Thoughts on the 'annihilationism' Thread

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Pedrito was fascinated by the ‘annihilation’ thread.

He did not begin to review it until it had reached an advanced state.

Once he did, it seemed to raise more questions than it answered.

It was shut down before he could post comments therein.

==============================================================================================

In this first post, Pedrito will offer some general information that hopefully will be helpful for some readers of the ‘annihilation’ thread.

That includes the author of Post #65 of the ‘annihilation’ thread, who wrote:
...From my understanding the problem with the Jewish priesthood was that they focused too much on earthly riches and power and had no threat in an after life...

If Pedrito understands correctly, there were three groups that had authority within the intertwined Jewish religion and culture of the day: Scribes, Sadducees, Pharisees.

==============================================================================================

The Scribes could be broadly described as senior public servants whose purview included both religious and civil matters. The copying of texts fell under their umbrella.

==============================================================================================

The Sadducees were characterised by acknowledging only the Torah (the Law – first five books of what Christians call the Old Testament), and rejecting what was commonly called “the Prophets” (writings acknowledged by the other Jews to be holy writings). They denied any rescue from death. Death was the end. You can remember that, by thinking that is why they were sad-you-see.

(Pedrito finds it difficult to understand what motivated them to attempt to live holy lives and honour God were there no positive or negative payoff after death. But then, Pedrito doesn’t understand what motivates a lot of people.)



Continued...
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
MennoSota finds talking in the third person annoying, which is why MennoSota pays little to no attention when a poster talks in the third person...[emoji41]
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
DHoffmann likes the third person routine, adds character and reminds me of Petry from Land before time.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Pedrito speaks in the third person because another poster was taken to task (by someone who didn’t like the thoughts he was presenting) for using the word “I”.

Pedrito had formerly been accused (falsely as was proven) of flaming, for the same reason.

From memory, both occurrences were before MennoSota’s time here.

I (Pedrito) did not want to leave myself (himself) open to another form of criticism designed to take attention away from thoughts being presented.

I apologise (Pedrito apologises) to MennoSota and any others who may find the third party approach off-putting.

The only reason for that approach is the preservation of attention on thoughts being presented.


However, if Pedrito were to be given honest assurance that no accusations of a personal nature would be coming his way in the future, I would be happy to revert to using the personal pronoun that I have been loath to use for some time.

Or maybe I'll give it a go anyway, and see what happens.
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
...Continued

In Post #1, we looked at the Scribes and the Sadducees. Now it’s the Pharisees’ turn.


The Pharisees accepted both the Law and the Prophets (the Protestant Old Testament) as being holy writings given by God to them. They believed that rescue from death would be by a future resurrection, as their holy writings indicated.

Apart from incursions of pagan influence, as had happened multiple times in Israel’s past, and as could be expected from the dominant Greek and Roman cultures, there was no notion of consciousness after death. Their understanding was based on God’s Holy Revelation to them – the same revelation that the Apostle Paul acknowledged to be God’s Holy Revelation to us (2 Timothy 3:14-17) – and it’s still there for us to read and believe.

(The only Scripture in existence when Paul wrote those words, was what we call the “Old Testament”.)

They did understand that after the resurrection there would be some kind of worldwide judgement.

==============================================================================================

The Sadducean perspective is clearly demonstrated in, for instance, Matthew 22:23-32, Mark 12:18-27, and Luke 20:27-38. I believe that that described situation was in the standard arsenal of weapons used to stump the Pharisees in debate. We also learn that after the resurrection there will no longer be any human reproduction.

That the Pharisees taught resurrection as the means of deliverance from death, as opposed to some continuing form of conscious life after death, is shown remarkably well in Acts 23:6-8 for instance.


It is hoped that the above overview has been helpful to some.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
...Continued

In Post #1, we looked at the Scribes and the Sadducees. Now it’s the Pharisees’ turn.


The Pharisees accepted both the Law and the Prophets (the Protestant Old Testament) as being holy writings given by God to them. They believed that rescue from death would be by a future resurrection, as their holy writings indicated.

