Orionsbelt77 Orionsbelt77

Bible Mythbusters

Bible Mythbusters

What Hell is and is not.

Hell.
There are four synonymous words for Hell, used in the King James Version of the Bible- Gehenna, Hades,Sheol, and Tartarus.
‘Hell” is the English rendering of two different Greek words in the N.T. The English word itself is from the Anglo-Saxon hel, Genitive case helle= a hidden place, from the Anglo-Saxon helan=to hide.
Gehenna, pronounced: geena, is the transliteration of the Hebrew Gai’Hinnom, i.e. The valley of hinnom or the valley of the sons of hinnom, where there were the fires through which the children of these pagans were passed through, in worship of the false god, Moloch. In the O.T. Tophet was the Hebrew word used because it was a place in this valley.
In our Lord’s day, the idolatry had ceased, but the fires were still continually burning there for the destruction of the refuse of Jerusalem. Hence, Gehenna was used for the fires of destruction associated with the judgment of God. Sometimes “Gehenna of fire”. See Kings:23.10 - Isaiah : 30:33 - Jeremiah 7:31,32 & 19:11-14.
Gehenna occurs 12 times, and is always rendered “hell”.
Hades (Greek) used by the Greeks for the “unseen world”. The meaning which the Greeks put upon it does not concern us: nor have we anything to do with the imaginations of the heathen or the traditions of the Jews or Romanists or the teachings of demons or evil spirits, or of any who still cling to them.
The Holy Spirit has used it as one of the “words pertaining to the earth” and in doing so has “purified” it, as “silver tried in a furnace” (Psalms. 12:6). From this we learn that His own words are “pure” but words belonging to this earth have to be “purified”. The Old Testament is the fountain-head of the Hebrew language. It has no literature behind it. But the case is entirely different with the Greek language. The Hebrew word Sheol is a word Divine in origin and usage. The Greek “Hades” is human in origin and comes down to us laden with centuries of development, in which it has acquired new senses, meanings and usages. Seeing that the Holy Spirit has used it in Acts.2:27,31 as His own equivalent of Sheol in Psalm 16:10, He has settled, once and for all, the sense in which we are to understand it. The meaning He has given to Sheol in Psalms.16:10, is the one meaning we are to give it wherever it occurs in the N.T., whether we transliterate it or translate it. We have no liberty to do otherwise, and must discard everything outside the Word of God.The word occurs eleven times (Matt.11:23 - 16:18 - Luke. 10:15 & 16:23 - Acts 2.27,31 - 1Cor. 15:55 - Rev.1:18, 6:8, 20:13&14) and is rendered “hell” in every passage except one, where it is rendered “grave” - 1 Cor. 15:55. In the revised version, the word is always transliterated “Hades” except in 1Cor.15:55, where “death” is substituted because of the reading, in all the texts, and in the American R.V. also.
As “Hades” is the Divine Scriptural equivalent of Sheol, further light may be gained by noting that while “Hades” is rendered “Hell” in the N.T. except once, where the rendering “the grave” could not be avoided. Sheol, its Hebrew equivalent, occurs 65 times, and is rendered “the grave” 31 times “ Hell” 31 times and the “Pit” 3 times. “The grave” , therefore is obviously the best rendering, meaning the state of death and not the act of dying, as an examination of both words in all occurrences will show.
The rendering of “Pit” so evidently means “the grave” that it may at once be substituted for it ( Num. 16;30&33 and Job.17:16).
The rendering “the grave” ( not “ a grave” which is Hebrew keber or bor) exactly expresses the meaning of both Sheol and Hades. For as to direction it is always down: as to place it in the earth: as to relation, it is always in contrast with the state of the living-(Deut.32:22-25 and Sam. 6-8) ; as to association, it is connected with mourning (Gen.37:34&35), sorrow (Gen.42:48 - Sam.22:6 -Ps. 18;5 and 116:3) fright and terror ( Num. 16:27 & 34 ) mourning ( Isa.38: 3,10,17,18) silence ( Ps.6:5 - 31:17 - Ecc. 9:10) no knowledge (Ecc.9:5,6,10) punishment (Num.16:29,34 - Kings. 2:6,9 - Job 24:19 - Ps. 9:17) corruption (Ps. 16:10 - Acts 2: 27,31) as to duration, resurrection is the only exit from it ( Ps. 16.11 - Acts. 2: 27,31 & 13;33-37 -1Cor. 15:55 - Rev. 1: 18 & 20: 5,13&14).
