More False JW Doctrines

robycop3

Well-known member
Luke 16 makes it even more obvious the lake of fire is figurative, for if there are people experiencing torment in Hades, they've already been judged. (Thus, there's no need for judgement at Revelation 20:10-13. Nor is there no real purpose for the lake of fire). Still, Hades(--a place of "Paradise" and 'torment' per your understanding) is being thrown into the lake of fire according to Revelation 20:14.
The judgment comes at the Great White Throne for the wicked dead. Meanwhile, they're in the 'torments' area of hades.
Of course. However, this is figurative(--not literal) language.
MMRRPP ! WRONG !
It's literal-nothing in the surrounding Scripture suggesting otherwise.
Acts 21:39; Romans 11:1
AGAIN, WRONG !
Paul goes on in Romans 11:1 to say he's of the tribe of Benjamin, which is part of the Jews.
Again, Isaiah 9:6 is never applied to Christ, & there's no child at Isaiah 53.
There certainly is in Isaiah 9.
Jesus is divine. (Being divine doesn't make you God, however.)
Oh, it DOESN'T ???????Then just what DOES it make one ?
Or, the words translated "worship" are not used exclusively of God.
Actually, it means "bow" or "prostrate oneself", which was commonly done to kings. There's more to worship than just bowing. While I was in the Navy, while in Tokyo, some japanese bowed to me because of my skill on a pinball machine. Later, a Japanese man told me that bowing was a show of respect, not worship.
Except for the fact that John identifies him as one.
John definitely knew he was in an angel's presence after the angel told him not to worship him, but it's unlikely John knew that before the angel told him, or he would'nta started worshipping him in the first place.
That's not what blasphemy is. Blasphemy is any type of slander against another.
Look in your Oxford English Dictionary.
Or, I don't believe what's not clearly taught in Scripture.
And Scripture clearly teacher that Jesus sent the HS in His own place.
It was Thomas, as explained in John. No otherr doubter is mentioned.
Or more accurately--not in your case.
Again, MMRRPP ! WRONG !
You're entitled to believe whatever you like.

If you wish to call "abstaining from blood" a false belief, agaiin, you're entitled to your opinion.
It was God's will that blood TXs helped save my wife's life. While I hope you're never faced with such a situation, I hope you choose LIFE.

I'd hate to see someone else die because of EGW's garbage.
 
The judgment comes at the Great White Throne for the wicked dead. Meanwhile, they're in the 'torments' area of hades.
Let me understand this: there are dead people being tormented in Hades, but they haven't been judged?

If they haven't been judged, why are they being tormented in Hades?
MMRRPP ! WRONG !
It's literal-nothing in the surrounding Scripture suggesting otherwise.
Doesn't the text say "they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath"? So, since(--as you say) nothing in the surrounding Scripture suggests it's not literal, we can expect someone to pour the wicked literal "God's Wrath" 100 proof wine into God's (matching) Wrath cup, right?

More than that, we see that "torment" is able to be burned so as to generate ever-rising smoke.
AGAIN, WRONG !
Paul goes on in Romans 11:1 to say he's of the tribe of Benjamin, which is part of the Jews.
Just checking:
ην δε εγγυς το πασχα των ιουδαιων... (Now the Passover of the Jews was near...)
There certainly is in Isaiah 9.
But it's not Jesus.
Oh, it DOESN'T ???????Then just what DOES it make one ?
Divine.
Actually, it means "bow" or "prostrate oneself", which was commonly done to kings. There's more to worship than just bowing. While I was in the Navy, while in Tokyo, some japanese bowed to me because of my skill on a pinball machine. Later, a Japanese man told me that bowing was a show of respect, not worship.
No wonder SHACHAH/PROSKUNEW is rendered as "obeisance" in the NWT!

