Refuting someone's argument is NOT a form of moving the goalpost.
Imagine that instead of saying "there is no proof of God" if I said "there is no proof for Poseidon", and someone presented tsunamis and earthquakes as proof of Poseidon's existence. Obviously, I would not accept that as proof, however, it would make no sense for the Poseidonist in question to say that I'm simply moving the goalpost and that my standards for evidence are simply too high.
Precisely. This video is ironic since this is a Christian sin far more than any atheist. Case in point -> you refute a given "proof" (as you said, refuting is not moving the goal post, it's the Christian not scoring a point), and then they resort to either condescending remarks or the faith disclaimer. This is 'moving the goal posts' because at one point proof was the delineator of truth, and then suddenly it's something else (e.g., faith).
There is no proof an atheist would accept. I've asked many of them for what proof they would accept...and they usually cant even give me a real answer. Cause its a lie, they wont accept any proof, cause they don't want to believe in God. I asked a guy once if he would accept God himself, coming down in a pillar of light and saying "here I am". He then responded "Id have my head checked" So, even arguable the most concrete proof of God, an atheist would deny.
@girzwald3 First, girzwald3, you made an ad hominem argument here is implying all atheists are liars. Second, Christians, at the very least, are guilty of the same; what would convince you there is no god? I imagine rather than getting your head checked if you had such doubts you would just consider yourself in the grip of Satan.
@girzwald3 Here is where the atheist is coming from on this. Incidently, I would suggest you ask questions to such responses rather than making moral judgments (calling atheists liars).
It's like asking what if you saw a square circle? Would you believe in it then? Given that in what I hold no such thing could present itself by that description the question is simply incoherent. Not to mention a slew of psychological issues with such a remark. How would you trust your perception of such?
The Bible clearly states in numerous passages that the wicked are consumed in the pit and destroyed. This is the second death mentioned 3 times in Revelations. The first birth is the biody, the first death is the body. The second birth is the spirit in Christ, the second death is the spirit in the pit.
A little further down in Genesis 3, we see the results of this death. If you will notice, neither Adam nor his wife physically die. Some will say there was spiritual death, but the passage does not bear this out, for they were both still quite capable of communicating with God. What is evident however, is that there is separation. They are both cast from the garden, though from God's discussion with Cain, not necessarily from His Presence.
The Bible says the pit is a real place. Seperation is not that place. The Word of God states over and over the wicked perish, dies, are consumed, exist no more, are like the fat of the sacraficial lambs, are like the chaff of the wheat, like the tares (weeds) in the furnace, like the branches in the fire.
The unsaved perish. They die after paying for their sins. The number of verses that tell us so are numerous.
You need to get your facts straight, Nephilim. It appears you thrive on accusation, and I'm telling you now, you are way out of line here, buddy. You're attempting to change the argument by insisting that the second death is Hell, which has never been my argument. My argument was that this very same fate was an eternal one, whereas you've argued it's only temporary. As to how I study the Bible, perhaps it's best you ask, before you jump to conclusions, hmm.
Where do you get this, Nephilim? Your argument has been that Hell is not a place of eternal punishment. My argument has been that it is. Among all the things that death is and is not, I've argued that one must consider Genesis 2:17, as well as the results of this in the latter half of Genesis chapter 3. God said in the day you eat of it, you shall die. But Adam didn't die. Now, there's a reason for that, but whatever your theology is, you must at least admit that whatever death is, it
What are you talking about? Are you sleepwalking? I have never said hell is not a real place. If you want to keep my attention, don't put wotrds in my mouth, or stay awake enough to know what i do and do not say.
I informed you that the place of punishement is not eternal, not that it does not exist. I have verified that with scripture.
Adam did die. He was made mortal. He also died in that he was dead to God without salvation, like any of us.
The Bible tells us we are dead to God unless saved, and are then given eternal life through Jesus Christ. We are GIVEN the gift of eternal life. We do not have it. After the fall, God took it away.
When born, a human is destined for hell unless saved. Once they are of an age accountable for sin, they are guilty and dead to God unless saved by Jesus Christ.
Nephilim, it broke my heart to watch the Atheists here on YT have their way with you. I must say in hindsight though, I know now why it was so easy. You're doing exactly what Greg here warns of, moving the goal post. Once again, for the fourth time, our discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. Our discussion was about the eternalness of Hell. As far as eternal life, I have pointed out John 17:3, as well as the Greek word zoe which you could've have looked up.
I can't help you if you ignore what the scriptures say about hel not being eternal. You can either accept what scripture says or deny it. Complaining about it changes nothing.
@NephilimFree There's a difference between "denying" and "refuting" a claim. When you tell me Santa Claus exists my critique of how you got to that belief is not "denial."