Apart from incursions of pagan influence, as had happened multiple times in Israel’s past, and as could be expected from the dominant Greek and Roman cultures, there was no notion of consciousness after death. Their understanding was based on God’s Holy Revelation to them – the same revelation that the Apostle Paul acknowledged to be God’s Holy Revelation to us (2 Timothy 3:14-17) – and it’s still there for us to read and believe.

(The only Scripture in existence when Paul wrote those words, was what we call the “Old Testament”.)

They did understand that after the resurrection there would be some kind of worldwide judgement.

==============================================================================================

The Sadducean perspective is clearly demonstrated in, for instance, Matthew 22:23-32, Mark 12:18-27, and Luke 20:27-38. I believe that that described situation was in the standard arsenal of weapons used to stump the Pharisees in debate. We also learn that after the resurrection there will no longer be any human reproduction.

That the Pharisees taught resurrection as the means of deliverance from death, as opposed to some continuing form of conscious life after death, is shown remarkably well in Acts 23:6-8 for instance.


It is hoped that the above overview has been helpful to some.

So what is your question? They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time.
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
From Post #6 in this thread:

So what is your question?

That was in response to information presented in Post #1 and Post #5.

==============================================================================================

However, in Post #1, I stated:

In this first post [[which spilled over into the second]], I [[originally Pedrito]] will offer some general information that hopefully will be helpful for some readers of the ‘annihilation’ thread.

Based on that, I now do have a question: What prompted that Poster to ask “So what is your question?”?

==============================================================================================

Also from Post #6 in this thread:

They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time.

Clear deflection. Readers note.

The clear teaching of God’s Holy Word, the Bible – the teaching mentioned in Post #5 – teaching which is totally in line with the Nicene Creed and Apostolic revelation – is being likened to believing the Earth is flat.

And since the first clear teaching in post-apostolic Christendom regarding the Earth being spherical was by Bede (c. 672–735) in his treatise “The Reckoning of Time”, it would seem that the formulators of the “Nicene Creed” also believed that the Earth was flat.

Does the author of Post #6 (for the sake of consistency) suggest that we discount the “Nicene Creed” because of that?

==============================================================================================

But someone might try to assign that understanding (the Earth’s sphericity) to an earlier source within Christendom – Bishop Isidore of Seville (560–636) – because of his describing the earth as “round”.

In that case, it must be recognised that Bishop Isidore was using the same kind of terminology as Holy Scripture:

Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

==============================================================================================

So, God’s Holy Word stands, in this matter.

As it always does, as it always has done, and as it always will do.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
From Post #6 in this thread:



That was in response to information presented in Post #1 and Post #5.

==============================================================================================

However, in Post #1, I stated:



Based on that, I now do have a question: What prompted that Poster to ask “So what is your question?”?

==============================================================================================

Also from Post #6 in this thread:



Clear deflection. Readers note.

The clear teaching of God’s Holy Word, the Bible – the teaching mentioned in Post #5 – teaching which is totally in line with the Nicene Creed and Apostolic revelation – is being likened to believing the Earth is flat.

And since the first clear teaching in post-apostolic Christendom regarding the Earth being spherical was by Bede (c. 672–735) in his treatise “The Reckoning of Time”, it would seem that the formulators of the “Nicene Creed” also believed that the Earth was flat.

Does the author of Post #6 (for the sake of consistency) suggest that we discount the “Nicene Creed” because of that?

==============================================================================================

But someone might try to assign that understanding (the Earth’s sphericity) to an earlier source within Christendom – Bishop Isidore of Seville (560–636) – because of his describing the earth as “round”.

In that case, it must be recognised that Bishop Isidore was using the same kind of terminology as Holy Scripture:

Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

==============================================================================================

So, God’s Holy Word stands, in this matter.

As it always does, as it always has done, and as it always will do.

Your stating facts, your not asking a question. You said the previous thread brought up for you more questions but you haven't asked them. How can we participate in a discussion with you when you won't ask the questions you have?
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
From Post #8 in this thread:

Your stating facts, your not asking a question. You said the previous thread brought up for you more questions but you haven't asked them. How can we participate in a discussion with you when you won't ask the questions you have?

Actually, we must thank the author of Post #8 (and the person who issued a “like” for that post), for highlighting three (until now implied) questions that were going to be presented later; the intention had been to build up to them. (They are not the only questions planned to be addressed.)