However, the text states ויקדו וישתחוו ליהוה ולמלך (they bowed their heads and worshipped YHWH and the king)
John definitely knew he was in an angel's presence after the angel told him not to worship him, but it's unlikely John knew that before the angel told him, or he would'nta started worshipping him in the first place.
John clearly states:
The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scrI, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. (Revelation 22:6-8)
Look in your Oxford English Dictionary.
I'd advise you to check the Greek.
And Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus sent the HS in His own place.
I see.
It was Thomas, as explained in John. No otherr doubter is mentioned.
Thomas alone wouldn't be "some".
Again, MMRRPP ! WRONG !


It was God's will that blood TXs helped save my wife's life.
God is a spirit (John 4:24), so He has no blood.
While I hope you're never faced with such a situation, I hope you choose LIFE.

I'd hate to see someone else die because of EGW's garbage.
Like Scripture says, obedience is better than sacrifice.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Let me understand this: there are dead people being tormented in Hades, but they haven't been judged?

If they haven't been judged, why are they being tormented in Hades?
According to the SDA cult's doctrine, they're in the "investigative judgment". Evidently, that doctrine is wrong, or they wouldn'ta gone to 'torments'. So, if you believe they're already judged, then the "investigative judgment" is false. It can't be both ways !
Doesn't the text say "they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath"? So, since(--as you say) nothing in the surrounding Scripture suggests it's not literal, we can expect someone to pour the wicked literal "God's Wrath" 100 proof wine into God's (matching) Wrath cup, right?
I never said it was 100% literal. But that symbolism shouldn't need much interpretation.
More than that, we see that "torment" is able to be burned so as to generate ever-rising smoke.
Ine smoke is of the torment of the living inhabitants of the LOF. Whether hades is burned up or not, I have no isea.
The Jews were almost the only-identifiable Israelis of that time, with a few exceptions such as Anna, the prophetess of the tribe of Asher who blessed the baby Jesus in the temple.
Yes, it IS.
You're talking in circles.
No wonder SHACHAH/PROSKUNEW is rendered as "obeisance" in the NWT!

However, the text states ויקדו וישתחוו ליהוה ולמלך (they bowed their heads and worshipped YHWH and the king)
If Dave had believed they were worshipping him, he woulda told them to stop.
John clearly states:
Again, John likely didn't know at first that the messenger was an angel.
I'd advise you to check the Greek.
The Greek is the same; it doesn't specify God, but then & now, it's most-often applied to reviling Him.
Good !
Thomas alone wouldn't be "some".
Scripture doesn't say who 'some' were, so I leave it at that.
God is a spirit (John 4:24), so He has no blood.
Nothing to do with TXs being among the things that saved my wife's life.
Like Scripture says, obedience is better than sacrifice.
Glad you have no "power of attorney" or guardianship over me or mine. If a minor were involved, a court would step in. If I were a judge, & a parent was willing to let a child die over some silly religious hooey, which is false to begin with, I'd immediately suspend that parent's guardianship & appoint a RESPONSIBLE guardian & order the hospital to perform whatever measures were medically necessary to try to save the child's life.
 
According to the SDA cult's doctrine, they're in the "investigative judgment". Evidently, that doctrine is wrong, or they wouldn'ta gone to 'torments'. So, if you believe they're already judged, then the "investigative judgment" is false. It can't be both ways !
That doesn't answer my question.
I never said it was 100% literal. But that symbolism shouldn't need much interpretation.
You said:
MMRRPP ! WRONG !
It's literal
-nothing in the surrounding Scripture suggesting otherwise.
Ine smoke is of the torment of the living inhabitants of the LOF.
That's not what the text says. It says the "smoke of their torment", which means torment is being burned (if you take the text literally).
Whether hades is burned up or not, I have no isea.
If it is literal, it would mean (per your reasoning) that Hades and Death are being tormented.
The Jews were almost the only-identifiable Israelis of that time, with a few exceptions such as Anna, the prophetess of the tribe of Asher who blessed the baby Jesus in the temple.
Initially, the term "Jew" referred to those of the Southern (two-tribe) Kingdom , the term in Jesus' day referred to all Israelites--which is why Jesus is referred to as both "the king of the Jews" ( ὁ βασιλεῦς τῶν Ἰουδαίων--Matthew 27:37) and "king of Israel" (βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ--Matthew 27:42).

