Is Bin Laden in a burnin hell?

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't have a point to make. It's just a poll to generate discussion

How bout that? A relevant shoe-jack!

[Timmy]

Hey, it's been a while since I gave you one of my thought experiments! (Uh oh. )

OK, it's April 30, 2011. You are standing at the gate of the Bin Laden compound. You have with you a fool-proof, guaranteed-to-work, has-always-worked-every-time, tract that will convert any and every Muslim or claimed Muslim to saving faith in Christ. You also have a large tub of water. And you have access to Bin Laden. (The guard is already saved! )

Do you show Osama this tract and divert him from his path to that well-deserved eternal punishment? Or do you say to yourself, "Nah. He doesn't deserve to go to heaven," and walk away? (You also know he will die the next day. Somehow. Hey, it's a thought experiment, OK? )

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

What would be the point if its talking about just dead bodies? It says they LIVED at the resurrection. So do bodies have a life apart from souls? The person in your view would already have been alive.

If a person sleeps, then are they not alive as well at the same time? Your concept is that souls "sleep" upon death. Then when they "LIVE" at the judgment you claim they come out of sleep. You say they LIVED at the judgment. Yet ask how there can be LIFE in my view as to how people can LIVE if their bodies slept. Yet you believe the soul sleeps, and does not sleeping necessitate life as well? Would not the soul that is sleeping be necessarily still alive, too? Both views have EXISTENCE involved during your soul sleep and my conscious presence in hell fire. So I can ask you the question you asked me... If the soul "sleeps" before judgment, how can the person be made "ALIVE" if sleeping means they are alive, anyway?

You can rephrase it all when it comes to your view so you do not use the term "ALIVE" or "LIFE" when you say they "sleep", but you claim my view shows a soul "ALIVE" with "LIFE" in hell fire. Generally there is no difference in whether or not one is ALIVE in either view if you accuse me of saying the soul is not dead but alive. The point is that whether in hell fire or asleep, they are still in the same state of EXISTENCE.

If you claim my view demands a state of LIFE when it should be DEATH, then your view of soul sleep has the soul just as much ALIVE with LIFE when it sleeps. Are not people ALIVE when they sleep? You see, I can ask you the same questions.

So why does the term "LIVE" occur in reference to the souls who slept that they might be judged if sleeping means LIFE anyway?

The point is that this refers to BODIES. No, bodies do not have a life apart from souls. The body is DEAD without the spirit. When the spirit leaves, so does the soul. The only thing that sleeps is the body. And I claim SLEEP is involved here with the body only because the body shall arise again. Again, DEATH is not non-existence. It is SEPARATION.

So in context that would be like "and their dead bodies lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years". Which fits the context? That? Or THEY meaning the persons lived and reigned with Christ.

A person is ALIVE when there is no separation any more. Technically, death means separation of soul/spirit from the body. Rejoining these would be LIFE.

Paul did not imply what you think he meant by that. Read this for clarification.

Your words in that study are offkey. You claim it would be death swallowed up of life if the SOUL was conscious and with the Lord upon death. That is not what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 15. He was speaking in reference to the BODY. When the BODY is made immortal -- NOT THE SOUL -- death is swallowed up of life. Absence from body is presence with the Lord. That meant that should he die he would leave his body and be with the Lord. His soul and spirit departed from his body. That is called death.

Again, do not miss the actual meaning of death. It is not non-existence. It is separation of what is meant to be together. Soul from body - first death. Soul from God - second death. So the soul being in the presence of the Lord is not death swallowed up of life. That concept led to the full preterist thought, for they believe souls slept until AD70 and then at that point they resurrected to eternal life in heaven. Your idea is the same thing basically, only you think the resurrection has not occurred yet. I agree the resurrection has not yet occurred. But I do not agree we get eternal life when we resurrect. We already have it now! Eternal Life is a person!

http://www.freeforum101.com/inthelig...rum=inthelight

But can we allow Gods word to give us the definition of death?

146:2 While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Psalms 146:2-4

According to scripture live is having BEING. According to scripture death is the loss of the sense of BEING. The day he DIES what happens?

You misconstrued what that scripture stated. Thoughts "perishing" does not mean the soul is no longer functioning in being able to have thought. You are taking that far too literally as though the soul/mind ceases to function or exist.

What about your sleep? Does your mind cease to function? You claim the soul sleeps, and yet you say that is death and thoughts perish at that point. Sleeping is a far cry from the soul ceasing to exist as though the thought process ceases to function.

The Psalmist merely means that all plans and schemes are over. It is not saying the soul ceases to function or exist. Notice Jesus said the SOUL has many plans and schemes when he described the words of the rich man, “and I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry; but God said unto him, Thou fool! this night thy soul shall be required of time.” The Psalm is simply saying such plans are gone.

HIS THOUGHTS PERISH.

The dead no longer have any consciousness of BEING.

So then how can they be sleeping? Their souls cease to function in that case, not sleep. Whose soul does not function when it sleeps?

Now you can understand what death means to a person according to scripture.

Paul stated that he is present with the Lord should his soul/spirit depart from his body. That is not death being swallowed up of life because the context of death swallowed of life is speaking OF THE BODY. WHEN THE BODY is no longer mortal and puts on immortality THEN death is swallowed up of life.