Those questions are:
- Why is there such a lack of unadulterated Scriptural teaching in normal churches? (An example of that was presented in Posts #1 and #5, and information in that context presented.)
- Why is there such a need felt to adopt diversionary tactics to draw attention away from particular Holy Revelation (from the Great God of creation and salvation), instead of embracing it?
- Why do we see repeated attempts to suppress certain aspects of Inspired Scriptural Revelation? (As evidenced both in Post #6, and in multiplicity throughout CH.)

==============================================================================================

The answer to all three questions is quite simple.

Holy Scripture is at odds with (and therefore condemns) a number of post-Nicene (and therefore post-Apostolic) doctrines – some of which enjoy broad acceptance, but others of which are fought over.

It is as simple as that.

And loyalty to post-Nicene doctrines and the organisations which hold them, takes precedence over loyalty to Inspired Revelation from God – the God whom people with those misplaced loyalties claim to worship, and even serve.


Were that not so, why do we see all the diversionary tactics???


==============================================================================================


Having addressed that (temporarily effective) diversion, attention will now return to the thoughts triggered by the “annihilationism” thread. Many of those thoughts will contain, or will have been triggered by, identifiable questions implied in the text. I did say “It was shut down before he [[Pedrito; I]] could post comments therein”. Did I not?
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The clear teaching of God’s Holy Word, the Bible – the teaching mentioned in Post #5 – teaching which is totally in line with the Nicene Creed and Apostolic revelation – is being likened to believing the Earth is flat.

And since the first clear teaching in post-apostolic Christendom regarding the Earth being spherical was by Bede (c. 672–735) in his treatise “The Reckoning of Time”, it would seem that the formulators of the “Nicene Creed” also believed that the Earth was flat.

I thought you (Pedrito) might find this interesting:

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (/ɛrəˈtɒsθəniːz/; Greek: Ἐρατοσθένης ὁ Κυρηναῖος, IPA: [eratostʰénɛːs]; c. 276 BC – c. 195/194 BC) was a Greek mathematician, geographer, poet, astronomer, and music theorist. He was a man of learning, becoming the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria. He invented the discipline of geography, including the terminology used today.

He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by comparing altitudes of the mid-day sun at two places a known North-South distance apart. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day. He created the first map of the world, incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographic knowledge of his era.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I (Pedrito) did not want to leave myself (himself) open to another form of criticism designed to take attention away from thoughts being presented.

I apologise (Pedrito apologises) to MennoSota and any others who may find the third party approach off-putting.


It is hoped that the above overview has been helpful to some.[/color]
It's not necessary to put a name into the post in place of the personal pronoun, however. Wasn't that evident in this message, for example?
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I can offer some personal speculation towards answering these questions:

Why is there such a lack of unadulterated Scriptural teaching in normal churches? (An example of that was presented in Posts #1 and #5, and information in that context presented.)
Lazy 'bible teachers' who view reading the latest 'Purpose Driven Life' type book, complete with workbooks, as "Bible Study", coupled with church goers with the attention span of an eight year old.
While purely speculation on my part, I wonder if Church might have become too 'seeker friendly' ... to the point where it is a shadow of itself often lacking in any true power or relevence.

Why is there such a need felt to adopt diversionary tactics to draw attention away from particular Holy Revelation (from the Great God of creation and salvation), instead of embracing it?
Boredom. You (Perdito) have a tendency to open with a statement of what you are going to say or do or present, but then spend the next several days/posts wandering [it appears aimlessly from the original statement] down a series of 'bunny trails' that are allegedly laying a foundation for what you wanted to discuss. I can't speak for others, but I find myself growing impatient for the actual point. In this case, what does anything in post #1 or post #5 have to do with annihilationism?
Boredom leads to snide comments.
I think it is less about diversion and more a cry to "make your point" already.