It's also why John 11:55 mentions the "passover of the Jews" (πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Compare Numbers 9:2).

Yes, it IS.
Claiming it is Jesus doesn't make it so.
You're talking in circles.
Only because you're using circular reasoning.
If Dave had believed they were worshipping him, he woulda told them to stop.
No he wouldn't as they were not "worshipping" David as God.

(By now, you should understand that "worship" isn't something that only God rightfully receives. However, He is the only one that should be "worshipped as God".)
Again, John likely didn't know at first that the messenger was an angel.
John was aware because in the text, he was told (Revelation 22:6).
The Greek is the same; it doesn't specify God, but then & now, it's most-often applied to reviling Him.
It actually refers to slander.
Yes, it is good you understand sarcasm.
Scripture doesn't say who 'some' were, so I leave it at that.
As long as you are aware that "some" didn't include Thomas.
Nothing to do with TXs being among the things that saved my wife's life.
There is a difference between God's will and man's will.

God's will is that we "abstain from blood".
Glad you have no "power of attorney" or guardianship over me or mine. If a minor were involved, a court would step in. If I were a judge, & a parent was willing to let a child die over some silly religious hooey, which is false to begin with, I'd immediately suspend that parent's guardianship & appoint a RESPONSIBLE guardian & order the hospital to perform whatever measures were medically necessary to try to save the child's life.
You have yet to prove that the abstinence from blood is "religious hooey" and 'false to begin with'.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
That doesn't answer my question.
Actually, it DOES. You just don't like the answer.
You said:


That's not what the text says. It says the "smoke of their torment", which means torment is being burned (if you take the text literally).

If it is literal, it would mean (per your reasoning) that Hades and Death are being tormented.
Sir, I don't wanna be insulting, but your responses are getting sillier & more-desperate in your vain attempts to justify your cult's doctrines,
Initially, the term "Jew" referred to those of the Southern (two-tribe) Kingdom , the term in Jesus' day referred to all Israelites--which is why Jesus is referred to as both "the king of the Jews" ( ὁ βασιλεῦς τῶν Ἰουδαίων--Matthew 27:37) and "king of Israel" (βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ--Matthew 27:42).
That's because Jews are Israelis, & as a man, Jesus was a Jew.
It's also why John 11:55 mentions the "passover of the Jews" (πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Compare Numbers 9:2).
Well, ACTUALLY, it's because the Jews were the only ones observing it. (Aside from a few non-Jewish individuals)
Claiming it is Jesus doesn't make it so.
Sir, I suggest you read Isaiah 9 CLOSELY.
Only because you're using circular reasoning.
Again, you're being desperate & silly. "Divine" means "being God".
No he wouldn't as they were not "worshipping" David as God.

(By now, you should understand that "worship" isn't something that only God rightfully receives. However, He is the only one that should be "worshipped as God".)
"Worship" means to honor or show reverence for a divine being or supernatural power.
John was aware because in the text, he was told (Revelation 22:6).
Remember, John wrote Rev mostly in past tense. He would not have knowingly started to worship an angel.
It actually refers to slander.
And what Jesus said about Satan was true, not slander. Had Michael said the same things, it wouldn'ta been slander, either. But again, Michael didn't dare say bad things about Satan, while Jesus did so without hesitation. Simply proves Michael is not Jesus.
Yes, it is good you understand sarcasm.
And foolish attempts to defend a quack (in this case, EGW) as well.
As long as you are aware that "some" didn't include Thomas.
OF COURSE it did. Scripture simply doesn't name the others.
There is a difference between God's will and man's will.

God's will is that we "abstain from blood".

