Evidence for God from Science

I hardly think God is cruel simply because He doesn't prescribe to your preferences.

There is one humongous stumbling block in your line of thinking.

It is the person of Jesus.

He walked in our shoes.

He faced the same pains, frustrations, and temptations that we endure in this flesh suit, and yet He was without blemish.

He refused His anesthesia when the gall wine was offered.

I see consistency in the "Golden Rule" and all the passages of God's Word that encourage me to follow it. I also see consistency in the "Eye for an eye" principle and all the passages that encourage me to follow it.

must admit that I am not as convinced of this as I'd like to be, because I would like to know how whichever NT writer wrote that about Him knew it, since I am sure He, like all men, may have been absolutely alone many times and no one was there to see what He did or didn't do and since no one but He and His Father knew what He was thinking until He spoke.

Please explain to me why you interpret Jesus' refusal of the gall wine as His refusal of anesthesia when, in fact, it was offered Him for the mere purpose of quenching His thirst. How is quenching one's thirst equal to providing one with anesthesia?

Also, please explain how His mere 1 to 36 hours of agony on the tree, cross, or whatever you prefer to call it, could be the equivalent of the eternal agony of any man or number of men.

Are you suggesting that God wants me to refuse anesthesia when it comes to eternal agony, or are you suggesting that, when it comes to eternal agony, God is unwilling to provide or allow anesthesia, even though He might allow me to accept it when undergoing an operation or when enduring a painful existence in this life?

CuriousBob wrote:Jlay, Zoegirl, and B.W.,What you have pointed out is all fine and dandy and I wouldn't have a problem with it, provided that men possessed essential immortality (that is, the same kind of immortality that God alone possesses) and especially provided that general anesthesia against the consciousness of pain were impossible for men to administer unto one another.

But I do have a problem with it and a most serious intellectual (logical, sound, rational, or sane) one at that, primarily because man does not possess essential immortality and primarily because general anesthesia is possible for men and infinitely more possible for God to administer unto men.

And the following words may or may not make that problem clearer to you than it already is:

"I would have to become likened unto "a house divided against itself" if I were to maintain that God, who created mortal man, loves all of mankind while at the same time he acts like a typical unloving, careless, selfish, cruel, calloused, or cold-hearted man when He clearly demonstrates in His own words a total and calloused unwillingness to eternally anesthetize the mortal men that go against His will, despite the fact that He created mankind to do as he pleased (even if what he pleased was not something that God would have done if He were in man's shoes, so-to-speak) and despite the fact that man never did possess essential immortality."

Essentially, that is what I started the topic with, keep coming back to, or emphasizing. But you keep missing it altogether.

What more can I do to help you to understand my problem?

I thought I was being clear. But, apparently I am not. So, naturally, I am frustrated and at a loss as to how to get you to see my problem.

God is not in need of us. We have nothing to offer Him as He lacks nothing. Doing unto others is relational for people. OTHERS being the operative word.

So, if the NT writers can't be trusted, then can you trust your vision of Jesus?

John 14:26, Jesus says, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Now, this is either true, or the book of John, the centerpiece of the NT, is a lie, faith in Christ is a lie, and you are dead in your trespasses, or worm food. If it is true then Jesus explained to us exactly how HIStory would be told throught the NT writers.

He refused the gall because of its narcotic effects. Would he have drank if it were only water? I would think yes.

WORTHY is the Lamb. Jesus is without any blemish. He was perfect. His blood that was spilled was perfect. No amount of your own suffering can equal the sacrifice of Christ. His perfection and worth was so great that it can cover the sins of the world. Anyone, who calls on the name of the Lord WILL be saved. Murderers, theives, rapists, liars, the envious. Anyone means anyone. If you don't understand this, then you have failed to grasp a fundemental tenet of the Christian faith. Everything in the old testament points to the cross and the ONE who would be a worthy sacrifice to satisfy the justice of God and SAVE His sheep.
If there were one iota of possibility that a person could pay off their own sin debt with temporary suffering or penance of any kind, then Jesus would not have to of died.

I just don't understand this anethesia kick you are on. It makes zero sense to me. Surgeries were performed without any anethesia for centuries, but what does that have to do with eternal justice, and God's judgments? I don't see it.

The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him - Yet this is no excuse for him that betrayeth him: miserable will that man be: it had been good for that man if he had not been born - May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation?

How do you define essential immortality?

When someone asks us if we believe in "the immortality of the soul," we respond by asking them to define their words because what they mean by "the immortality of the soul" will determine our answer.

Some are thinking of "essential immortality," which refers to a life having neither begninning nor end. According to the Bible, only God has essential immortality as an attribute of His being (1 Tim. 6:16). Since man begins at conception and does not come from eternity, he does not have essential immortality. Only God is from eternity to eternity (Ps. 90:1, 2).

