Yes, Virginia There is a Hell -- Jesus Said So

That is not quite right. The sentiment is right, but it does not deal with the reaity of sin.

Lets talk about sin itself and what it means. The OT, as a few atheists have indicated, places the concept of punishment as something that separates you from God. Guess what does that? Sin.

When you lie, and we all do from time to time, you have just dulled the relationship between yourself and God. When you fornicate, and that is a rising problem, you have just further dulled the relationship between yourself and God. Over a life time, these sins add up, and when you stand before God, your purpose here having either been met or not, you will be held to task for those sins.

Worse, as the NT indicates, acceptance of these sins leads to greater sins, and more damage. If we rationalize that empty sexual relationships are actually a good thing, and we jump from chic to chic in our daily lives with no real affection or itimacy, then, not only are we missing the blessing of affection and intimiacy that includes sex, but we are basically just using other people - sex becomes the object of our desire and passion. We are damaged as a result, and teh unrepentant sin just continues.

The same goes for lying. We can do it with little things, but eventually, as we grow comfortable with it, then avoiding consequences becomes the fulfillment of time, the excuse to indulge, etc. These things can get in quick, and often do.

And what happens then? When one acknowledges that they have slipped (as humans tend to do)? Well, we have this concept called grace and forgiveness, but it requires genuine humbleness and repentence.

No one says it is easy, but too often these discussion revolve around the spectacular. For example, I am no murderer, correct? Well, what happens if a man kills someone, and is immediatey horrified by his actions? What happens if he spends the rest of his life seeking atonement and finding some way to provide restitution to the family he has gravey harmed? Is that WORSE than someone who spends a life time in casual meaness? Lies to avoid consequence and manipulate business contacts? Is a whoremonger and uncharitable selfish? And totally unrepetentant about all of it?

Well, the Bible is pretty specific about the cost of unrepentant sin, and I do not think any of us want to live in a world were redemption and second chances are impossible.

 

LOL! This is how people like YOU are proven NOT to be experts!

We will add the NEXT LINE - which spells it out for YOU!

Isa 14:20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

So here are the three lines together PROVING I AM CORRECT - and YOU ARE WRONG!


Isa 14:18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.

Isa 14:19 BUT thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; a carcass trodden under feet.

Isa 14:20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.


And note that - "slain thy people", again proving this is about a human king - not some Lucifer falling!

***

You are trying to equate 3 with the Kings and that is incorrect - here is 2 and 3 - which tell us whom is being spoken of!

Isa 14:2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

Isa 14:3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,

Even without 2, this obviously has no connection to the verse about the Kings!

LOL! Did you even read what I wrote - or think about the context?

My argument is that this IS NOT a falling of some demon Lucifer -

but IS about a REAL HUMAN KING OF BABYLON!

 

You need to put the book and numbers in when talking about verses so people can check them out to see if they actually say, what you say they say!

 

Of course I am. You think because it was mentioned - no one else can bring it up when rebutting another person?

See above - and - Sa'atan means The Tester/Adversary.

Also - in the OT a Sa'atan can be an angel of God, a human adversary, etc.

And that has what to do with me?

Again you seem to be having trouble reading and understanding!

HELL is NOT in the OT! Sa'atan IS in the OT!

It is a FACT that Sheol was changed to a Hellenistic HELL of TORTURE by Hellenized Christians!

It is a FACT that they aslo changed Sa'atan - God's servant - into an EVIL - out for himself - out to make you do EVIL for EVIL's SAKE - Boogie man!
***

ALSO - I am not making SILLY claims! There is nothing that I have brought up - that isn't known and discussed in theological circles!

Perhaps you should ask your Christian peers here, that have given Satan info!

When you put text within my text - YOU are altering what I said - and you do not have the right to do that!

It also took twice as long to reply - as I had to carefully read and extract YOUR WORDS from MINE!

Use the standard here - and put your reply - below the text you wish to comment on!

 

Yes, of course. I've been studying the Bible since I was a wee lad and sometimes assume that others are just as familiar with it as I am. Catholics have a habit of quoting familiar passages without chapter and verse because Scripture itself preceded the man made reference system.

The "spared not the angels that sinned" is a reference to 2Peter 2:4 and David's hope of one day being reunited with his son is a reference to 2Samuel 12:23. I hope this helps.

 

Catholics are taught to recite scripture around 100 times a day in many churches....So I would be supprised if they did not memorize it.

 

You wouldn't know the first thing about Catholics. Everything that comes out of you has been ignorant and wrong. With my own OCD about being right, I would be mortified if I was wrong as often as you. It's embarassing.