You have yet to prove that the abstinence from blood is "religious hooey" and 'false to begin with'.
YOU have yet to prove that saving the life of another person is wrong, or that God changed His original command not to INGEST blood, as He gave it in Lev. 3:17. Y'all let MRS. WHITE change God's command.
 
Actually, it DOES. You just don't like the answer.
Let's see. Here is our conversation (with my words in black and yours in red):

If they haven't been judged, why are they being tormented in Hades?

According to the SDA cult's doctrine, they're in the "investigative judgment". Evidently, that doctrine is wrong, or they wouldn'ta gone to 'torments'. So, if you believe they're already judged, then the "investigative judgment" is false. It can't be both ways !
You see, I asked you why are people being tormented in Hades if they haven't been judged, and instead of you answering the question, you told me what the SDAs believe(, and said that belief is wrong).

So, please present an answer as to why those who haven't been judged are being punished (or rewarded) in Hades.
robycop3:
Sir, I don't wanna be insulting, but your responses are getting sillier & more-desperate in your vain attempts to justify your cult's doctrines,
You are the one that thinks the torment in Revelation is literal (yet denies that the annihilation in Matthew 10:28 is literal).

Hence, you would have to think that everything thrown into the lake of fire is experiencing (literal) torment.

robycop3:

That's because Jews are Israelis, & as a man, Jesus was a Jew.
That still does not explain why Jesus is "King of Israel" since(--according to you) not all Israelis are Jews.

(You see, if not all Israelites were Jews, Jesus could be king of the Jews without being king of Israel.)

robycop3:
Well, ACTUALLY, it's because the Jews were the only ones observing it. (Aside from a few non-Jewish individuals)
That would only be true if no other Israelites were observing Passover.

And the only way that could be possible is if the other tribes were extinct.
robycop3:
Sir, I suggest you read Isaiah 9 CLOSELY.
I have.
robycop3:
Again, you're being desperate & silly. "Divine" means "being God".
In what language(, because it doesn't mean that in either Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, or English)?
robycop3:
"Worship" means to honor or show reverence for a divine being or supernatural power.
Revelation 3:9.
robycop3:
Remember, John wrote Rev mostly in past tense. He would not have knowingly started to worship an angel.
John writing in the past tense only strengthens my point, because it means that John was told:
These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.
at the time he was being shown these things.

robycop3:
And what Jesus said about Satan was true, not slander. Had Michael said the same things, it wouldn'ta been slander, either. But again, Michael didn't dare say bad things about Satan, while Jesus did so without hesitation. Simply proves Michael is not Jesus.
That's like saying if I say bad things about Satan without hesitation, such makes me Jesus.

The text, however, is about "blaspheming"--which neither Jesus nor Michael did. (So, Jude 9 cannot be a text used to prove Jesus is not Michael.)
robycop3:
And foolish attempts to defend a quack (in this case, EGW) as well.
More like properly understanding Scripture.
robycop3:

OF COURSE it did. Scripture simply doesn't name the others.
That means you believe Thomas didn't believe after the events at John 20:24-29.
robycop3:
YOU have yet to prove that saving the life of another person is wrong,
I already have. (You simply dismissed it.)
robycop3:
or that God changed His original command not to INGEST blood, as He gave it in Lev. 3:17. Y'all let MRS. WHITE change God's command.
Or, we understand the term "abstain".
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
What is Paul saying here
Acts 22:3
Men, brethren, and fathers,
hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them,
they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia,
yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel,
and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,

and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Rev. 3:7
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan,
which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie;
behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet,

and to know that I have loved thee.