Other people have in mind the Greek idea of the preexistence of the soul or the Eastern ideas of transmigration or reincarnation. The Bible is clearly against such ideas. Man does not preexist his conception in the womb, and neither does he go through an endless cycle of rebirths. Since we have already dealt with these subjects in Reincarnation and Christianity (Bethany House Pub., 1980), no further comment will be made on these subjects.

Others may be thinking of "natural immortality," which views man as an autonomous and independent immortal being through some kind of innate power. This also is erroneous, because man is always and absolutely dependent upon the Creator for this life as well as the next life. Man should never be viewed as independent or autonomous. Life in this world and in the next must always be viewed as a gift from God...

Secondly, what does sin effect?

Third question - Did God forsake man or did man forsake God?

Until you can answer these - we cannot answer you on the same plain as we may differ on interpretations. Any different interpretations may only serve to go around in circles. Therefore, we need to know what you mean so we can help answer your inquiry.

B.W wrote:How do you define essential immortality?

CuriousBob wrote: I am going to let Dr. Robert A. Morey do that for me, since his book is where I first learned of it. I am going to quote from his book, Death and the Afterlife, copyright 1984, page 94:When someone asks us if we believe in "the immortality of the soul," we respond by asking them to define their words because what they mean by "the immortality of the soul" will determine our answer.

Some are thinking of "essential immortality," which refers to a life having neither beginning nor end. According to the Bible, only God has essential immortality as an attribute of His being (1 Tim. 6:16). Since man begins at conception and does not come from eternity, he does not have essential immortality. Only God is from eternity to eternity (Ps. 90:1, 2).

Other people have in mind the Greek idea of the preexistence of the soul or the Eastern ideas of transmigration or reincarnation. The Bible is clearly against such ideas. Man does not preexist his conception in the womb, and neither does he go through an endless cycle of rebirths. Since we have already dealt with these subjects in Reincarnation and Christianity (Bethany House Pub., 1980), no further comment will be made on these subjects.

Others may be thinking of "natural immortality," which views man as an autonomous and independent immortal being through some kind of innate power. This also is erroneous, because man is always and absolutely dependent upon the Creator for this life as well as the next life. Man should never be viewed as independent or autonomous. Life in this world and in the next must always be viewed as a gift from God…I hope that helps, B.W.

B.W wrote:Secondly, what does sin effect?

CuriousBob wrote: If what you mean is, "What effect did sin have upon mankind, through the first Adam?" I would have to say, it had the effect of: ripping man apart (in spirit, soul, and body); of preventing man from living forever in body, soul and spirit in paradise; of separating man from his creator; or of severing the ties or intimate relationship he had with his creator.

B.W wrote:Third question - Did God forsake man or did man forsake God?

CuriousBob wrote: Man sinned against God. I can see how one might take that to mean man forsook God. But, in a very real sense, I think God forsook man.

John 14:26, Jesus says, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Now, this is either true, or the book of John, the centerpiece of the NT, is a lie, faith in Christ is a lie, and you are dead in your trespasses, or worm food. If it is true then Jesus explained to us exactly how HIStory would be told throught the NT writers.

Bob answered: How would you go about convincing me that that passage is directed to me when it seems obvious that it is directed to the first century's disciples or since nothing in that passage suggests that the Holy Spirit is going to bring all of Jesus' sayings to my mind, though I never heard Him say them, since I wasn't with Him then when He was on earth and dwelling in the flesh among men? It may be true for those disciples but not for me. I never would consider it to be a lie because I am convinced that Jesus walked in the flesh as a man, died as a man, rose from the dead as a man (i.e., the second Adam), and ascended into the heavens before more than 500 eyewitnesses as a man.

It is because of God's Holy Character and His ability to be all that He is that he placed eternity in the heart of humanity and remains faithful to his own word, plans, goals is why humanity enters the world through birth with what is termed as “an immortal soul.”

Still others confuse the concept of a conscious afterlife with the biblical terms "immortality" and "incorruptibility." The word "immortality" is found five times in the KJV. The authors of the KJV translated two different Greek words as immortality. They were correct with one word but mistranslated the other.

The first word is athanasia. This is a combination of two Greek words which literally mean "no death." This word means "never ending existence" or the state of being oincapable of death." It is used to describe the resurrection body in 1 Cor. 15:43, 53.

The second word is aphtharsia. This is also a combination of ttwo Greek words which literally mean "no corruption." It means "the state of being incapable of corruption, decomposition, or degeneration." It is used to describe God in Rom. 1:23 and the resurrection body in 1 Cor. 15:42, 50, 52-54. The KJV mistranslates it as "immortality" in 1 Tim. 1:17 and 2 Tim. 1:10.