And complaining about sound logic against your own position doesn't make it any less sound, FYI.
Wanted to thank you for getting the League of Reason kick started. I wonder how god will punish you for that one! :-)
Instead, you chose to do neither. You elected to use a concordance, and when I pointed out the fallacy of this, you accused me of being willfully rebellious. You've decided you already have all the answers. And since you've decided I can show you nothing, I'll say my goodbyes and farewells. God be with you.
[18] Son of man, wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit.
[23] Whose graves are set in the sides of the pit, and her company is round about her grave: all of them
When we die, we sleep in the grave until judgement day. The saved go to God after Christ's 1,000 yr reuign on earth, and the wicked go to the lake of fire, where they remain untill they have paid for their sins like a sacraficial lamb, and are then concumed and exist no more.
Nephilim, once more, a concordance is not a dictionary. The Hebrew/Greek references at the back of the Strong's are not dictionaries. They only tell you the various words the original Hebrew/Greek has been translated into. The word "saw" in Genesis 9:22 for instance, is the exact same word translated as "see" in Leviticus 20:17. In Genesis, you might get the idea that Ham merely peeled the sheets back, but in Leviticus 20, you realize what he really did.
Rejecting the concordance? Are you serious? You place the concordance alongside the Bible itself in importance? And while rejecting a Bible dictionary? Just who where thinks their personal interpretation more important?
There is something in Bible study called the Law of First Mention. It means that the first time something is mentioned, the immediate context usually tells you what the word means. The first time death is mentioned is in Genesis 2:17.
YOu reject the academic information in the concordance because you need to so you can put forth your personal opinion of the meaning of words in scripture. You fail miserably when you do that.
Man became mortal in the garden. God took away imoprtality. He even states in the Bible man will not live beyond 120 yrs.
If you are going to attempt to define a foreign word w/o the aid of a dictionary, then you are going to have to lean heavily upon context. The context does not bear your definition of Hell out.
As for the book of the Revelation, Revelation 1:3 cannot be dismissed. The first part of any practical Bible study begins with attempting to place your head into the heads of the people the Bible was first written to. Understanding this, and placing your head into the heads of the people who first
read this book, you will realize what kind of a persecution they were under. Understanding that, realizing that a great many of the first readers were most likely hiding out in caves when they first read this book, they would have take Revelation 1:3 as either a misunderstanding or a lie...if you're context is to hold true. If I am being persecuted, who cares what will happen 2000 years from now? God said I would be blessed. He mocks me if He later says, "well not really."
It is the lake of fire which is the place of tormanet, not the grave, not hell. This is a lie that has gotten into people's mionds, but not the bible, from satan.
[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
[9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Now here's a kicker for you. It goes on to tell us that we are dead (mortal) unless saved:
[13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses
You're a Jehovah's Witness, aren't you, Nephilim? Answer, please. I promise no rebukes or crude comments. I only want to know who it is I'm speaking to.
Nephilim, the JW doctrine of Hell begins with the assessment that Hell does not exist. JW's believe that all unbelievers will simply cease to exist. It is a false doctrine, and it is a doctrine which you hold. Futhermore, you have yet to explain just precisely who you believe Jesus is, though I have asked you to do so. This too is a common JW tactic. If you are not a JW, then you are a sincere, but grossly misled Christian. I ask again, please tell me who you believe Jesus Christ to be.
In the Word of God, hell (hades) is the grave. The pit in which the lake of fire exists is that place we commonly refer to as "hell". The bible clearly states the wicked will be thrown into the pit and consumed.
As for Jesus, Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. You sound like someone who has not studied the Bible but thinks they can overturn it.
Please show me where the Bible states that hell is the grave. The Bible word for Hell is "Sheol" in the Hebrew, and "Gehenna" in the Greek. Sheol and Gehenna are both sometimes TRANSLATED as grave, but neither word means this, as is demonstrated by the following verses:
A concordance is not a dictionary. A concordance, such as Strong's, only tells every occurrence in which a translated word occurs. I suggest you take a peek at the Vine's, or even Zodhiates' Key Word Study Bible. In either case, you haven't explained the verses I offered, you've only asserted much like an Atheist does (and no, I am not calling you an Atheist, I'm only saying you're conversing like one).
No, "hell" is not eternal. The unsaved die, perish, are consumed, shall be no more. The saved live. Every person that is motally alive is dead in their sins unless they are given the gift of eternal life by God through Jesus Christ.
Evidence for what I have said is in the fact that no matter how strong, how volumnous, or how empirical the evidence for God is, they will deny it, regardless. This verifies that thier stance is not based upon intellectual reason, but upon an emotional rejection of God because they refuse to submit to God's law or consider themselves to be subject to it. Atheists live by denialism and creating, so they think, an emotional safehouse in their heads where they think they are free of God's holiness.