Do you really think God is going too make them to fall down and
"Worship" men if they are GODS ??????
so just maybe; the word "Worship" doesn't quite mean what your teachers have told you

From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law;
understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

my advise;
Get yourself some different teachers

Lk.6:39
He also told them this parable:
Can the blind lead the blind?
Will they not both fall into a pit?
40 The student is not above the teacher,

but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Let's see. Here is our conversation (with my words in black and yours in red):


You see, I asked you why are people being tormented in Hades if they haven't been judged, and instead of you answering the question, you told me what the SDAs believe(, and said that belief is wrong).
OF COURSE the dead have been judged, all their lives, on Jesus' version of an audio/video recorder. Those under the New Covenant are judged on whether they came to Jesus or not. There's no "investigative judgment." that was invented by EGW. The "Great white Throne" judgment is just a review of the wickeds' lives, which Jesus already knows.
So, please present an answer as to why those who haven't been judged are being punished (or rewarded) in Hades.
See my above answer.
You are the one that thinks the torment in Revelation is literal (yet denies that the annihilation in Matthew 10:28 is literal).
It's not what I say but what GOD said in Revelation. And Mark 9:44, 46, & 48 all read "where their worm does not die & the fire is not quenched". If they're annihilated, it wouldn't matter. However, the "annihilationist" doctrine is false, as are many more SDA goofy ideas.
Hence, you would have to think that everything thrown into the lake of fire is experiencing (literal) torment.
My, you're getting desperate & sillier ! Non-living things can't be tormented, of course !
That still does not explain why Jesus is "King of Israel" since(--according to you) not all Israelis are Jews.

(You see, if not all Israelites were Jews, Jesus could be king of the Jews without being king of Israel.)
More desperation. All Jews are Israelis, but not all Israelis are Jews.
That would only be true if no other Israelites were observing Passover.

And the only way that could be possible is if the other tribes were extinct.
None of the tribes are extinct. They simply don't know their true identity yet.
Then you shoulda known the child in Isaiah 9 is Jesus.
In what language(, because it doesn't mean that in either Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, or English)?
It certainly does in English.
Nice try, but the Greek in Rev. 3:9 is "proskyneo", to bow down in reverence, not necessarily worship, while the Greek for 'to worship' is "ethelothrēskia".
John writing in the past tense only strengthens my point, because it means that John was told:

at the time he was being shown these things.
If he'd known the messenger was an angel, he would not have begun to worship.
That's like saying if I say bad things about Satan without hesitation, such makes me Jesus.

The text, however, is about "blaspheming"--which neither Jesus nor Michael did. (So, Jude 9 cannot be a text used to prove Jesus is not Michael.)
Depends on the situation. Jesus was telling 100% truth about Satan. And while Michael wouldn't dare do it, Jesus will "dare" do anything that's not sinful. And again, Michael is never called a king in Scripture.
More like properly understanding Scripture.
More like trying to make it fit a cult's false doctrine.
That means you believe Thomas didn't believe after the events at John 20:24-29.
You're weird. Thomas, after palpitating Jesus' scars, said, "My Lord & my God !"
I already have. (You simply dismissed it.)
Your example was Saul's disobeying God's direct command to whack ALL the Amalekites & all their animals. Nothing to do with a random encounter of a stranger in distress or a loved one needing a blood TX to save his/her life.
Or, we understand the term "abstain".
Or try to make it include something the original command didn't say.
Lev. 3:17It is a permanent statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.’”
Don't see TXs in that statute anywhere.

Gen. 9:4But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Do you eat red meat? if so, you're eating it with blood.

Again, that law was given ONLY TO ISRAEL. If you're depending on the law to keep your salvation, remember, you must keep every jot & tittle of it. That means you must whack every known LGBTQ you know of & destroy every workplace doing business on Saturday.
 
OF COURSE the dead have been judged, all their lives, on Jesus' version of an audio/video recorder. Those under the New Covenant are judged on whether they came to Jesus or not. There's no "investigative judgment." that was invented by EGW. The "Great white Throne" judgment is just a review of the wickeds' lives, which Jesus already knows
See my above answer.
So, if I understand you correctly:

people are judged (the 1st time) when they go to Hades, and then they're judged a 2nd time in front of the Great White throne (just as a review of the 1st judgement)?

