, the entire NT needs to be discarded because the prophecies are not met in full.  The OT can be discarded too, because prophecies were not fulfulled in full either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Serenity Now, I admit I have placed more emphasis on the NT, and I can't imagine anyone studying the whole Bible in the manner it deserves and understanding every bit of it perfectly... at this point. I have spent some time in the OT and found some great treasures there too.

 

As I've said, these principles and teachings in the NT speak for themselves. Someone here has said, for something that speaks for itself... I do a lot of speaking for them. Not true. I will do some now though... The specifics of their nature can go unrefuted, as I see them.

 

Is it wrong to be humble (no one better than anyone),

to be meek (strength under a gentle nature),

and servant disposition (struggle to empower others)?

 

How about to forgive others because they can only do their best, while still holding all accountable for their actions?

 

What's wrong with faith in a better future to come,

hope that we will do what we can to get there,

and love/charity as the means to make it happen?

 

How about treating all these people around us like we'd like to be treated? And of quite importance, what is wrong with ending condemnation? What is wrong with ending a condescending manner in which we relate to each other? Why can't we realize we're all the same 'body' of human beings? ALL to be equally respected! Condemnation seems to be the cancer to me.

 

The NT isn't about changing the circumstances that happen around us, it's about changing our internal perception of them... and moving us to help those we see effected by these events. The Christ nature operates through us. IMHO.

 

Many will laugh, and that is fine. If you think it could be helping make your life better, take it... if not, don't keep it. I leave it entirely to each person's discretion, because each person is the only one that knows the circumstances of each person's life. ALL are saved already, IMHO, yet these messages might be making our stay here a bit more enjoyable.

 

The NT MESSAGE makes sense to me, that's all.

[Amanda]

OH PUHLEEZE!  STOP!

 

Are the blinders on your eyes THAT bad?  Do you just skim over the stuff we write here about the monster of the OT and dismiss it?  We ain't making it up.  It's right from the horse's mouth.

 

Here's the kicker:  if Jesus has been with God from the beginning, and Jesus and God were one, we might as well say that the monster was Jesus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mythra, my friend... with the respect that is definitely due to you, I'm not sure that you hold the ultimate truth, and I don't think you're sure you do either. Further, I know I don't! I appreciate it as your opinion. As for the recent story in 1 Samuel 6, I didn't agree with your interpretations, yet I don't feel it's necessary for me to post it in EVERY scenario. It is hard for me to imagine you getting enthusiatic about a Bible study with me.

 

Here may be a bigger kicker for you to consider Mythra: If Jesus was with God in the beginning and he is also the end, what IF he is EVERYTHING in between? Just a thought...

[Amanda]

Other religions have taught those same things, long before Christianity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello again Serenity Now!

 

Good point! I agree with you on these other spiritual teachings too!

[Mythra]

Mythra, my friend... I'm not sure that you hold the ultimate truth

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahh. Ya freakin blasphemer.

[Mythra]

Oh, and as for that bible study thing..

 

I'd rather have my toenails pulled out one by one with a pair of needlenose pliers.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Ahh.  Ya freakin blasphemer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mythra's got the ultimate truth? So he's the one that swiped it!

 

Gi'back, Mythra, I wanna make copies.

[Mythra]

Mythra's got the ultimate truth? So he's the one that swiped it!

Gi'back, Mythra, I wanna make copies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not till ya pay the royalties, sweetie. I accept Paypal and all major credit cards.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Not till ya pay the royalties, sweetie.  I accept Paypal and all major credit cards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Phooey! I can't pay for the truth, I'm a starving writer!

 

Hm.

 

Trade ya for two dirty novellas and a zombie baby story?

[Cerise]

Here may be a bigger kicker for you to consider Mythra: If Jesus was with God in the beginning and he is also the end, what IF he is EVERYTHING in between? Just a thought...

 

Jesus can't be everything without also becoming nothing. Just like a word can't mean everything without conversely meaning nothing at all. When we exist, we do so in difference, in relation to the other.

 

Who is the other of Jesus?

[Amanda]

Ahh.  Ya freakin blasphemer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Care to explain?

[Cerise]

Care to explain? 

 

Well consider this: You said "everything is god"

 

Mythra = "something"

"something" = everything

everything = god

Mythra = god

 

Therefore, saying that Mythra does not have the ultimate truth, is the same as saying god does not have the ultimate truth. Thus, blasphemy. QED.

[Amanda]

Jesus can't be everything without also becoming nothing.  Just like a word can't mean everything without conversely meaning nothing at all. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cerise, I'm curious to know, what is 'nothing'? Can 'nothing' really exist? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just would like to better understand that concept as you are suggesting it here.

[Cerise]

Cerise, I'm curious to know, what is 'nothing'? Can 'nothing' really exist? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just would like to better understand that concept as you are suggesting it here. 

 

nothing = everything. That is, "nothing" would be a lack of definition, or difference, or context. And as things can only "exist" (or mean) in comparison to other things, "nothing" would also mean non-existance.

 

So, nothing doesn't exist. It's non existance. Just like the concept of "everything".

[Amanda]

Well consider this:  You said "everything is god"

 

Mythra = "something"

"something" = everything

everything = god

Mythra = god

 

Therefore, saying that Mythra does not have the ultimate truth, is the same as saying god does not have the ultimate truth.  Thus, blasphemy.  QED.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Excuse me Cerise, I apologize for not being more explicit... and I thank you for your kind consideration to explain it to me. What I meant to say is that perhaps ALL things are part of God, not all things are each equal to the entirity of God. Now Mythra, and you, and everyone may have a part of the ultimate truth... IMO, FWIW. Again, thanks Cerise for your explanation. Could you be so kind, again, to tell me what QED means?

[Cerise]

QED is latin. It's what funky math dudes used to put at the end of equations to show that they'd solved the problem. The latin equivalent of "so there."

 

Can just part of an ultimate truth still be a truth?

 

If I said that I was going to go out, but that was only partly true and really the rest of the truth is "I'm going out...tomorrow" isn't my partial truth as good as a lie?