Why do we see repeated attempts to suppress certain aspects of Inspired Scriptural Revelation? (As evidenced both in Post #6, and in multiplicity throughout CH.)
I don't think that Post #6 has anything to do with doctrines or creeds. I find it hard to imagine any of the Scriptures you referenced being controversial. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of the dead, what creed or doctrine could be in conflict with that and require that the Sadducees did believe in an afterlife? Most Christians never give the Sadducees any thought at all.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don't think that Post #6 has anything to do with doctrines or creeds.
Agreed. Asking "So what is your question?" hardly seems to amount to an "attempt(s) to suppress certain aspects of Inspired Scriptural Revelation."
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Wow!

I didn’t realise that starting this thread would lead to so much fun.

In case people didn’t realise, the title of the thread is “Thoughts on the ‘annihilationism’ Thread”, not “Questions about the ‘annihilationism’ Thread

So much for my being taken to task in Posts #6 and #8 for not confining myself to asking questions. Could that taking to task have been a ruse to draw attention away from Scriptural truth revealed in Posts #1 and (especially) #5 and #7?

==============================================================================================

It looks like a little more time would be wisely spent driving a few more nails into the coffin lid of the diversions that have appeared so far.

Because as each diversion is addressed, it emphasises the very information that the diversion was supposed to obscure.

==============================================================================================

jsimms435 in Post #6: They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time.

So what if they did? The Pharisees’ understanding about people not being conscious after death was squarely based on Holy Scripture. (Relevant Scriptures were presented in the "annihilationism" thread by someone else, and lo and behold, those Scriptures were subjected to rejective ploys instead of being embraced. That simply proves that those clear statements of Holy Scripture are considered dangerous to established, cherished belief.) And, as pointed out, if the Pharisees did believe the world was flat, so did the formulators of the “Nicene Creed” of 381 AD.

But, as pointed out well by atpollard in Post #10, it was already known over 100 years before Jesus walked the Earth, that the Earth was spherical, not flat. I already had that information, so I thank atpollard for drawing it to jsimms435’s attention. Either jsimms435’s statement that the Pharisees believed the Earth was flat, was based on his being uninformed, or it was indeed a contrived attempt to discredit Scriptural, but demonstrably unwelcome, understanding that the Pharisees (including the Apostle Paul) had on this matter.

I merely pointed out in my former post, the illogicality of jsimms435’s shot at the Pharisees’ Scripture-based beliefs, when by so doing he was also shooting the developers of the “Nicene Creed” of 381 AD in the foot.



Continued...(Because diversions have continued to surface.)
 
Last edited:

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Pedrito was fascinated by the ‘annihilation’ thread.

He did not begin to review it until it had reached an advanced state.

Once he did, it seemed to raise more questions than it answered.

It was shut down before he could post comments therein.

==============================================================================================

In this first post, Pedrito will offer some general information that hopefully will be helpful for some readers of the ‘annihilation’ thread.

That includes the author of Post #65 of the ‘annihilation’ thread, who wrote:
...From my understanding the problem with the Jewish priesthood was that they focused too much on earthly riches and power and had no threat in an after life...

If Pedrito understands correctly, there were three groups that had authority within the intertwined Jewish religion and culture of the day: Scribes, Sadducees, Pharisees.

==============================================================================================

The Scribes could be broadly described as senior public servants whose purview included both religious and civil matters. The copying of texts fell under their umbrella.

==============================================================================================

The Sadducees were characterised by acknowledging only the Torah (the Law – first five books of what Christians call the Old Testament), and rejecting what was commonly called “the Prophets” (writings acknowledged by the other Jews to be holy writings). They denied any rescue from death. Death was the end. You can remember that, by thinking that is why they were sad-you-see.

(Pedrito finds it difficult to understand what motivated them to attempt to live holy lives and honour God were there no positive or negative payoff after death. But then, Pedrito doesn’t understand what motivates a lot of people.)



Continued...

I would say you have summed up nicely what the different groups believed. You said in post #1 that when you reviewed the original thread that it raised questions for you. I then asked you in post 6 what questions it raised for you. Is your question did these groups the scribes, the Pharisees and the Sadducees believe in an afterlife? I think your summary is accurate as far as I can tell. Sometimes death seems to be referred in the Old Testament to something similiar to what is called soul sleep today or a lack of conscious thought
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
(This is not the continuation from my former Post. It is a particular insertion between the two.)

I thank jsimms435 for his polite explanation in Post #15.