The truth is that almost everyone who proclaims themselves to be atheist is actually does believe in God. They want others to believe that they don't because they seek to evangelize the world into their worldview. They believe, in some ignorant, twisted part of their mind, that if they can stand before God at the end of their life and claim they never knew he was real that they get forgiven and a free pass. When a Christian points out to them that this is false, they become irate and vicious.
While I agree in some respect with your view that the Atheist's problem with God is not one of intellectuality, but rather of morality, I nevertheless have to question both your view that the cause of this is one of "escapism", as well as your view of the Gospel itself. Do you honestly believe all Atheists can be categorized as such? Is there no room for the Atheist who believes he will at the time be able to shake his fist at God?
I've debated hundreds of atheists, even 2 atheist evolutionist scientists. Satan said he would be like God, that he would not need God's authority. This is the same kind of escapism of humanist philosophy, to which all atheists adhere whether they even know what it is or not.
Do you believe anyone believes that they can shake tgheir fist at God and thereby become free of His law? You really aren't making any sence.
Satan said he would be like the most high. He believed that he could be free of God's authority. But then, he was satan, not a mere mortal man. I don't think any human believes they can be free of God's law. Atheists play a game of making themselves believe, only partly, that they can be free of God's authority. Deep inside they know they cannot be.
There is no such thing as mora; relativity. There is only the attempt by humanists to claim that man has the right or is capable of creating moral law.
The typical atheist does not believe they can be free of God's moral law. That is what they wish for, but they continually find it impossible, and that is why they often become foul-mouthed and vicious in debate with Christians - because they see the failure of thier humanist philosophy to usurp God.
No Nephilim, that isn't quite right. There are indeed moral relatives, as well as moral absolutes. Personal tastes are relative (shall I wear my hair long or short), while prohibitions against such things as rape and murder are absolute. Read my comments against the Atheist view here: /watch?v=pKDfa6nY1kU
And yes, the typical Atheist does indeed believe he can be free of God's moral law. That was what the lie was all about: you shall be as God, able to decide your own morality
There are no moral relatives. Man does not create moral law. Moral law requires a law giver. What you are missing is this: Making a decision that a thing is more moral or less moral requires making an absolute, objective choice.
This self-defeats the concept that morals can be subjective. You see, it is impossible for moral law to be subjective. Stating something is moral to X extent is an objective decision, which proves morals are not subjective! Therefore, it stands that morals are not relative, not subjective. It is not possible to chose a half of something that cannot be divided.
But the atheist continually fails in their evangelizing to sucessfully breka the faith of Christians. This continual failure leads to frustration and anger. That is why after they have shot all thier best arguments at you, and you still stand strong, they become irate and get foul-mouthed and vicious. They are angered that they have failed because they desperately want this confirmation that God does not exist.
I mean, it certainly wasn't escapism that made Satan rebel, so why would you think it would make all Atheists an Atheist? As for what appears your view of the Gospel, certainly you don't think the Lord Jesus accomplished all that He did, His life, death, resurrection and ascension, just to get us to Heaven, do you? Why would you expect an Atheist to be worried about something you yourself shouldn't be all wrapped up in? The Gospel is now, and it is now the Atheist should be concerned with too
Jesus is God in human flesh. His sole purpose for coming ionto this world was to provide a means of salvation for man. Yes, he came just to get us into heaven. That is precicely why he came.
No Nephilim, that is not precisely why He came. God made man in His image (the Hebrew word means "shadow"), which means that we were made to be the representatives of God here upon this earth. This requires that we make a choice however, and that choice is that we must forever remain dependent upon God - upon His love, His wisdom, His knowledge, etc. Just because we blew that does not mean God made a mistake. Jesus came to get us back to that, back to everything prior to Genesis 3.
Jesus came to provide salvation, and for no other reason:
Matt.10
[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Heaven is only a place where we must continue to be what we should be right now. By emphasizing Heaven however, you bypass the now. John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."
Notice what He does not say. He does not say, "and this is eternal life, that they will live forever and ever and ever."
Yes, we all will live forever, but eternal life has nothing to do with this. The Greek word is zoe, and it means:
You have some really screwed up theological ideas.
Lifeis not an extension of quality, but of time. In the garden, man was made mortal. God even stated how long we would live. He told us we are dead unless we live in Christ. A person only becomes immortal through salvation. Otherwise, they are dead in their sins.
The unsaved die, perish, are consumed, exist no more. The bible tells us over and over that the unsaved die while the saved live. The wages of sin is DEATH.
