What Is HELL ?

[Charlie24]

"Who is in heaven" is translated from the Greek, "who is from heaven."

Butch, you are again demonstrating that you're not even trying to understand what has been given you.

 

[Butch5]

"Who is in heaven" is translated from the Greek, "who is from heaven."

What edition of the Greek text are you looking at? However, the passage still says no one has ascended into Heaven except Jesus. No one else.

 

[Charlie24]

What edition of the Greek text are you looking at? However, the passage still says no one has ascended into Heaven except Jesus. No one else.

When you look up John 3:13 KJV, "even the Son of Man which is in heaven," some scholars say it's a write in, others say it's not a write in but a future tense of the Greek word "en.' Which is "in" in English.

It makes no sense that Christ could be in heaven and on earth at the same time.

They point out that "no man has ascended up into heaven, but He who came down from heaven," is referring to the future tense of Christ ascending into heaven. Therefore the verse is best understood as "no man has ascended up into heaven, but he who came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which came from heaven."

 

[Charlie24]

What edition of the Greek text are you looking at? However, the passage still says no one has ascended into Heaven except Jesus. No one else.

I forgot to add that some scholars interpret the Greek word "en" to read, "even the Son of Man who WAS in heaven.

So it can be confusing.

 

[Butch5]

I forgot to add that some scholars interpret the Greek word "en" to read, "even the Son of Man who WAS in heaven.

So it can be confusing.

En does not mean was. En means in

 

[Butch5]

When you look up John 3:13 KJV, "even the Son of Man which is in heaven," some scholars say it's a write in, others say it's not a write in but a future tense of the Greek word "en.' Which is "in" in English.

It makes no sense that Christ could be in heaven and on earth at the same time.

Which is why I said they were John's comments.

They point out that "no man has ascended up into heaven, but He who came down from heaven," is referring to the future tense of Christ ascending into heaven. Therefore the verse is best understood as "no man has ascended up into heaven, but he who came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which came from heaven."

Yeah, they also have to make things fit with their theology. It's better to go directly to the Greek text oneself.

 

[Charlie24]

Which is why I said they were John's comments.

Yeah, they also have to make things fit with their theology. It's better to go directly to the Greek text oneself.

Well Butch, tell us how the Son of Man which speaks of His humanity, how is a human in heaven and on earth at the same time?

The human body of Christ was either in heaven or on this earth.

Something is wrong with Christ being on earth and placing Himself in heaven at the same time with, "even the Son of Man which is in heaven."

I say it has to do with either the past or future use of the Greek word "en."

 

[Butch5]

Well Butch, tell us how the Son of Man which speaks of His humanity, how is a human in heaven and on earth at the same time?

The human body of Christ was either in heaven or on this earth.

Something is wrong with Christ being on earth and placing Himself in heaven at the same time with, "even the Son of Man which is in heaven."

I say it has to do with either the past or future use of the Greek word "en."

In is present tense. Who is in Heaven. Is, the current state of being. That's the point. Jesus was in heaven when John said that. Jesus couldn't be in both Heaven and on Earth at the same time. So, it must be John's comment. Jesus was in Heaven at the time John wrote that.

 

[Charlie24]

In is present tense. Who is in Heaven. Is, the current state of being. That's the point. Jesus was in heaven when John said that. Jesus couldn't be in both Heaven and on Earth at the same time. So, it must be John's comment. Jesus was in Heaven at the time John wrote that.

John was giving the account of the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus as it took place.

It was Christ who told Nicodemus, "even the Son of man, which is in heaven." John only recorded what was said.

It couldn't have been John's words added in the middle of the conversation.

 

[Butch5]

John was giving the account of the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus as it took place.

It was Christ who told Nicodemus, "even the Son of man, which is in heaven." John only recorded what was said.

It couldn't have been John's words added in the middle of the conversation.

It has to be John's words. Otherwise you have to explain how Jesus was both in Heaven and standing there talking to Nicodemus face to face. It doesn't make sense unless it's John's words.

 

[Charlie24]

It has to be John's words. Otherwise you have to explain how Jesus was both in Heaven and standing there talking to Nicodemus face to face. It doesn't make sense unless it's John's words.

That's where the scholars, that know a bit more than us, have said there is a problem with the way "en" is used in this verse.