Tartaroo or Tartarus occurs only in 2 Pet. 2:4= to thrust down to tartarus. Tartarus being a Greek word, not used elsewhere, or at all in the Septuagint. The writer Homer, describes it as a subterranean prison , in which the Titans or Giants are kept as a result of rebellion against Zeus.
So , now you can easily see how we have arrived at “Hell” being a place underground, a prison of sorts , with fires continually burning, unseen by the living and those held there in an eternal torture.
We never could have arrived at this silly conclusion if the original words and meanings thereof were left intact in the Word of God, for one cannot possibly take the original words and meanings and combine them to invent such a place unless those words and meanings were substituted for the word “Hell” and its definition arrived at by scribes who would wish us to believe other than the truth. In no way can one arrive at the definition of a “Hell” by using the individual words and proper usage in the context and placement as they were originally given in the Hebrew Massorah, the Greek Septuagint or even the Latin Vulgate for that matter. For whatever reasons, we are taught that the consequences of not minding our P’s and Q’s is an eternal torture that awaits us all. One cannot prove this by using the original words in their original placement in the context which they were used.
So, what are we to think about the fate of those who have not and do not accept the Lord Jesus Christ? Would a God of love cavalierly cast one of his own into a fiery pit for an eternity? Is that the fate of the mentally ill....the untaught.....the ignorant? The only glimpse of what could possibly pass for what a hell might be, is in the story of the Rich man and Lazarus, where the Rich man did not overcome and found himself in a place that he could not escape from, and could see Lazarus from afar, across a gulf. There we find much symbolism used as the things the rich man was experiencing were not literal but figurative, and were not being dispensed by a devil . These were things he was feeling brought on by his own disappointment and heartache, finding himself in a place with definate boundaries, yet very near to paradise - in a holding pen of sorts and knowing he would have to wait until Christ returns to earth with all those who did not overcome in this flesh life for the thousand year reign, where they will be taught and made ready for when Satan is loosed from the pit to once again tempt and persuade as many as he can to join in his efforts. But as prophecy tells us , he will fail in this and he and those who join him will find themselves wading into the lake of fire and it is there that they will meet their permanent destruction, which is the second and final death.....the death of the soul itself and it is that that is eternal. One of Satan’s’ names is the Son of Perdition. Perdition means “to perish from within and from without” - a permanent, final death. If the lake of fire is thought to be hell, then it does not yet exist, for it is created only after judgment day, and judgment day occurs only after the thousand year reign of Christ, and that has not yet even begun , for Christ does not return until Satan is cast to earth by the archangel Michael, and masquerades as Christ and therein lies the danger, for we are told that the great majority of people will accept him as Christ, not knowing any better of course , for they have neither studied , nor have been taught......just like they have not been taught about “Hell” and other pertinent topics. Our Father has a plan and it is perfect and it will be done just as He stated it would , in His word.
13,690 views 60 replies
Reply #26 Top
Consider this then: IF there is a two stage second coming, which then is a second and third coming and since I am a saved by grace Christian, I get to be beamed up by Scotty the Lt.Cmdr angel of the Mothership.....I will be fine.