Where is this in Scripture? (BTW, you've proven what I said earlier--if you believe persons have been judged before going to Hades, the Great White Throne judgement is meaningless.)
It's not what I say but what GOD said in Revelation. And Mark 9:44, 46, & 48 all read "where their worm does not die & the fire is not quenched". If they're annihilated, it wouldn't matter. However, the "annihilationist" doctrine is false, as are many more SDA goofy ideas.
It seems you've never read Isaiah 66:24:
As they leave, they will see the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against Me; for their worm will never die, their fire will never be quenched, and they will be a horror to all mankind
Did you notice "their worm will never die, their fire never quenched" refers to dead bodies(--not anyone living or being eternally tormented)?

So, what makes you think Jesus would use a figuative statement in Isaiah to refer to literal torment?
My, you're getting desperate & sillier ! Non-living things can't be tormented, of course !
Yet, you believe torment smokes. (For the text speaks of "the smoke of theiir torment...")

Or is this figurative language as well?
More desperation. All Jews are Israelis, but not all Israelis are Jews.
I see.

So because Jesus is a Jew, he can be "king of Israel" too? (Interesting.)
None of the tribes are extinct. They simply don't know their true identity yet.
So your argument now is that the rest of Israel didn't know they were Israelites(, which is why they didn't celebrate Passover. So only the Jews celebrated Passover, thus is why it's called the "Passover of the Jews), correct?
Then you shoulda known the child in Isaiah 9 is Jesus.
Isaiah 9:6 doesn't depict the child as Jesus(. Nor does any Bible writer apply the words of Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus).

Thus, those who apply the text are speculating.
It certainly does in English.
Not in any English dictionary I've seen.
Nice try, but the Greek in Rev. 3:9 is "proskyneo", to bow down in reverence, not necessarily worship, while the Greek for 'to worship' is "ethelothrēskia".
Interesting.
If he'd known the messenger was an angel, he would not have begun to worship.
You keep making this claim, but the text shows otherwise.

(BTW, what were you saying about PROSKUNEW?)
Depends on the situation. Jesus was telling 100% truth about Satan. And while Michael wouldn't dare do it, Jesus will "dare" do anything that's not sinful. And again, Michael is never called a king in Scripture.
So again, if Jesus didn't blaspheme, and Michael didn't blaspheme, how does Jude 1:9 prove Jesus is not Michael?
More like trying to make it fit a cult's false doctrine.
Or, more like gleaning from Scripture that God sent the holy spirit through His son.
You're weird. Thomas, after palpitating Jesus' scars, said, "My Lord & my God !"
So, how is it that you believe Thomas is included in the ones doubting at Matthew 28:17?
Your example was Saul's disobeying God's direct command to whack ALL the Amalekites & all their animals. Nothing to do with a random encounter of a stranger in distress or a loved one needing a blood TX to save his/her life.
Saul "saved a life", did he not?

But, according to your statement, saving a life is never evil.

So, which is it?
Or try to make it include something the original command didn't say.
Lev. 3:17It is a permanent statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.’”
Don't see TXs in that statute anywhere.

Gen. 9:4But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Based on this, one can drink blood, correct?

(But let's not forget the Law regarding a woman's cycle as well as others like it.)
Do you eat red meat? if so, you're eating it with blood.
Who in their right mind eats red meat?
Again, that law was given ONLY TO ISRAEL. If you're depending on the law to keep your salvation, remember, you must keep every jot & tittle of it. That means you must whack every known LGBTQ you know of & destroy every workplace doing business on Saturday.
So the commandment to abstain from blood was only for Isreal.