I remember when I was kid, my Dad was trying to teach me how to tell time. I didn't get it, half past this, quarter till that, etc.

Finally my Dad became very frustrated and said, just wait until you're al little older and and we'll try it again.

Soo let's just wait until you're a little older and we'll try it again.

 

[Butch5]

That's where the scholars, that know a bit more than us, have said there is a problem with the way "en" is used in this verse.

I remember when I was kid, my Dad was trying to teach me how to tell time. I didn't get it, half past this, quarter till that, etc.

Finally my Dad became very frustrated and said, just wait until you're al little older and and we'll try it again.

Soo let's just wait until you're a little older and we'll try it again.

Why do you assume they know more than us?

I don't have to wait til I'm a little older. I understand it now. It all fits nicely unless one has to examine How Jesus can be in two places at once. Or, how something that ends can be eternal. Or, to find where Scripture teaches that unbelievers are promised eternal life. Or how man is a spirit when Scripture says he is flesh.

This doctrine has so man major points against it that it's clear it can't be true. Unbelievers aren't given eternal life. How then can they be tortured forever?

 

[KingJ]

The whole question is side stepping. All this does is take the conversation into the weeds. I have a buddy who does this. It just distracts from the issue at hand.

God said, 'the soul that sins shall die.'
It seems to me that all sin requires death.

Let's flip it around. Is God just if both die for their sins?

My post is not side stepping, yours is. The reason we accept Jesus is because we agree with what He taught and stands for.

I may not always turn the left cheek, but I agree with the teaching and endeavour to do so to the best of my ability.

Please answer the two questions.

 

[Butch5]

Why do you assume they know more than us?

I don't have to wait til I'm a little older. I understand it now. It all fits nicely unless one has to examine How Jesus can be in two places at once. Or, how something that ends can be eternal. Or, to find where Scripture teaches that unbelievers are promised eternal life. Or how man is a spirit when Scripture says he is flesh.

This doctrine has so man major points against it that it's clear it can't be true. Unbelievers aren't given eternal life. How then can they be tortured forever?

I didn't answer your questions.

God said the soul that sins shall die. God is the source of justice so what He says is just. So any sin deserves death.

But, as I said. This is irrelevant to subject at hand.

My turn.
1. How is something that ends eterna?
2. Where in scripture are unbelievers promised eternal life?

 

[Butch5]

Greetings @Butch5

how are you Brother?

May I take a moment to say, it (things presented and submitted on this thread) has been repeated by both 'sides' repeatedly and we are not advancing much, if any?

Can i rewind to what another member made mention of going back a few posts or so?

In a nutshell (so to speak) is God eternal? [I am not refuting what you have patiently been trying to share]

Is there Bible {verses, etc} that states eternal God and/or that God is eternal? [again, not disputing about plato and wobbly understanding about anything] If so, how do we reconcile an age of eternal God, if that makes sense.

Really would appreciate your thoughts on this.


Bless you ....><>

Hi Br. Bear,

I'm good how are you? Give me a few days to reply here. I'm really busy trying to finish up a job.

 

[Butch5]

If eternal torment is the punishment for sins, who paid it? Jesus didn't suffer eternal torment.

 

[B-A-C]

If eternal torment is the punishment for sins, who paid it? Jesus didn't suffer eternal torment.

Jesus didn't sin.

 

[Butch5]

Jesus didn't sin.

That doesn't answer the question..

 

[Charlie24]

If eternal torment is the punishment for sins, who paid it? Jesus didn't suffer eternal torment.

Eternal punishment is not something one can pay for another. It's a sentence by the Almighty God.

To avoid that sentence God provided a way for our sin's to be forgiven to avoid the sentence.

So your question is not a reasonable question considering all of this is based on the Grace of God.

 

[Butch5]

Eternal punishment is not something one can pay for another. It's a sentence by the Almighty God.

To avoid that sentence God provided a way for our sin's to be forgiven to avoid the sentence.

So your question is not a reasonable question considering all of this is based on the Grace of God.

You're correct. It's not reasonable if we look at Scripture Biblically. But most don't do that. Most hold to church doctrine. In this case Penal Atonement which says that Christ's death satisfied the wrath if God. In that scenario my question makes perfect sense.