  Splendid stuff, Orion! Usually I think you're off in la-la land, but I think you've hit the rapture on the head! Scotty ain't beaming anybody anywhere . . . there is no third coming, jus' the one, KFC.
Reply #27 Top
there is no third coming, jus' the one, KFC


hahahah, then why do we call it "second coming?"

He already came the first time. I don't call it a third coming either.

He's coming first to "rapture" His bride and take them to the wedding. He then comes back with his bride for the battle. It's all part of the second coming of Christ.

Go back and read about ancient Jewish weddings. It follows that idea.



Reply #28 Top
hahahah, then why do we call it "second coming?"


Good point, I meant to type "jus' the two", but I'd rather write a comment than change the original and make yours make less sense. Meh. Lazy.

  
Reply #29 Top
Thanks, S.C.....*scratches her head* at least I think so.

  
Reply #30 Top
Thanks, S.C.....*scratches her head* at least I think so.


Hey, we might disagree about scriptural interpretation, but at least we can be nice about it.
Reply #31 Top
Jennifer1

Oh, Jenny, Jenny, Jenny, whatever am I to do with you? We all have free will. If God wanted robots, He could have made us that way. We are all being taught a very valuable lesson in all this. Satan won over a third of God's children in the world that was. Instead of destoying Satan and all those children at that time, God destroyed that particular world age. We are sent here , in this world age to be placed in flesh bodies, innocent and lacking all memory of what we foreknew, so we can , from scratch, start anew and decide for ourselves if we follow God or Satan. God gave us all the information we need through His word. He made sure it was written and preserved and available to anyone and everyone.
In the fullness of time, you willl come to realize just how fair He is.

Now study and learn what He would have you know to prepare for the upcoming battle.
Reply #32 Top
KFC.

This is becoming a : yes it is, no it isnt, yes it is, no it isnt type of thread. However , since questions are being asked of me, I am required to answer them..

Number One. Gee thanks, I get to ride in the "Here comes Jesus" Goodyear blimp to run away like a dog with its tail between its legs................
Christ is coming back with a sword this time and I've got the gospel armor on and in place and am girded for battle for Him. You and the rapturists run and hide if you wish, but do not get in my way.

Number Two. Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21 - is where I am getting this "stuff".......you may want to read these chapters sometime, for they describe from Christ's own words just how He comes and what conditions will prevail at that time. Every time you ask where I get this stuff from, my answer will be the same, for the truth out of Christ's mouth does not change.
You, on the otherhand have not provided chapter and verse where Christ declares that He will come and vacuum people up, leave with them to drop them off at the galactic bus terminal, and wait around a while, pack everybody back onboard the earthbound express and return for a battle. Where does He say all this again?, I fergit.


When Christ said, the end times would be like the days of Noah he didn't mean all this. He meant it would be life as usual. People would be marrying and giving in marriage.....in other words, life as usual....read it again.

I've been involved in many cults...they take the scriptures and make them say what they want them to say without using the full context and examining the scriptures the way they were written. You're reading way too much into the plain text of scripture. You have truth mixed in with opinion. There are 4 diff interpretations on the angel/spirits/men in Gen 6 and if learned theologins across the span of time have not been in agreement as to wether they were men or angels, what makes you so darn sure this is right? And to boot you're building your own theology on it. It's either that or you're reading somebody's take on this, cuz you are not getting this from the plain reading of scripture.

Number Three. Well, I tried the cutting and pasting thing with your words above, but as I write this, I have no idea whether they will be highlighted or not.. If not, the above paragraph is yours, KFC.
Now then, unlike you, I have not been involved in many cults as you have........is that where you derive your teachings from....cults?
Gee, I really hate to pull rank on you youngster, but I have been at this a very long time and I know all about cults. As I have said before, I do not accept any teachings that are not rooted in the Word of God, EXCEPT, those that deal with factual, fully documented historical events that can be proven ( the sidebooks you rail on and on about). Oh and about those sidebooks, what ye think of that tripe being pushed upon an ignorant public and I am referring to the garbage written in cheap dime novel fashion by Jenkins and La Hay (sp).....they are right up your alley.
In the days of Noah refers precisely to what was taking place at that time, which was the giving and taking in marriage with the fallen angels.- look it up in the original hebrew language - the word is Nephalim, and the base root word is Naphal, = to fall. They can be nothing less than the fallen angels, and if you know Theologians who cannot look up the word in hebrew, then I would find someone else that can. The fallen angels are fact, the product of the mating with the daughters of Adam were the Giants, which is also fact. I will submit an article about them, and we can argue about that on that thread.
The sole reason for the flood of Noah's time was to rid the area of these Nephalim, for Noah's immediate family were the last remnant of the Adamic race and had to be saved, for Christ was to come through that seedline. Here is another shocker for you: The flood was not worldwide.
Yet another article in the making.......
You are right about one thing in your paragraph above, and that is I am not getting this from plain reading of the ENGLISH translation, I look up damn near everything ( from names of places and people, to events), in the original Hebrew and Greek, which is why I had submitted this article on "Hell" originally. I am trying to get people back on track, and into the word, to study in depth........and yes even to rile them up enough to try to prove me wrong, which is perfectly fine with me, for if they do so, they will benefit immensely from the effort.

Listen, I use the 1611 King James version of the Bible along with the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, (which is built upon the King James version). Since newer versions of the Bible have been further corrupted, diluted and muddied, a Strongs will be of little or no value, when trying to study in depth when using anything other than the KJV.
Reply #33 Top
San Chonino

Well, if we agree on nothing else, I am very happy to hear you are not trying to buy a ticket on the rapture train
Reply #34 Top
What does this mean exactly? By god's own hand the Jews refused, and still do today, Christ?