(Got it.)
 

robycop3

Well-known member
So, if I understand you correctly:

people are judged (the 1st time) when they go to Hades, and then they're judged a 2nd time in front of the Great White throne (just as a review of the 1st judgement)?
Where is this in Scripture? (BTW, you've proven what I said earlier--if you believe persons have been judged before going to Hades, the Great White Throne judgement is meaningless.)
Rev.20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
Now, the saints aren't in this group, as they're with Jesus on earth at this time, as this is at the end of the millenium immediately after Satan's last attempt to overthrow Jesus.
It seems you've never read Isaiah 66:24:

Did you notice "their worm will never die, their fire never quenched" refers to dead bodies(--not anyone living or being eternally tormented)?
So, what makes you think Jesus would use a figuative statement in Isaiah to refer to literal torment?
[/QUOTE]
Quit pretending to be ignorant-a dead body isn't bothered by worms or flames. And remember, God told Peter the whole world will dissolve in fervent heat & God will make its surface anew with all the former things gone.

Yet, you believe torment smokes. (For the text speaks of "the smoke of theiir torment...")

Or is this figurative language as well?
Once again, you're being deliberately obtuse. Some folks will say anything trying to defend a cult or its doctrines. "Torment" is the affliction on the souls of the wicked, not a physical object. You know that as well as I do; hence I say you're deliberately being obtuse because you don't wanna fact the FACT that Scripture denies annihilationism.
I see.

So because Jesus is a Jew, he can be "king of Israel" too? (Interesting.)
Why not ? David was king of both. And ,of course, Jesus will be King of the whole world.
So your argument now is that the rest of Israel didn't know they were Israelites(, which is why they didn't celebrate Passover. So only the Jews celebrated Passover, thus is why it's called the "Passover of the Jews), correct?
In that time/place, every Jew observed passover, along with a few other Israelis who knew their actual heritage, & a few gentiles who'd converted to Judaism & chose to observe it.( Remember, in Exodus, God said any gentile who chose to observe passover must follow the same rules for it as the Israelis.)
Isaiah 9:6 doesn't depict the child as Jesus(. Nor does any Bible writer apply the words of Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus).

Thus, those who apply the text are speculating.
Then, if not Jesus, WHOM ???????????????????????????
Not in any English dictionary I've seen.

Interesting.
Then you must not have seen very many dictionaries. Simply Google the word.
You keep making this claim, but the text shows otherwise.

(BTW, what were you saying about PROSKUNEW?)
No, it DOESN'T, except in your imagination. John wasn't stupid; had he known the messenger was an angel, he wouldn'ta started worshipping.
So again, if Jesus didn't blaspheme, and Michael didn't blaspheme, how does Jude 1:9 prove Jesus is not Michael?
Because Jesus did what Michael wouldn't dare do. And Satan wouldn'ta contended with Jesus for Moses' body; Jesus woulda commanded satan to leave, & Satan would HAVE to obey, same as the demons Jesus allowed to go into the herd of pigs.
Or, more like gleaning from Scripture that God sent the holy spirit through His son.
Jesus said HE would send the HS.
So, how is it that you believe Thomas is included in the ones doubting at Matthew 28:17?
Because Scripture named him. There's no other Scriptural mention of the doubters.
Saul "saved a life", did he not?

But, according to your statement, saving a life is never evil.

So, which is it?
Again, Saul disobeyed God's direct command to kill ALL the Amalekites at Auris.
Based on this, one can drink blood, correct?
No, that's "earting" it.
(But let's not forget the Law regarding a woman's cycle as well as others like it.)

Who in their right mind eats red meat?
About anyone who eats a hamburger or hot dog. Maybe the meat isn't red after it's cooked, but there was some blood in it or it wouldn'ta been red.
So the commandment to abstain from blood was only for Isreal.

(Got it.)
Except where the apostles told the new gentile Christians not to do it. But no matter how you twist it, a TX is not eating blood.

As I said, I hope you never hafta make that choice, but if you do, I hope you choose LIFE. I did so unhesitationly in my wife's case. I am not governed by ANYTHING that quack EGW wrote or said.
 