 

I translated that out as -

2Sa 12:23 And now dead, why thence should I fast? Am I able to bring him back, that henceforth I should go to him, though he cannot be returned to me?

It does not appear to be talking about heaven but about the required funerary rites - fasting and prayers - at the grave.

 

Yep, that is why haveing mentioned repeatedly that Hell is not in the OT, that Satan is at best a de-personified bringer of death, I am wondering why you quoted a portion of the OLD TESTAMENT, about he very real conflict and consequences of the Babylonian Empire as if it were in any way shape or form relevant to a discussion of Satan in the Bible?

Much of the OT is the history of the Jewish people in the Levant. That God said teh Israelites would defeat the Babylonians, and did (and did not), and eventually we have the Bablyonian Empire wipped from the earth, its king fallen.

The story of Satan is not told in Isaiah at all, and how you pass that off as if it is the genesis of Hell or Satan in the Bible is wel beyond my comprehension.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus changes some things doesn't he? That is why they call it the new testament. He is the last and greatest of the prophets, his vision a clarion call and that he refines the natures of Sin and its origins - which begins with the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Guess who the serpent is?

Jesus is the Messiah. Grace is a significant change in the OT method of cleansing sin is it not? And yet, this gift is given in accordance with the OT law, requiring a blood sacrifice to expunge sin. A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.

The idea that you think changes betwen Old and New indicate something nefarious, seems rather to me to indicate that you have never actually studied our faith.

 

My oh MY how you do twist things!

I am not "passing it off" as anything!

YOU posted this, below (from page 9, # 89,) triggering my Isaiah post to show that Christians altered the OT Sa'atan!

This text was brought up because it is the one Christians try to use to say a "Lucifer" fell from heaven - becoming the "boogie-man" they make him out to be ever since.

They try to claim this verse about a human King is actually a verse about Lucifer - the Hellenized version of Sa'atan!

 

I think his comment was sort of a compliment...


Catholics are very scriptural in their everyday worship modes.


Anyway, I took it as a nice thing to say...

 

The ONLY person who I have ever seen use that text to explain the origins of Satan is you - and I do mean ever. Which is why I took issue with it.

Most Christians use Revelations to back up the cae of Lucifer's origins.

Most Christians also understand that Babylon was a very real Empire and very real threat to Israel.

So, again, in short, no idea what you are even attempting to get at.

 

Watched a documentary on the Statue of Liberty the other night. It was talking about the Masons who built it and the symbology and numerology in it design, the illuminati and other conspiracy stuff.

At the end they interviewed a Theologian who said that Lucifer was not Satan.

 

Great, not sure what bearing a show that highlights the conspiratorial for entertainment, finding one doctrineally unsound theologian, means when they throw him in whith the rest of the conspiracy nut jobs?

I guess we see where atheists get their information on our faith though.

 

Since this on TV right now I thought you might watch it. I am not commenting on this credibility, you can judge for yourself and by his argument.

What I have not seen is you present any valid evidence for your claim.

 

Oh, quoting of Revelations is not a valid source when we are talking about Satan's origins in the Bible? You being an expert, I am sure you already know I am referring to Chapter 12.

So yes, when we ACTUALLY know the Bible, than we kinda ALREADY know what that guys expertise on the subject is anyway, do we not?

Back to bash and generally not debate I see.

 

Every Christian church, and Bible study, that I have been in, teaches that this text is the "fall" of the beautiful angel "Lucifer" - in his rebellion against God - loosing him on the earth.

And it is a known mistake. Hopefully they no longer teach this.

 

Can you prove it is a mistake?

 

LOL! Except that he is correct!

There actually is NO LUCIFER in the Bible - anywhere! Not even the WORD!

 

"Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

 

I already did! Go back and read it.

The verse is about a HUMAN KING OF BABYLON.

It says so in the first couple of lines.

The WORD LUCIFER is actually NOWHERE in the Bible.

Here is a quote from Clark's Commentary on the Bible-

"O Lucifer, son of the morning - The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall,..."

Highlighting mine.

 

This is the problem - you folks don't actually STUDY your Bibles.

The word "Lucifer" is nowhere in the Bible.

The word is הילל heilel.

 

And your point? The word "Lucifer" is in the Bible. In the KJV. You did not specify what variation of the scripture you were talking about. If you are referring to the original ancient writings, then you are not talking about the Bible, because at the time they were written, they were not classified as the "Bible".

 

LOL! There is not CORRECT except what the ORIGINAL says!

LATER Christians changing the OT word to "Lucifer" does not make it correct.

There is NO LUCIFER ANYWHERE in the Bible - Not in the OT - Not in the NT!

That is the ONE place in the Bible they altered the actual word - putting in "Lucifer."