While athanasia reveals that the resurrected saints will never experience death, but exist for all eternity, aphtharsia reveals that this will not be a mere eternal existence but the fullest life of joy and satisfaction possible, because the resurrected sainst cannot experience any degeneration in the functions of body or mind. No corruption will disrupt the bliss of the eternal state.

From our examination of the terms "immortal" and "incorruptible," it is obvious that they describe the attributes of the resurrection body and do not speak of the condition of man's soul after death. As a matter of fact, the phrase "the immortality of the sould" is never found in Scripture, because the biblical authors wish to avoid the pagan connotations such as preexistence or transmigration which such a phrase would imply.

Do you desire God to sanction annihilation's oblivion which in effect tempts God to deny himself, his word, his ways, his gifts, his callings, his image, his likeness? That's sin!

It is because of God's Holy Character and His ability to be all that He is that he placed eternity in the heart of humanity and remains faithful to his own word, plans, goals is why humanity enters the world through birth with what is termed as “an immortal soul.”

Still others confuse the concept of a conscious afterlife with the biblical terms "immortality" and "incorruptibility." The word "immortality" is found five times in the KJV. The authors of the KJV translated two different Greek words as immortality. They were correct with one word but mistranslated the other.

The first word is athanasia. This is a combination of two Greek words which literally mean "no death." This word means "never ending existence" or the state of being oincapable of death." It is used to describe the resurrection body in 1 Cor. 15:43, 53.

The second word is aphtharsia. This is also a combination of ttwo Greek words which literally mean "no corruption." It means "the state of being incapable of corruption, decomposition, or degeneration." It is used to describe God in Rom. 1:23 and the resurrection body in 1 Cor. 15:42, 50, 52-54. The KJV mistranslates it as "immortality" in 1 Tim. 1:17 and 2 Tim. 1:10.

While athanasia reveals that the resurrected saints will never experience death, but exist for all eternity, aphtharsia reveals that this will not be a mere eternal existence but the fullest life of joy and satisfaction possible, because the resurrected sainst cannot experience any degeneration in the functions of body or mind. No corruption will disrupt the bliss of the eternal state.

From our examination of the terms "immortal" and "incorruptible," it is obvious that they describe the attributes of the resurrection body and do not speak of the condition of man's soul after death. As a matter of fact, the phrase "the immortality of the sould" is never found in Scripture, because the biblical authors wish to avoid the pagan connotations such as preexistence or transmigration which such a phrase would imply.

Do you desire God to sanction annihilation's oblivion which in effect tempts God to deny himself, his word, his ways, his gifts, his callings, his image, his likeness? That's sin!

CuriousBob wrote:B.W.,

It is because of God's Holy Character and His ability to be all that He is that he placed eternity in the heart of humanity and remains faithful to his own word, plans, goals is why humanity enters the world through birth with what is termed as “an immortal soul.”

My question to you is as follows:

Does the Bible teach as you suggest (i.e., that humanity enters the world through what is termed as an immortal soul)?

Dr. Robert Morey's scholarly work on Death and the Afterlife suggests the Bible doesn't teach such a thing and he gives me some very convincing reasons for questioning anyone who suggests it does….

CuriousBob wrote:...Yes I would desire Him to deny Himself if doing so would make it possible or likely that I would be annihilated into oblivion, if faced with alternatives apart from an etnernal living hell and an eternal unconscious being.

It is because God sanctioned the soul to be immortal is why it becomes so in the womb. This has nothing to do with Plato. You sound intelligent and therefore should know that in order to understand a matter, terms are fashioned to aid understanding. The term 'immortal soul' is such term used to describe God's sanctioning the soul to be eternal because as it is written in Ecc 3:11-16:

A typical argument is often raised at this point by the annihilationists. Since the Bible does not use the phrase "immortal soul," and the word "immortal" refers only to the resurrection, they argue that the Bible teaches a bodily resurrection but not a conscious afterlife. They thus pit resurrection against a conscious afterlife as if the two were in conflict with each other.
This argument is, first of all, based on the assumption that if a certain theological word or phrase is not found in the Bible, then the concept which that word or phrase represents cannot be found in the Bible. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses, using the same line of reasoning, argue: "Since the word 'Trinity' is not found in the Bible, therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical.
What the Witnesses fail to see is that theological terminology was developed over the centuries in order to capsulize biblical teaching. Thus the concept of God in three persons is not based on the term "Trinity," but the term is based on the biblical concept of God in three persons.
It is on this same basis, therefore, that we are not overly impressed by arguments based on the absence in Scripture of such words as "Trinity" or "immortal soul." All such arguments from silence are obviously invalid.
Second, they falsely assume that the concepts of a conscious afterlife and a bodily resurrection are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other is false. They thus present us with the dilemma of choosing either the immortality of the soul or the resurrection of the body.
They correctly point out that man was a physical whole at his creation. Man was not created to be an angel or to exist as a spiritual entity. Thus the resurrection of the body is necessary in order to reconstitute man to live once again as he originally did in the paradise of God. Creation explains the need for resurrection. It cannot explain man's existence as a disembodied spirit in a conscious afterlife. Therefore, they conclude the concept of an afterlife is unnecessary and inexplicable when examined from the viewpoint of creation.
The fatal flaw in their argument is their failure to see that while the creation explains the resurrection, the fall of man explains death and the afterlife.