Curious Gee. The 'Jews" do not refuse Christ by God's own hand. Christ said that they refuse Him because they are not of God in the first place.
Read Christ's own words to them in the book of John, chapter 8. Allow Christ Himself to answer your question.
Reply #35 Top
This also strikes me as being a bit unfair of God.


Fear not Jennifer. The signs of the anti-christ are well visible for those whom have eyes to see and ears to hear  

Those alive during the End Times will have the opportunity to see God in heaven, based on Job 38:31, on a great white throne in a flaming chariot beyond Pleiades and Orion:
"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matthew 24:30)

I'm not to big on bible quoting, it's just not really my calling. Besides, others have far better memory for these verses than I.

If you worry that people will be unaware of the second coming of Christ, I suggest you put on your spiritual armor and read the book of Revalations.

Those that have the seal of GOD in their minds, of emplaced by one of the Arch Angels have no need to fear the end of man, as all the signs will be extremely clear.

Man knows not the meaning of fair. GOD is fairness defined.

Reply #36 Top
and Cain's father is Satan, not Adam


This is outright false.

Please see Gen 4:1 - "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD."

The Word is very clear here that Satan is NOT the father of Cain.
Reply #37 Top
oh, and this is not true. They were expecting the rapture....again go to Acts 1 and 1 Thess 4:16-17. The word rapture means "caught up." They were expecting to be "caught up" with Christ in the clouds on his return.


ἁρπάζω
harpazō
har-pad'-zo
From a derivative of G138; to seize (in various applications): - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).
Reply #38 Top
XytheSeptember 9, 2006 08:35:05


Thank you Xythe a good answer.
Reply #39 Top
that Jews are less than human, are not of Israel (having 'stolen' that identity from the true descendants of the tribes, aka caucasians) and that those of mixed race or lineage are of the 'mud people'..


Wait a sec - Jesus was a Jew, whether the Aryan Nation want to admit it or not! Heh. Stupid people.
Reply #40 Top
Xythe.

Do you not find it odd that Eve claims to have gotten a man from the "Lord" , instead of from her husband? She again bore Abel. They were fraternal twins. Cain being fathered by Satan, and Abel being fathered by Adam. Cain is not listed in the Generations of Adam -Gen, chapter 5.
In Gen ch. 3 verse 15, God speaking to Satan: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.
Eve was seduced by Satan and because of what she had done, God multiplied childbirth pain and sorrow.
In Genesis chapter 3 , verse 3, God instructs Eve not to "touch" it: This word "touch" in the original Hebrew is "Naga" which means to lie with a woman........as in intercourse.
In 2 Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 3 - Paul states that the serpent "beguiled" Eve. This word beguiled is the Greek word "expatao", which means wholly seduced.......as in one cannot be seduced any further than completely, entirely, wholly.
In John chapter 8, Christ tells the scribes and Pharisees exactly what they are and from what father they came from.
Matthew , chapter 13, starting at verse 25 is the Parable of the Tares, where the enemy has sown Tares in with the Wheat.
Revelation chapters 2:9 & 3:9 Those that say they are Jews and are not and do lie, and are of the synagogue of Satan.
The First Epistle of John, chapter 3, verse 12: " Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one"

Read the above verses and then try to tell me that all these are MY personal opinions, or call the Word of God a lie, and call Christ a liar........which will you have?
Reply #41 Top
Little Whip.

Yet another country heard from.
You have obviously missed the post I had written in another thread - the one where I state that I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of any cult, club, secret society, group, circle, triangle, square, rectangle, hexagon, whatever.
The only thing I know about the aryan's or any other wacko group is from what I have seen of them on Jerry Springer, Geraldo Rivera, Phil Donahue, etc. They all strike me as being ignorant toothless hillbillies that seem to worship Adolf Hitler, as they goose step and salute with the Nazi, Heil Hitler thing. They want to eradicate Jews, and I do not, for I obey Christ when He says in the Parable of the Tares ,that the Tares must remain, unharmed and undisturbed until the harvest. I have made that point clear if one takes the time to read the other replies I have posted.
The Word of God points out who they are and that we are to be aware of them. I am simply drawing attention to what is written.
I just love it when so called fellow Christians wish to "pigeon hole" others into one category or another. I hope you will come to see a difference, so that I may climb out of this cubby that you have so cavalierly stuffed me into.

