He...double hockey sticks

from the heart of a father

Azheis

My heart breakers for you. I feel the pain that you suffered at the hands of you family and loved ones. I was a bad boy as well .

I feel the anger that you must have felt when the people that said they loved you turn their back on you. I know the pain of being totally misunderstood and being rejected.

My dear bother, may I ask you, has your earthly father turned his back on you. Have you had a good relationship with your dad? Or was he as my dad, a drunk absent father?
 
violet said:
In Luke 16, Jesus Christ gives a frightening picture of hell:

22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into thisplace of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)

​
Click to expand...

Abrahams bosom Luke 16:19-31

I have heard this referred to a couple of different ways, and honestly I don’t know what the common belief is, it seems to change with the subscriber, but for understanding purposes let me clarify what this passage is referring to.
The first thing that should grab our attention is the way verse 19 starts out “There was a certain rich man†Now take a look at verse 1 of chapter 16. “There was a certain rich manâ€â€¦. Starting midway through chapter 14 and ending in chapter 16 verse 31 Jesus is teaching by way of parables. A parable is a comparison by sustained resemblance; it is an extended simile. The likeness or resemblance must be sought from the entire context.
As an aside- Two ancient Greek manuscripts The Bezae Caulabrigiensis, and the Koridethian-Caesarean text include the words: eipen de kai heteran parabolen at the beginning of verse 19, which translate as “And He said also another parableâ€

This parable is addressed to the Pharisees {verse 14} The Pharisees, who believed in rewards and punishment immediately after death. Jesus told this parable to the Pharisees in light of their Talmudic traditions and beliefs. It was they, not Jesus, who coined the phrase “Abraham’s Bosom†as one of several afterlife locations. Jesus uses the parable to condemn the Pharisees and catch them in their own erroneous belief.
His intention was not to contradict the entire Old Testament by teaching survival after death. His primary intention was to show that the Pharisees were so evil that even if someone rose from the dead they still wouldn’t listen to him….. Just the opposite appears in Jesus teachings when we look at verses like in John 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead .and Luke 14:14. And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
And Jesus could not have denied the abundance of scripture from the Old Testament like that of Ecclesiastes 9:5,6, &10 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6: Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. 10: Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. How prophetic it was, as evidenced by his own resurrection from the dead, many of them did not believe
 
Papa Ray said:
Azheis

My heart breakers for you. I feel the pain that you suffered at the hands of you family and loved ones. I was a bad boy as well .

I feel the anger that you must have felt when the people that said they loved you turn their back on you. I know the pain of being totally misunderstood and being rejected.

My dear bother, may I ask you, has your earthly father turned his back on you. Have you had a good relationship with your dad? Or was he as my dad, a drunk absent father?
Click to expand...
Papa Ray
Thanks for your concern.
Actually my Father as well as my family were the best. I come from a family of 12 but our household was….. loving, kind, giving, and very tight. I feel extremely blessed to have grown up in such a warm loving environment despite my rebellious and mischievous nature.
Maybe “mischievous nature†somewhat candy coats the type of person I was. I would do anything as a challenge …………consequences or reprisal did not mater. I don’t think my heart was really malicious, but my actions were definitely borderline ...and then some
So I don’t really blame the Nuns or Priests for telling me I was going to hell, in their minds the things I would do deserved that; and after a while it never bothered me.
 
WasLost said:
For anyone to be so righteous as to be sure of their everlasting heavenly reward before their judgement is a fool in my opinion. We are all sinners. To think for a moment that you DESERVE eternity in heaven is prideful. Instead, I live with the faith that God will do with me what he will. That is the only certainty I allow myself.

K
Click to expand...

WasLost
I don’t think I indicated in ay manner that I deserve eternity ….I don’t, you don’t, nobody does, but that does not negate the truth that I have it ….my assurances of that come from my heavenly Father. To think anything less would be to call God a liar.
This is not something we have earned, nor can we earn it, according to the written Word, it was “made unto us ……â€
If you would like to discuss this further we can. I would be happy to supply you with the numerous scripture that guarantee our eternity, but on a different thread as this one really isn’t dealing with that subject.
 
ya know what the creator of this thread has to say is very depressing. jesus died so we diddnt have to go to hell, that is why he was nailed to a cross and tourterd to death for. so please leave here with all that "we're all going to hell" stuff.

"if there is a hell below, we're all gonna go" bull!
 
daniel 17 said:
ya know what the creator of this thread has to say is very depressing. jesus died so we diddnt have to go to hell, that is why he was nailed to a cross and tourterd to death for. so please leave here with all that "we're all going to hell" stuff.

"if there is a hell below, we're all gonna go" bull!
Click to expand...

You could read a bit beyond the first couple sentences
 
Hi Daniel,
Azheis created this thread and he is not saying that at all!
I am the one who believes in hell and yes, Jesus died on the cross so none of us have to go there and that is how I believe.