No Nephilim, I'm sorry, but it isn't me with the screwed up theology. "He told us we are dead unless we live in Christ" ? Point me specifically to where it says this, please. "A person only becomes immortal through salvation" ? "The unsaved die, perish, exist no more" ? So in your view, there is no Hell? The wages of sin is death, and yet you yourself will one day die. Everyone will be resurrected at the last day, Nephilim. Have you not heard of Judgment Day?
You do not understand the gospel of jesus Christ at all. The entire point of Christ's message is that we are dead, mortal, unless made to live through salvation by God's grace through Jesus Christ. I could provide 100 scriptures that state this. Here's just one:
John.5
1.[24] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
The wages of sin is death. There is indeed a hell. The unsaved will become thier own sacraficial lambs to God, suffer for a time exactly equal to the brevity of their sins (God's justice is perfect, He does not torture anyone, they pay for their sins), and they are then consumed: they perish. They die. Kapoot. Gone. The Word states they will suffer for an age. It will be a long time. They will sorely regret rejecting Christ because God's price for sin is high, as his reward is also high.
On judgement day what do you think happens? JUDGEMENT. What is the pyurpose of judgement if not to determine guilt or innocence and by what measure? You're completely lost regarding the gospel. On judgement day, so says the Word, the unsaved will be raised to condemnation and the saved unto life. The unsaved will make war against the new jerusalem and be cast into the pit.
No Nephilim, life is not an extension of time. You really need to get your hands on a Greek dictionary. Both the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, and the Zodhiates Key Study Bible are great starters. If life were about time, why would Jesus say, "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God" ? Are you dismissing Christ Himself as a liar? As mistaken? Please message me if you're interested in discussing this further. I am a Christian. Jesus is Lord
Salvation is the movement of a mortal person into imoprtality, into infinity. Are you actually trying to say the unsaved are allowed to live with God? I think you need to actually read the bible buddy. Your ideas are so far off the mark it's nutty.
"Life as God has it, the God kind of life. Life as an extension of quality, rather than as an extension of days." Read the Vine's. The other word for life was bios, but it is never used in conjunction with the word eternal. Jesus used bios when He spoke of the "worries and riches of this bios", but He never used bios with "eternal zoe." It's zoe we should be pointing Atheists to, not bios.
This is why they evangelize. They believe that if they can convince a Christian (it's always Christians) that God does not exist, then they have legitimate reason to believe it too. They seek confirmation of the nonexistance of God by trying to break the faith of Christians.
THe atheist God denialist will resort to the statement that the only proof of God would be having God present himself in person and demonstrate that he is God. it's a goal post in itself, because they know God will not do that.
When I talk to people about the existence of God it seems like nothing I say ever satisfies them...Thanks for this advice Ill keep this lesson in mind for next time.
@STRvideos There IS no evidence for the existence of god.
Discuss.
TheMonk72 2 months ago
Refuting someone's argument is NOT a form of moving the goalpost.
Imagine that instead of saying "there is no proof of God" if I said "there is no proof for Poseidon", and someone presented tsunamis and earthquakes as proof of Poseidon's existence. Obviously, I would not accept that as proof, however, it would make no sense for the Poseidonist in question to say that I'm simply moving the goalpost and that my standards for evidence are simply too high.
nadogi 2 years ago
@nadogi
Precisely. This video is ironic since this is a Christian sin far more than any atheist. Case in point -> you refute a given "proof" (as you said, refuting is not moving the goal post, it's the Christian not scoring a point), and then they resort to either condescending remarks or the faith disclaimer. This is 'moving the goal posts' because at one point proof was the delineator of truth, and then suddenly it's something else (e.g., faith).
yogurtking 1 year ago
Comment removed
nadogi 2 years ago
There is no proof an atheist would accept. I've asked many of them for what proof they would accept...and they usually cant even give me a real answer. Cause its a lie, they wont accept any proof, cause they don't want to believe in God. I asked a guy once if he would accept God himself, coming down in a pillar of light and saying "here I am". He then responded "Id have my head checked" So, even arguable the most concrete proof of God, an atheist would deny.
girzwald3 2 years ago
@girzwald3 First, girzwald3, you made an ad hominem argument here is implying all atheists are liars. Second, Christians, at the very least, are guilty of the same; what would convince you there is no god? I imagine rather than getting your head checked if you had such doubts you would just consider yourself in the grip of Satan.
yogurtking 1 year ago
@girzwald3 Here is where the atheist is coming from on this. Incidently, I would suggest you ask questions to such responses rather than making moral judgments (calling atheists liars).