Your very best friend in the whole wide world,
OB77
Reply #42 Top
Do you not find it odd that Eve claims to have gotten a man from the "Lord" , instead of from her husband? She again bore Abel. They were fraternal twins. Cain being fathered by Satan, and Abel being fathered by Adam. Cain is not listed in the Generations of Adam -Gen, chapter 5.


You know what, buddy? You're reading way, way too much into this.

Cain and Abel were the children of Adam and Eve. End of story. You're exrapolating evidence that isn't there. You're so mixed up in your supposed "mythbusting" of the bible that all you're doing is confusing yourself in unimportant matters of doctrine.

Maybe you should start paying more attention to the message of the book, rather than nitpicking at little stuff.

Reply #43 Top
Plus, if Abel is the son of God, literally, and Cain is the son of Satan, literally, Adam really had a very loose wife. You're really painting Eve out to be a hoebag, buddy. Wrong-o congo.
Reply #44 Top
We have noted, seedline preachers claim that the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" represents Satan the devil. We also noted that they insist upon "consistency" in interpreting the symbols and terms we find in the Scriptures. They are notoriously inconsistent in applying their own rule! Notice how the word "tree[s]" is used in Genesis 3:1-3: "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every TREE of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of fruit of the TREES of the garden: But of the fruit of the TREE that is in the midst of the garden, God hash said, Ye shall not it, neither shall even touch it.,
lest ye die." If the "tree which is in the midst of the garden" represents some thing other than a tree, as seedline preachers claim, then shouldn't they stick to their rule of "consistency" and insist that ALL the "trees of the garden" represent something other than TREES? In FACT, doesn't "consistency" demand that the fruit-bearing trees of the garden represent living beings on the same order as the Devil? And what of the word "fruit"? If the "fruit of the tree which is midst of the garden" is interpreted as the serpent's producing "seed," shouldn't all other references to "fruit" in this section of Scripture be interred accordingly? Further, if "eat" means "lay" - thus carrying sexual connotations - then what are we to
do with Genesis 2:16-17, where God tells Adam that he may "freely eat" of "every tree of the garden" except the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"? And what are we going to do with the third chapter, where the word appears fifteen times? Why not look this word up in a concordance, and see how it is used in the second and third chapters of Genesis? You will find that it cannot possibly mean anything but "eat"!

Surely any unbiased student of the Holy Scriptures can see the folly in the seedline preachers' interpretational methods! There can be little doubt that some amount of symbolism can be found in the Genesis account, but the idea that Genesis 3:6 is a description of an illicit sexual relationship involving Eve and the Devil is a classic example of eisegesis - reading one's own ideas into a specific text! A natural reading of the text leaves no room for the idea that "serpent" and the "tree" are one and the same; no room for the idea that Eve's affair with the serpent in any way involved SEX.

Clearly the "seed of Satan" finds no support in the Genesis account. We can only conclude that the doctrine is the bastard offering of those seduced by the malignant HATRED that comes in the guise of "righteousness"!

(Original text by Keith Hunt) Link
It's HIGHLY suggested that you click this link and read the entire text!
Reply #45 Top
Xythe.

Chill...........
Now then IF one takes only the Genesis account , with the original Hebrew words left by the way side, there may be some wiggle room in the seedline of Adam. However, you then must discount everything else in referrence to the original sin as put forth by Christ , John, and Paul.
When one takes the original account put forth in Genesis, with the original Hebrew intact, and adds the words of Christ, John and Paul, one can come away with no other conclusion, and we do so entirely in context of the subject - and THAT is what an unbiased student of the Holy Scriptures would do. One must weigh the evidence in whole, not in part like this amateur Keith Hunt has done. He cannot punch holes in Christ's words without his agenda showing.......ah, but then it shows anyway does it not?
I need not prove anything for the truth proves itself and Christ's words are true. Have you read those passages I supplied or not?
I am even doing the legwork for you and you still wont have a look at them?
I studied in depth long before I ever even heard of an Internet. Mr. Hunt is such a piss-poor scholar that he has never looked up the Hebrew word for "serpent" , which is the word "Nachash" - which means to hiss, mutter, whisper. Not a literal snake, but utilizes the ability to schmooze, as in "Psssst, hey baby, have I got a deal for you!" Therefore, Satan can be the "tree" and the serpent at one and the same time. When God chastises Satan and calls him a snake , it is in referrence to Satan being a low life, as low as a snake. Satan is no more a literal snake than when Dan is so called in Genesis 49:17 - or when Nero is called a lion in 2 Timothy 4:17, or when Herod is called a fox in Luke 13:32 , or when Judah is called a lions whelp.
By the way ,the word is spelled " exegesis".