And if I am right, there is nothing to worry about as long as we have salvation!​
 
I still need an understanding of this~

Mark 9:

45And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
​

 
Violet

The words you have highlighted {a quote from Isaiah} are not in any text earlier than the 7th century.
The American Standard includes verse 48 but omits 46 as does the 1611 RV. KJV has both. The Pe****ta omits both.
BTW that is not a swear word, but the "s" word does appear in that name.
 
I admit I'm tired.....I'm confused though.
Are you saying what I quoted from Mark is not in the early Bibles?
Are you saying the Bible was added to?
Explain to me, please! THANK YOU!:)


Wait, I see what you are saying now....
but still explain why something was taken from one part of the Bible and added to another book!!!​
 
I've heard that said before. That the original translators added words, and sentences into the Bible to represent their current understandings or even agendas. I've seen "concrete proof" of it. I've never really heard a great argument for the opposite, yet I firmly believe that IF (another really, really big if) anything was changed or adjusted due to Satan's influence, that God is powerful enough to make sure that the important messages are COMPLETELY TRUE.

And I've seen a large number of versions of the Bible, all that were supposed to be translated from the same ancient texts. Never found a missing verse, or anything that was drastically different aside from subtle wording here and there. I HAVE seen translations that added a doctrinal "spin" and can therefore be completely discounted. But, of all the translations I've seen from the originals texts, they've all been "basically" the same.
 
I think it's possible that Satan may have been able to influence an unimportant word here and there. Then use it to spread doubt. But God is about Truth, and the Bible as it is is simply too TRUE to be corrupted. I myself am skeptical about the translations, and often find that if you look at verses the "errors" are big. But, when you look at paragraphs, they tend to still make sense in the context of the author's original thoughts.

That is why I'm very wary of people who quote verse after verse to support their beliefs or arguments. The original scripture was not written in verse form, so by definition, that means you are ALWAYS taking their text out of context.
 
I see.....makes sense.
I know you could pick and choose any 1 verse to prove your own point~
You are right about this!​
 
Banarenth said:
I think it's possible that Satan may have been able to influence an unimportant word here and there. Then use it to spread doubt. But God is about Truth, and the Bible as it is is simply too TRUE to be corrupted. I myself am skeptical about the translations, and often find that if you look at verses the "errors" are big. But, when you look at paragraphs, they tend to still make sense in the context of the author's original thoughts.

That is why I'm very wary of people who quote verse after verse to support their beliefs or arguments. The original scripture was not written in verse form, so by definition, that means you are ALWAYS taking their text out of context.
Click to expand...
I agree, although you were probably directing some of that at me, but none the less I do agree to a point. For instance, if you’re dealing with salvation there are several verses dealing with this subject in various Epistles.
The book of Acts is the fulcrum point between the old and new; it reveals much of the rise and expansion of the first century Christian Church. So by correlating the scripture from, lets say Ephesians and Acts, you may remove some scripture from its context but not the context from the scripture I know it sounds like double talk ….. ….. but essentially what I am saying is you can do scripture build up without compromising the context.
 
violet said:
I admit I'm tired.....I'm confused though.​




Are you saying what I quoted from Mark is not in the early Bibles?
Are you saying the Bible was added to?
Explain to me, please! THANK YOU!:)​


Wait, I see what you are saying now....​

but still explain why something was taken from one part of the Bible and added to another book!!!​
Click to expand...
Like Banarenth stated, there have been some words, some sentences, added to the Bible….. actually KJV has many of the added words in italic.
Off hand I am thinking of the verse I John 5:7&8 I think where quite a bit was added. But most of the time it not the big things, it’s the little things, like punctuation which started being added about the 11th century. I can think of two places where a comma was used to change the meaning of the entire record.
 
azheis said:
I agree, although you were probably directing some of that at me, but none the less I do agree to a point.
Click to expand...

I don't think I was. At least, I'm not aware of it. Honestly, I'm referring mostly to what I see in general. I don't really bash the idea of using individual verses to support an idea, but I see a LOT of people (here, other places, and IRL) that go through a lot of trouble looking for verses that support some idea they have. Then drill ONLY those verses over and over again to support some argument for or against something. And if you disagree, then you MUST be disagreeing with the Bible, because it's obviously written there. It's usually more obvious when someone refuses to listen to anything that anyone else has to say and just likes 5-10 verses out of context to support why they are right and everyone else is wrong. Though, as I stated before, IMO taking any one verse and quoting it is automatically "out of context" in one way or another. The "offense" is in how it is used, and what the quoter's intent was. I'm inherently distrustful of verse-arguments because they have been used to support very unChristian things over the years. Sadly, it is the most common way that Christians seem to communicate the gospel. It is also the most common way that "Christian cults" have spread fear, hate, and distrust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top