It's like asking what if you saw a square circle? Would you believe in it then? Given that in what I hold no such thing could present itself by that description the question is simply incoherent. Not to mention a slew of psychological issues with such a remark. How would you trust your perception of such?
yogurtking 1 year ago
The Bible clearly states in numerous passages that the wicked are consumed in the pit and destroyed. This is the second death mentioned 3 times in Revelations. The first birth is the biody, the first death is the body. The second birth is the spirit in Christ, the second death is the spirit in the pit.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
A little further down in Genesis 3, we see the results of this death. If you will notice, neither Adam nor his wife physically die. Some will say there was spiritual death, but the passage does not bear this out, for they were both still quite capable of communicating with God. What is evident however, is that there is separation. They are both cast from the garden, though from God's discussion with Cain, not necessarily from His Presence.
rofyle 2 years ago
The Bible says the pit is a real place. Seperation is not that place. The Word of God states over and over the wicked perish, dies, are consumed, exist no more, are like the fat of the sacraficial lambs, are like the chaff of the wheat, like the tares (weeds) in the furnace, like the branches in the fire.
The unsaved perish. They die after paying for their sins. The number of verses that tell us so are numerous.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
You need to get your facts straight, Nephilim. It appears you thrive on accusation, and I'm telling you now, you are way out of line here, buddy. You're attempting to change the argument by insisting that the second death is Hell, which has never been my argument. My argument was that this very same fate was an eternal one, whereas you've argued it's only temporary. As to how I study the Bible, perhaps it's best you ask, before you jump to conclusions, hmm.
rofyle 2 years ago
The wages of sin is death. It's not life.
The second death is not hell. I have not said so. keep your mind alert. Listen to what I say.
There is a second death. Revelations (Jesus Christ's words, tell us so 3 times.
Are you denying that He said it?
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Show me one example in the bible where to die means to continue living.
Death of the body is death of the body.
Death of the spirit is death of the spirit. Neither one is life.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Where do you get this, Nephilim? Your argument has been that Hell is not a place of eternal punishment. My argument has been that it is. Among all the things that death is and is not, I've argued that one must consider Genesis 2:17, as well as the results of this in the latter half of Genesis chapter 3. God said in the day you eat of it, you shall die. But Adam didn't die. Now, there's a reason for that, but whatever your theology is, you must at least admit that whatever death is, it
rofyle 2 years ago
What are you talking about? Are you sleepwalking? I have never said hell is not a real place. If you want to keep my attention, don't put wotrds in my mouth, or stay awake enough to know what i do and do not say.
I informed you that the place of punishement is not eternal, not that it does not exist. I have verified that with scripture.
Adam did die. He was made mortal. He also died in that he was dead to God without salvation, like any of us.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The Bible tells us we are dead to God unless saved, and are then given eternal life through Jesus Christ. We are GIVEN the gift of eternal life. We do not have it. After the fall, God took it away.
When born, a human is destined for hell unless saved. Once they are of an age accountable for sin, they are guilty and dead to God unless saved by Jesus Christ.
Do you not know the gospel of Jesus Christ?
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nephilim, it broke my heart to watch the Atheists here on YT have their way with you. I must say in hindsight though, I know now why it was so easy. You're doing exactly what Greg here warns of, moving the goal post. Once again, for the fourth time, our discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. Our discussion was about the eternalness of Hell. As far as eternal life, I have pointed out John 17:3, as well as the Greek word zoe which you could've have looked up.
rofyle 2 years ago
I can't help you if you ignore what the scriptures say about hel not being eternal. You can either accept what scripture says or deny it. Complaining about it changes nothing.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
@NephilimFree There's a difference between "denying" and "refuting" a claim. When you tell me Santa Claus exists my critique of how you got to that belief is not "denial."
And complaining about sound logic against your own position doesn't make it any less sound, FYI.
Wanted to thank you for getting the League of Reason kick started. I wonder how god will punish you for that one! :-)
yogurtking 1 year ago
Instead, you chose to do neither. You elected to use a concordance, and when I pointed out the fallacy of this, you accused me of being willfully rebellious. You've decided you already have all the answers. And since you've decided I can show you nothing, I'll say my goodbyes and farewells. God be with you.
rofyle 2 years ago
Are the wages of sin death?
Answer me that.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Good bye, Nephilim.
rofyle 2 years ago
also incorporates the idea of separation, as both Adam and his wife were driven from the Garden.
Consider Revelation 20:5
rofyle 2 years ago
Ezek.32
[18] Son of man, wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit.