Rev.20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
Now, the saints aren't in this group, as they're with Jesus on earth at this time, as this is at the end of the millenium immediately after Satan's last attempt to overthrow Jesus.
This scripture demonstrates that people are resurrected and then judged. Thus, this is the first (and only) judgement mentioned in Scripture--the Great White Throne judgement(--where one receives their reward or punishment).

This has nothing to do with going to Hades and being judged (and thus rewarded/punished).

So I'm still not sure how you came to the conclusion that people will be judged when going to Hades and then re-judged (for no reason as they have already been punished or rewarded) when approaching the Great White Throne.
Quit pretending to be ignorant-a dead body isn't bothered by worms or flames.
Isaiah 66:24 (again) states:
As they leave, they will see the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against Me; for their worm will never die, their fire will never be quenched, and they will be a horror to all mankind

And remember, God told Peter the whole world will dissolve in fervent heat & God will make its surface anew with all the former things gone.
Of course he did. However, we know the statement in Peter was figurative(. Compare Psalm 78:69).
Once again, you're being deliberately obtuse. Some folks will say anything trying to defend a cult or its doctrines. "Torment" is the affliction on the souls of the wicked, not a physical object. You know that as well as I do; hence I say you're deliberately being obtuse because you don't wanna fact the FACT that Scripture denies annihilationism.
If you say so.
Why not ? David was king of both. And ,of course, Jesus will be King of the whole world.
David was "king of Israel" (because there weren't two kingdoms).

So, the only way for Jesus to be king of both is if there's one kingdom.
In that time/place, every Jew observed passover, along with a few other Israelis who knew their actual heritage, & a few gentiles who'd converted to Judaism & chose to observe it.( Remember, in Exodus, God said any gentile who chose to observe passover must follow the same rules for it as the Israelis.)
That still would not make it "the Passover of the Jews" (no more than it makes it 'the Passover of the Gentiles').

Thus, as the Passover was celebrated by all Israelites, "Jews" in this passage refers to (all) Israel.
Then, if not Jesus, WHOM ???????????????????????????
The Jews believe it to refer to Hezekiah.
Then you must not have seen very many dictionaries. Simply Google the word.
I did(. I haven't seen anyone define it the way you do).
No, it DOESN'T, except in your imagination. John wasn't stupid; had he known the messenger was an angel, he wouldn'ta started worshipping.
So your argument is: even though the angel tells him that he's an angel at Revelation 22:6 (and John says he "heard these things" at Revelation 22:7), John didn't know it was an angel (at Revelation 22:8).
Because Jesus did what Michael wouldn't dare do.
Where are you getting this from?
And Satan wouldn'ta contended with Jesus for Moses' body; Jesus woulda commanded satan to leave, & Satan would HAVE to obey, same as the demons Jesus allowed to go into the herd of pigs.
You're assuming.
Jesus said HE would send the HS.
Actually, God sent it through Jesus.
Because Scripture named him. There's no other Scriptural mention of the doubters.
The area where John 20:25-29 occurred is totally different from that of Matthew 28:17(. More than that, the event in Matthew was after the event mentioned in John).

So I still don't see how you concluded that Thomas was referred to at Matthew 28:17.
Again, Saul disobeyed God's direct command to kill ALL the Amalekites at Auris.
Abstaining from blood is also "God's direct command".

Yet, according to your argument, saving a life (while disobeying God's command to abstain from blood) is never evil.

No, that's "eating" it.
Based on what? (Certainly not the text you quoted.)
About anyone who eats a hamburger or hot dog. Maybe the meat isn't red after it's cooked, but there was some blood in it or it wouldn'ta been red.
What are you talking about?
Except where the apostles told the new gentile Christians not to do it. But no matter how you twist it, a TX is not eating blood.
You're entitled to your opinion.
As I said, I hope you never hafta make that choice, but if you do, I hope you choose LIFE. I did so unhesitationly in my wife's case. I am not governed by ANYTHING that quack EGW wrote or said.
I don't know who you're talking about here.
 
Top