Note context and continuity of context as well. Verse 11 is connected to verse 14 and each defines each other.

Without God, man's resources are limited to what he has and what he makes out of life. When things go well, he is prideful and content, but when anything threatens his throne, he becomes very insecure and anxious. Because man is missing life's most essential part, his individual pursuits in life are vain. One cannot be pacified by temporal toys because God has set eternity in his heart.

You need but call...

So the question remains - will you??

What precisely did Paul mean when he said "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved?"

If he meant everyone who calls with the intention of turning from their own ways, crucifying the flesh with its desires, taking up one's cross, working out one's salvation with fear and trembling, believing that faith without works is dead, etc., then he would be suggesting something different from the mere act of saying anything like, "Lord! Have mercy on me a sinner."

CuriousBob wrote:So, it turns out that you didn't disagree with him after all. I regret having thought otherwise and hope you will forgive me.

Note context and continuity of context as well. Verse 11 is connected to verse 14 and each defines each other.

I am sorry, but I canot see how each defines the other. Also, I don't see how verse 13 leads you to believe that life is a gift from God, when, in fact, it seems to be suggesting and quite clearly so, that eating, drinking, and taking pleasure in all of one's toil is God's gift to man. It is not saying that life is God's gift to man, unless you interpret the actions of eating, drinking, etc. as life. But, when I think upon your suggestion that life is a gift from God, I think that you are suggesting that the essence of man (as opposed to the pleasure that man gets from eating, drinking, etc.) is a gift from God. This interpretation holds for me even after having considered toil's design in Genesis 1 & 2. I found a commentary on Eccl. 3:11-16 at http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Re ... rpose.html. It makes quite a bit of sense to me. Here is it is:

Without God, man's resources are limited to what he has and what he makes out of life. When things go well, he is prideful and content, but when anything threatens his throne, he becomes very insecure and anxious. Because man is missing life's most essential part, his individual pursuits in life are vain. One cannot be pacified by temporal toys because God has set eternity in his heart.

CuriousBob wrote:So the question remains - will you?? ..."Have you?" would be more accurate, bcause I have. But, my question would be: What precisely did Paul mean when he said "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved?"

If he meant everyone who calls with the intention of turning from their own ways, crucifying the flesh with its desires, taking up one's cross, working out one's salvation with fear and trembling, believing that faith without works is dead, etc., then he would be suggesting something different from the mere act of saying anything like, "Lord! Have mercy on me a sinner."

Before I bring any more questions to your attention I hope to see how you might answer that one, because, for most of my life I have struggled with it and similar questions.

B. W. wrote:

CuriousBob wrote:So the question remains - will you?? ..."Have you?" would be more accurate, bcause I have. But, my question would be: What precisely did Paul mean when he said "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved?"

If he meant everyone who calls with the intention of turning from their own ways, crucifying the flesh with its desires, taking up one's cross, working out one's salvation with fear and trembling, believing that faith without works is dead, etc., then he would be suggesting something different from the mere act of saying anything like, "Lord! Have mercy on me a sinner."

Before I bring any more questions to your attention I hope to see how you might answer that one, because, for most of my life I have struggled with it and similar questions.

You ask a very good question that has troubled many. Do we work at staying saved or do we merely believe as one would in Santa Claus to be saved.

The answer to both would be NO…

Here is your answer:

One who loves — loves the one who they love and seeks to serve the one loved because they love. Such find rest in service, not drudgery. Toiling for the Lord who you love is joy and a blessing — not grinding labor used to earn acceptance from the one loved. If it is all toil and gloom what is the Lord trying to replace within you?

There is a time when we first believe and come to know the reality of Christ. Love grows from that point as we find rest for our weary souls as we learn to trust in him...call upon him...

Mat 11:28-30 -- Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Romans 10:17, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ...."

Think of faith as a reality. Is Christ work on the cross a reality to you? Are the depths of sin a reality to you? Is the need to be forgiven a reality to you? Is Believing in Christ a reality to you everyday as you live life?

The point when one first believes in Christ is when He becomes the reality of your life's course -- altering it, changing it, transforming it, day by day...

Has that day come unto you?
-
-
-