[23] Whose graves are set in the sides of the pit, and her company is round about her grave: all of them
NephilimFree 2 years ago
When we die, we sleep in the grave until judgement day. The saved go to God after Christ's 1,000 yr reuign on earth, and the wicked go to the lake of fire, where they remain untill they have paid for their sins like a sacraficial lamb, and are then concumed and exist no more.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nephilim, once more, a concordance is not a dictionary. The Hebrew/Greek references at the back of the Strong's are not dictionaries. They only tell you the various words the original Hebrew/Greek has been translated into. The word "saw" in Genesis 9:22 for instance, is the exact same word translated as "see" in Leviticus 20:17. In Genesis, you might get the idea that Ham merely peeled the sheets back, but in Leviticus 20, you realize what he really did.
rofyle 2 years ago
Rejecting the concordance is rejecting the meaning of the text. You do this because you think your personal interpretation is more important.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Rejecting the concordance? Are you serious? You place the concordance alongside the Bible itself in importance? And while rejecting a Bible dictionary? Just who where thinks their personal interpretation more important?
There is something in Bible study called the Law of First Mention. It means that the first time something is mentioned, the immediate context usually tells you what the word means. The first time death is mentioned is in Genesis 2:17.
rofyle 2 years ago
YOu reject the academic information in the concordance because you need to so you can put forth your personal opinion of the meaning of words in scripture. You fail miserably when you do that.
Man became mortal in the garden. God took away imoprtality. He even states in the Bible man will not live beyond 120 yrs.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
If you are going to attempt to define a foreign word w/o the aid of a dictionary, then you are going to have to lean heavily upon context. The context does not bear your definition of Hell out.
As for the book of the Revelation, Revelation 1:3 cannot be dismissed. The first part of any practical Bible study begins with attempting to place your head into the heads of the people the Bible was first written to. Understanding this, and placing your head into the heads of the people who first
rofyle 2 years ago
read this book, you will realize what kind of a persecution they were under. Understanding that, realizing that a great many of the first readers were most likely hiding out in caves when they first read this book, they would have take Revelation 1:3 as either a misunderstanding or a lie...if you're context is to hold true. If I am being persecuted, who cares what will happen 2000 years from now? God said I would be blessed. He mocks me if He later says, "well not really."
rofyle 2 years ago
H7585 shĕ'owl sheh·ole' - grave, hell, pit
The primary meaning of sheole is grave.
Hell is the grave.
It is the lake of fire which is the place of tormanet, not the grave, not hell. This is a lie that has gotten into people's mionds, but not the bible, from satan.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Col.2
[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
[9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Now here's a kicker for you. It goes on to tell us that we are dead (mortal) unless saved:
[13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses
NephilimFree 2 years ago
You're a Jehovah's Witness, aren't you, Nephilim? Answer, please. I promise no rebukes or crude comments. I only want to know who it is I'm speaking to.
rofyle 2 years ago
No, I am not a JW and nothing I havew said should give you that idea. I am nondenominational. How about you? Got a dogma of your own? I don't.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nephilim, the JW doctrine of Hell begins with the assessment that Hell does not exist. JW's believe that all unbelievers will simply cease to exist. It is a false doctrine, and it is a doctrine which you hold. Futhermore, you have yet to explain just precisely who you believe Jesus is, though I have asked you to do so. This too is a common JW tactic. If you are not a JW, then you are a sincere, but grossly misled Christian. I ask again, please tell me who you believe Jesus Christ to be.
rofyle 2 years ago
In the Word of God, hell (hades) is the grave. The pit in which the lake of fire exists is that place we commonly refer to as "hell". The bible clearly states the wicked will be thrown into the pit and consumed.
As for Jesus, Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. You sound like someone who has not studied the Bible but thinks they can overturn it.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nephilim:
Please show me where the Bible states that hell is the grave. The Bible word for Hell is "Sheol" in the Hebrew, and "Gehenna" in the Greek. Sheol and Gehenna are both sometimes TRANSLATED as grave, but neither word means this, as is demonstrated by the following verses:
Daniel 12:10
Isaiah 66:24
Revelation 21:8
The most profound however, is Jesus' own words. Matthew 25:30. How can there be weeping and gnashing of teeth if the person no longer exists?
rofyle 2 years ago
Go to a concordance. Hell is the grave. The place of torment is the lake of fire in the pit.
The unsaved are not destroyed before their pay for their sins, but after.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
A concordance is not a dictionary. A concordance, such as Strong's, only tells every occurrence in which a translated word occurs. I suggest you take a peek at the Vine's, or even Zodhiates' Key Word Study Bible. In either case, you haven't explained the verses I offered, you've only asserted much like an Atheist does (and no, I am not calling you an Atheist, I'm only saying you're conversing like one).
rofyle 2 years ago
Ah yes, by all means, avoid the concordance. laughable!