==============================================================================================

I here take the opportunity to point out that neither the Hebrew Scriptures nor the Greek Scriptures teach “soul sleep”. Careful study points to their revealing “cessation of existence” at death, for which the only remedy is a future resurrection. Even the core creeds contain that background understanding.

“Soul sleep” is a label invented by the “immortal soul” camp to discourage people from looking into the matter properly, and from thus discovering what the Scriptures actually say.

Were that not the case, why invent a label that is at odds with what the Holy Bible actually reveals?

Why not apply the correct label – “cessation of existence” instead of the diversionary “soul sleep”?

==============================================================================================

Readers please understand, I am merely speaking generally here – bringing something to light and thereby making people aware of the conditioning that they have been subjected to throughout their religious lives – conditioning which they have understandably accepted without question until now.

And once again I propose that:
- By determining with accuracy (from Scripture alone) what the original Apostolic Gospel was;
- And then determining:
– Which of the individually considered, Post-Apostolic doctrinal amendments were demonstrably inspired by God;
– And which of the individually considered, Post-Apostolic doctrinal amendments were demonstrably not;
- That would result in:
– Clarifying light being thrown on what God’s undeniable truth really is;
– And the current, confusing (ungodly) hotch-potch of conflicting church doctrines, being exposed as a totally unacceptable situation.

==============================================================================================

Is any Reader willing to endure the disdain and ostracism that will almost certainly result, if they follow that path of investigation?
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Psalm 49:15 NASB But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, For He will receive me. Selah.
Psalm 139:8 NASB If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.

Cessation of existence?
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,485
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Speaking of Sheol...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7585&t=KJV

שְׁאוֹל

without the diacritics (the little dots and squiggles above and below Hebrew letters indicating vowel sounds) it is the same word as:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7586&t=KJV

שָׁאוּל

...which is the name of the first Hebrew King, that God said the people chose because they rejected Him (1 Samuel 8:6-7)

The word means both "death/grave" and "desired"

It is the original name of the so called "apostle to the Gentiles" Saul/Paul of Tarsus.

Btw, the diacritics weren't part of the original Hebrew.

But I'm sure this is all just a great coincidence and all...
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
(This is not the continuation from my former Post. It is a particular insertion between the two.)

I thank jsimms435 for his polite explanation in Post #15.

==============================================================================================

I here take the opportunity to point out that neither the Hebrew Scriptures nor the Greek Scriptures teach “soul sleep”. Careful study points to their revealing “cessation of existence” at death, for which the only remedy is a future resurrection. Even the core creeds contain that background understanding.

“Soul sleep” is a label invented by the “immortal soul” camp to discourage people from looking into the matter properly, and from thus discovering what the Scriptures actually say.

Were that not the case, why invent a label that is at odds with what the Holy Bible actually reveals?

Why not apply the correct label – “cessation of existence” instead of the diversionary “soul sleep”?

==============================================================================================

Readers please understand, I am merely speaking generally here – bringing something to light and thereby making people aware of the conditioning that they have been subjected to throughout their religious lives – conditioning which they have understandably accepted without question until now.

And once again I propose that:
- By determining with accuracy (from Scripture alone) what the original Apostolic Gospel was;
- And then determining:
– Which of the individually considered, Post-Apostolic doctrinal amendments were demonstrably inspired by God;
– And which of the individually considered, Post-Apostolic doctrinal amendments were demonstrably not;
- That would result in:
– Clarifying light being thrown on what God’s undeniable truth really is;
– And the current, confusing (ungodly) hotch-potch of conflicting church doctrines, being exposed as a totally unacceptable situation.

==============================================================================================

Is any Reader willing to endure the disdain and ostracism that will almost certainly result, if they follow that path of investigation?

So your claiming that when a person dies they cease to exist and then they are resurrected at the last day, which if they cease to exist then how are they resurrected? Please back up what your saying with scripture. I don't see any evidence that what your saying is true in scripture and I've read it over numerous times in the last 34 years
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So your claiming that when a person dies they cease to exist and then they are resurrected at the last day, which if they cease to exist then how are they resurrected?
It's reincarnation, IOW. But there is almost nothing in Scripture to support that particular POV.
 
Top Bottom