There is no eternal Hell in the Bible.
Matthew 18:8 has a clear reference to an “eternal fire”.
Aside from the fact that his theology is poor (he’s a hyper Calvinist, a Rapturist and a cessationist), he also who says that the Catholic Church is Satanic. Essentially, he’s a theological bigot with a sanctimonious and ever shrinking criteria for who he thinks is eligible for salvation. It’s not enough for him to say you have be a Christian, you have to be precisely his kind of Christian. Not only do Catholics go to hell, but Penatcostals too. He says people can no longer be taken by the Holy Spirit, speak in tongues, etc. He should go to a Pentacostal church sometime and tell those people they’re all faking it.
It has a reference to Gehenna, which was a real place – a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where dead animals and sometimes criminals were disposed of. People kept fires burning perpetually in the valley to burn the garbage and the carcasses. This was the etrnal fire. Jesuswas referencing a 1st Century Jewish belief that after the resurrection of the dead and the day of judgement, that the wicked would be annihilated in flames. Not eternally tortured, just destroyed. The flames were eternal, but the suffering was not.
Trust me on this, I know what I’m talking about. There is no concept of eternal, suffering Hell in the Bible. Every presumed reference in the Bible has a different explanation in the original languages. It would take a long time to do them all, but I could do it. The Jewish belief at the time of Jesus, and the belief reflected in the New Testament, was a resurrection of the dead, followed by judgement and an assignment either to eternal life or complete annihilation.
No he is not-he’s a regular Calvinist. Indeed one of his church members (who has created a website on Charles Spurgeon and maintains extensive links in theology and church history) has published an article condemning hyper-Calvnism. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
More accurately his saying that the Roman Catholic Church is being misled by Satan and is in error. I don’t exactly agree with him on that issue.
Not really he believes that all who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and salvation by grace is saved.
He did not say Pentecoastals go to Hell-merely there are no miracles anymore which as far as I can see it is the most rational belief nowadays. After all since you’re an atheist I don’t suppose you believe in any of that stuff either.
he was fired from his radio show specifically for being a hyper-Calvinist. I don’t care if he tries to deny it and weasel his own definitions. He was clear far enough afield that it made BBN executives uncomfortable.
A distinction without any difference. It is a bigoted and asinine view. You can wave it away as “I don’t agree with him” if you want, but I don’t. That’s my wife, my father and my kids he’s talking about. Such views taint his credibility on everything. Above all else, it’s stupid. You shouldn’t look to stupid people for wisdom.
There’s the rub. He takes it upon himself to minutely parse what really constitutes “believing in Jesus Christ.” He excludes all kinds of people who are sincere Christians.
It’s not just that he says there are no miracles, but he denies the charasmatic experience as valid. I may have my own opinons about what causes the experience, but I’ve seen it and those people aren’t faking it. It’s a genuinely ecstatic state. It’s insulting for him to say otherwise. The ecstatic religious experience is at the root of all spirituality and revelation.
Nobody is talking about this. How you understand it would be important to Jesus personally. From there, He could tell you if it was good or bad. It isn’t as if you need to memorize a soliloquy or something. There is you, there is the world today, and there is how you understand it. You seem like a nice kid, so I wouldn’t worry so much.
Jesus exploited a loophole in scripture in which the word of God coming to Him technically made him God. He was an artist, he cops to it, but he’s Jesus. Top that.
And He hung out with tax collectors because He was a big fan of big government.
He’s pretty explicit that the Roman Catholic Church equals Satanism.
From a sermon by John McArthur, found here:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/catholicscandal.htm
That is similar to my layreading of it. Was wondering if I was missing something. Surely literalists have some well-rehearsed way of handwaving this, just like they do for the two different creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2.
Jesus was quoting Psalms. A mob was about to stone him for saying he was God, and he cited Psalm 82 in which God tells his “court” of appointed human leaders “you are Gods. You are all sons of the Most High.”
So when they’re going to stone Jesus for saying he’s God, Jesus says, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?’”
Basically he was saying God is on record as saying anyone he speaks to is God [or a son of god] himself, and God speaks to me, so that means I’m a son of God. He then cites his miracles as proof of God working through him.
It should probably be stated that Jesus is using a Pharisaic, legalistic definition for his self-identification as “son of God” in this instance, and is not using a Trinitarian definition. He is not claiming his status is unique. he’s saying that anyone God speaks and works through has a right to call themselves a “son of God,” or that “God is in me, and I am in God,” or that “I and the Father are one,” or any of the other language of this nature that he uses in John’s Gospel. He’s calling himself as God by virtue of being a vessel for God. This is in line with the Alexandrian “Logos” interpretation of Jesus employed by the author of John.
I don’t understand. Handwaving what? Jesus is trying to convince Jews that he is the Son of God and they are doubting him. He says that the words of the Father coming through Him make Him God. What needs handwaving away?
As to Curtis, I want to thank you for beginning this conversation. I have enjoyed the very educational discussion. You have weighty thoughts for one so young. This concerns me, but I suspect you’ll be alright. Now, if we can just make your politics a bit more liberal. 
So, if I understand correctly, you’re saying that Jesus is reminding the Jews that we are all children of God and citing Psalm 82 as justification for this statement. Therefore, he should not be stoned (as in having rocks thrown at him) because what he is saying is clearly justified by Psalm 82. This is no different than anyone else claiming to be a child of God due to his/her good works and having the word of God live through him. Jesus’ place in the Trinity is a different issue and Jesus is not claiming that in this case.
So what would literalists need to handwave away?
The “handwaving” part would be at Jesus’ own implication that his personal “God” status is not unique, and that he is not coequal or coeternal in a Trinitarian sense.
That’s so inside baseball, though, that I’m not sure many Christians really notice it, or can’t explain it as Jesus employing a defense specifically targeted to his audience, not that it’s necessarily the only way he thinks of himself.
That’s one of the many things that doesn’t add up about the superhero view of Jesus. He could’ve changed their minds with the slightest thought, or froze the rocks in mid air, or performed a glorious miracle right in front of their eyes to prove who he was, but instead he . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pretty much denies his divinity to save his ass.
That’s the way it seems to me. He just tailored his defense for the people he was talking to at the time.
What do you suppose Todderbob’s point was in mentioning that verse? I expected it to be some damning thing, but it seems like a reasonable thing for Jesus to have been doing at the time.
He was really into not using miracles to prove his points. He healed Jairus’ daughter but told everyone not to say anything. He got irritated with Mary when she asked him to change water into wine at Cana. Basically he wanted people to accept his message on its own merits, and not because god said it was so.
It’s a litt;e bit hampered, though, by the fact that Jesus never defines himself in Trinitarian terms. In fact, the trinitarian view of Jesus doesn’t come from the Bible at all, but was developed by early church fathers.
I can’t speak for Todderbob, but in context with the rest of his post, it appears that he was using it as a cite for Jesus still recognizing the authority of the Old Testament. The OT verses he cites are all examples of death penalty proscriptions for things like disrespecting priests, dishonoring one’s parents and (good old Leviticus 20:13) man on man sex.
Okay, that makes sense. The OT is for all this bad stuff, and Jesus says the OT is still applicable. I would say that he was only saying so because that is what his audience already believed. It does not necessarily follow that Jesus Himself held that view. He just needed to get out of a jam.
Willing to do an omnibus thread on this?