1Cor.15
[55] O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
NephilimFree 2 years ago
John.12
[17] The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record.
people sleep in the grave. The grave is the earth, some unknown, special place within the earth. God has not told us where.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
They will rise from the grave:
John.5
[28] Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
NephilimFree 2 years ago
No, "hell" is not eternal. The unsaved die, perish, are consumed, shall be no more. The saved live. Every person that is motally alive is dead in their sins unless they are given the gift of eternal life by God through Jesus Christ.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nephilim, I'm getting the distinct impression here that you are not who you claim to be. Please answer the question, is there a Hell, yes or no?
rofyle 2 years ago
I have answered that question. Read what i post.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The second death is the death of the spirit of the unsaved in the pit:
Rev.2
[11] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Rev.20
[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Evidence for what I have said is in the fact that no matter how strong, how volumnous, or how empirical the evidence for God is, they will deny it, regardless. This verifies that thier stance is not based upon intellectual reason, but upon an emotional rejection of God because they refuse to submit to God's law or consider themselves to be subject to it. Atheists live by denialism and creating, so they think, an emotional safehouse in their heads where they think they are free of God's holiness.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The truth is that almost everyone who proclaims themselves to be atheist is actually does believe in God. They want others to believe that they don't because they seek to evangelize the world into their worldview. They believe, in some ignorant, twisted part of their mind, that if they can stand before God at the end of their life and claim they never knew he was real that they get forgiven and a free pass. When a Christian points out to them that this is false, they become irate and vicious.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nephilim:
While I agree in some respect with your view that the Atheist's problem with God is not one of intellectuality, but rather of morality, I nevertheless have to question both your view that the cause of this is one of "escapism", as well as your view of the Gospel itself. Do you honestly believe all Atheists can be categorized as such? Is there no room for the Atheist who believes he will at the time be able to shake his fist at God?
rofyle 2 years ago
I've debated hundreds of atheists, even 2 atheist evolutionist scientists. Satan said he would be like God, that he would not need God's authority. This is the same kind of escapism of humanist philosophy, to which all atheists adhere whether they even know what it is or not.
Do you believe anyone believes that they can shake tgheir fist at God and thereby become free of His law? You really aren't making any sence.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Satan said he would be like the most high. He believed that he could be free of God's authority. But then, he was satan, not a mere mortal man. I don't think any human believes they can be free of God's law. Atheists play a game of making themselves believe, only partly, that they can be free of God's authority. Deep inside they know they cannot be.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nephilim:
If you don't believe any human believes they can be free of God's law, then you have another thing coming. What do you think moral relativity is?
rofyle 2 years ago
There is no such thing as mora; relativity. There is only the attempt by humanists to claim that man has the right or is capable of creating moral law.
The typical atheist does not believe they can be free of God's moral law. That is what they wish for, but they continually find it impossible, and that is why they often become foul-mouthed and vicious in debate with Christians - because they see the failure of thier humanist philosophy to usurp God.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nephilim:
No Nephilim, that isn't quite right. There are indeed moral relatives, as well as moral absolutes. Personal tastes are relative (shall I wear my hair long or short), while prohibitions against such things as rape and murder are absolute. Read my comments against the Atheist view here: /watch?v=pKDfa6nY1kU
And yes, the typical Atheist does indeed believe he can be free of God's moral law. That was what the lie was all about: you shall be as God, able to decide your own morality
rofyle 2 years ago
There are no moral relatives. Man does not create moral law. Moral law requires a law giver. What you are missing is this: Making a decision that a thing is more moral or less moral requires making an absolute, objective choice.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
This self-defeats the concept that morals can be subjective. You see, it is impossible for moral law to be subjective. Stating something is moral to X extent is an objective decision, which proves morals are not subjective! Therefore, it stands that morals are not relative, not subjective. It is not possible to chose a half of something that cannot be divided.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
But the atheist continually fails in their evangelizing to sucessfully breka the faith of Christians. This continual failure leads to frustration and anger. That is why after they have shot all thier best arguments at you, and you still stand strong, they become irate and get foul-mouthed and vicious. They are angered that they have failed because they desperately want this confirmation that God does not exist.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
I mean, it certainly wasn't escapism that made Satan rebel, so why would you think it would make all Atheists an Atheist? As for what appears your view of the Gospel, certainly you don't think the Lord Jesus accomplished all that He did, His life, death, resurrection and ascension, just to get us to Heaven, do you? Why would you expect an Atheist to be worried about something you yourself shouldn't be all wrapped up in? The Gospel is now, and it is now the Atheist should be concerned with too
rofyle 2 years ago
Jesus is God in human flesh. His sole purpose for coming ionto this world was to provide a means of salvation for man. Yes, he came just to get us into heaven. That is precicely why he came.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
No Nephilim, that is not precisely why He came. God made man in His image (the Hebrew word means "shadow"), which means that we were made to be the representatives of God here upon this earth. This requires that we make a choice however, and that choice is that we must forever remain dependent upon God - upon His love, His wisdom, His knowledge, etc. Just because we blew that does not mean God made a mistake. Jesus came to get us back to that, back to everything prior to Genesis 3.
rofyle 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, it is precicely why God came. Jesus came to die for our sins. He came only to provide a way to live with God.