I thought you believed in the physical resurrection. That is the context of death swallowed up of life in 1 Cor 15. We cannot apply that to anything other than the body being made immortal. How can you say a soul being conscious with the Lord upon leaving its body is "death swallowed up of life" if you believe that is speaking of the resurrected body?

Will you now say that THE BODY loses its sense of being? As if the body has its own independent sense of awareness and being?

Of course not. The body is DEAD. The soul is present with God immediately upon that death, and is conscious and not asleep. The BODY is said to sleep only in the sense that it shall rise again, and not in the sense that it is still animate

Gehenna Fire is a reality for the resurrected dead. First understand the foundation truth concerning life, death, and Hades/Sheol then you will know what it means when Hades is emptied out into the Gehenna Fire.

What is in Sheol/Hades?

49:14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.
49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah. Psalms 45:14-15

The word "grave" appears 3 times in these 2 verses. Each time it is the Hebrew "Sheol". It is a place where animals like it says SHEEP go when they die the same as men. It is the common grave of all that die.

It is the place that even the righteous dead still go at death.

Thats why Jesus said the gates of Hades would not prevail against them. Why? Because he will raise them up at the last day.

SHEOL/HADES are one and the same place. Hades has fire according to Jesus. What about the fire?

This post is repeated in the thread IF A MAN DIE.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Timmy

How bout that? A relevant shoe-jack!

Do they come in the form of SKI BOOTS for the Lake?

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Do they come in the form of SKI BOOTS for the Lake?

Hope so! Sounds like fun!

(My apologies to those who don't like joking about hell fire. )

[rgcraig]

Gotta love this!

So, Bin Laden is standing before God waiting to hear his punishment, when God feels a tap on his shoulder. There behind him stands 343 fireman, 72 police officers, one K9 officer, 3,000 American citizens and over 5,000 soldiers. "Don't worry God, we got this!!!"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Timmy

How bout that? A relevant shoe-jack!

Beatle boots in hell?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

...

Norris noted something you did not... he said Christ did not use myths in his parables either. His parables were always of actual circumstances.

As I said before (or tried to say?) Jesus' parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not "myth."

Norris does have a compelling point about Jesus' parable involving "actual" events. For example, the sower sowing seeds may not have "really" existed - but there were certainly many people sowing seeds in those days (and today!). Also, the Prodigal Son may not have been an actual biographical account, but the wasteful and then repentant behavior of the young man would certainly resonate with those listening to the story.

For me, being too dogmatic about the events that follow death is fraught with at least some peril. And, attempting to impose a literalness to "The Rich Man and Lazarus" that one does not impose on the "The Prodigal Son" does seem inconsistent.

Did a young man really sit in a pig's stall attempting to get husks from the trough? I seriously doubt that. But pig stalls do exist. And so, maybe one can say that while "Lazarus" wasn't actually the object of the rich man's pleas - the arena in which the drama unfolded is as literal as the pig stall.

... but still... finding enough support to be dogmatic about this is illusive. imho. It is better to accept the truths about the certainty of Judgment and the importance of being delivered from the consequences of that Judgment than to attempt to paint a Dantesque landscape as though we were privy to the details.

... again, just imho.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

As I said before (or tried to say?) Jesus' parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not "myth."

Norris does have a compelling point about Jesus' parable involving "actual" events. For example, the sower sowing seeds may not have "really" existed - but there were certainly many people sowing seeds in those days (and today!). Also, the Prodigal Son may not have been an actual biographical account, but the wasteful and then repentant behavior of the young man would certainly resonate with those listening to the story.

For me, being too dogmatic about the events that follow death is fraught with at least some peril. And, attempting to impose a literalness to "The Rich Man and Lazarus" that one does not impose on the "The Prodigal Son" does seem inconsistent.

Did a young man really sit in a pig's stall attempting to get husks from the trough? I seriously doubt that. But pig stalls do exist. And so, maybe one can say that while "Lazarus" wasn't actually the object of the rich man's pleas - the arena in which the drama unfolded is as literal as the pig stall.

... but still... finding enough support to be dogmatic about this is illusive. imho. It is better to accept the truths about the certainty of Judgment and the importance of being delivered from the consequences of that Judgment than to attempt to paint a Dantesque landscape as though we were privy to the details.

... again, just imho.

I recall you mentioning Jesus did not use myths. And as correct as you are about the emphasis we should place on the issue instead of fire, the fact is Jesus did use instances that were actual but involved people in a parable who may not have actually did anything nor even exist. So if He used actual places and circumstances, then there must be a hell with fire and conscious existence in it.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Hey, it's been a while since I gave you one of my thought experiments! (Uh oh. )

OK, it's April 30, 2011. You are standing at the gate of the Bin Laden compound. You have with you a fool-proof, guaranteed-to-work, has-always-worked-every-time, tract that will convert any and every Muslim or claimed Muslim to saving faith in Christ. You also have a large tub of water. And you have access to Bin Laden. (The guard is already saved! )

Do you show Osama this tract and divert him from his path to that well-deserved eternal punishment? Or do you say to yourself, "Nah. He doesn't deserve to go to heaven," and walk away? (You also know he will die the next day. Somehow. Hey, it's a thought experiment, OK? )

Anyone?