It is HIGHLY suggested that you stop clicking and start turning pages and read the entire text.

OB77
Reply #46 Top
San Chonino.

If it was not important for us to know these things, why did God include them in the first place. Why did Christ place an emphasis on the disciples knowing and understanding the Parable of the Tares to the point where he later explains exactly what it meant and asked them if they did indeed understand what He was trying to get across? Why have the other referrences to what happened to Eve and about Cain by John and Paul?
On occasion, when Christ was asked certain questions, He would respond by asking " Have ye not read?"
If you do not wish to study,to show yourself approved, then don't, but do not cast aspersions on those who do.

OB77
Reply #47 Top
Orion,

I'm cool

I'm just really having a tough time grasping where Christ mentions anything about Satan being Cains father.

I really have a hard time trying to decipher how John, Paul, or any apostle has any idea about what happened in the book of Gen. outside of what Christ may have told them.

If Christ had told any of the apostles that Satan was Cains father, you think that even just one of them would have mentioned so with a clear account.

Jesus on the other hand is a different matter. I know you are going to show me somewhere that Jesus said that Satan is Cains father in his own words - clearly.
Reply #48 Top
Notice how the word "tree[s]" is used in Genesis 3:1-3: "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every TREE of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of fruit of the TREES of the garden: But of the fruit of the TREE that is in the midst of the garden, God hash said, Ye shall not it, neither shall even touch it.,
lest ye die." If the "tree which is in the midst of the garden" represents some thing other than a tree, as seedline preachers claim, then shouldn't they stick to their rule of "consistency" and insist that ALL the "trees of the garden" represent something other than TREES? In FACT, doesn't "consistency" demand that the fruit-bearing trees of the garden represent living beings on the same order as the Devil? And what of the word "fruit"? If the "fruit of the tree which is midst of the garden" is interpreted as the serpent's producing "seed," shouldn't all other references to "fruit" in this section of Scripture be interred accordingly? Further, if "eat" means "lay" - thus carrying sexual connotations - then what are we to
do with Genesis 2:16-17, where God tells Adam that he may "freely eat" of "every tree of the garden" except the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"? And what are we going to do with the third chapter, where the word appears fifteen times? Why not look this word up in a concordance, and see how it is used in the second and third chapters of Genesis? You will find that it cannot possibly mean anything but "eat"!


Xythe question

If God knows all sees all etc etc so I have been lead to believe by Rhema when I attended.

why did he even bother putting the tree in the garden?

If he already knew ahead of time what was going to happen, then why?

If he knew ahead of time that man would be full of crap, and he would have to send his son Jesus to be sacrificed etc. why did he even start the project of man?

Why does he even bother with it all? Is it a little game he plays? I cannot understand why he bothered with it all if he knew the outcomes already.

Why put the tree in the garden?
Reply #49 Top
Jennifer,

Xythe question


You raise the same questions we have all asked ourselves Jen. It's these kinds of questions that drive us into studying various spiritual material, and consequently strengthening our spirituality.

Mostly, as human beings, we can only derive an answer if we see a cause and effect. When we look to the bible for guidence, we see the testimony of events that have taken place along with the authors interpretation; of course I take statements from Jesus as being fact.

The hardest concept for me to understand is how people think. How and why they think as well as how and why people do what they do is not very easy to understand.This answer may not be satisfactory, but I'll give it to you the way I look at how and why God has chosen to do things:

I believe that all spiritual beings know how and why God does things. Human beings are another matter. Our spiritual self is confined to the flesh, and is incapable of understanding the rhymes and reasons to supernatural thoughts. It is simply beyond the scope of our flesh bodies to comprehend supernatural motives.

I look at death as being a gift, as it truly is the finest gift a mortal can receive. It is only through death of the flesh that we have any hope of retaining our spiritual bodies. Once we are back in spiritual form, we will have all the knowledge of time and space; or in other words, we will be capable of comprehending all supernatural thoughts as if they were our own.

Hope this helps

Reply #50 Top
*Yawn*