John.3
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Jesus came for one purpose only: to provide a way of salvation to man:
John.12
[44] Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
[45] And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
[46] I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
[47] And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Jesus came to provide salvation, and for no other reason:
Matt.10
[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
[37] He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
[38] And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
[39] He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
[40] He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Heaven is only a place where we must continue to be what we should be right now. By emphasizing Heaven however, you bypass the now. John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."
Notice what He does not say. He does not say, "and this is eternal life, that they will live forever and ever and ever."
Yes, we all will live forever, but eternal life has nothing to do with this. The Greek word is zoe, and it means:
rofyle 2 years ago
You have some really screwed up theological ideas.
Lifeis not an extension of quality, but of time. In the garden, man was made mortal. God even stated how long we would live. He told us we are dead unless we live in Christ. A person only becomes immortal through salvation. Otherwise, they are dead in their sins.
The unsaved die, perish, are consumed, exist no more. The bible tells us over and over that the unsaved die while the saved live. The wages of sin is DEATH.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
No Nephilim, I'm sorry, but it isn't me with the screwed up theology. "He told us we are dead unless we live in Christ" ? Point me specifically to where it says this, please. "A person only becomes immortal through salvation" ? "The unsaved die, perish, exist no more" ? So in your view, there is no Hell? The wages of sin is death, and yet you yourself will one day die. Everyone will be resurrected at the last day, Nephilim. Have you not heard of Judgment Day?
rofyle 2 years ago
You do not understand the gospel of jesus Christ at all. The entire point of Christ's message is that we are dead, mortal, unless made to live through salvation by God's grace through Jesus Christ. I could provide 100 scriptures that state this. Here's just one:
John.5
1.[24] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Nephilim, now I'm also certain you're not who you claim to be. Please answer the following, Who is Jesus Christ? And I want specifics.
rofyle 2 years ago
John.14
[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The wages of sin is death. There is indeed a hell. The unsaved will become thier own sacraficial lambs to God, suffer for a time exactly equal to the brevity of their sins (God's justice is perfect, He does not torture anyone, they pay for their sins), and they are then consumed: they perish. They die. Kapoot. Gone. The Word states they will suffer for an age. It will be a long time. They will sorely regret rejecting Christ because God's price for sin is high, as his reward is also high.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
On judgement day what do you think happens? JUDGEMENT. What is the pyurpose of judgement if not to determine guilt or innocence and by what measure? You're completely lost regarding the gospel. On judgement day, so says the Word, the unsaved will be raised to condemnation and the saved unto life. The unsaved will make war against the new jerusalem and be cast into the pit.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
No Nephilim, life is not an extension of time. You really need to get your hands on a Greek dictionary. Both the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, and the Zodhiates Key Study Bible are great starters. If life were about time, why would Jesus say, "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God" ? Are you dismissing Christ Himself as a liar? As mistaken? Please message me if you're interested in discussing this further. I am a Christian. Jesus is Lord
rofyle 2 years ago
Salvation is the movement of a mortal person into imoprtality, into infinity. Are you actually trying to say the unsaved are allowed to live with God? I think you need to actually read the bible buddy. Your ideas are so far off the mark it's nutty.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
"Life as God has it, the God kind of life. Life as an extension of quality, rather than as an extension of days." Read the Vine's. The other word for life was bios, but it is never used in conjunction with the word eternal. Jesus used bios when He spoke of the "worries and riches of this bios", but He never used bios with "eternal zoe." It's zoe we should be pointing Atheists to, not bios.
rofyle 2 years ago
This is why they evangelize. They believe that if they can convince a Christian (it's always Christians) that God does not exist, then they have legitimate reason to believe it too. They seek confirmation of the nonexistance of God by trying to break the faith of Christians.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
THe atheist God denialist will resort to the statement that the only proof of God would be having God present himself in person and demonstrate that he is God. it's a goal post in itself, because they know God will not do that.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Great point! Thanks
twanablevins 2 years ago
Amazing to listen to.
Travel1407 2 years ago
great video thanks, keep'em coming.
118min 2 years ago
great video
iToyRobot 2 years ago
When I talk to people about the existence of God it seems like nothing I say ever satisfies them...Thanks for this advice Ill keep this lesson in mind for next time.
God Bless from Canada =)
David578593 2 years ago