"God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches ALL things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." - 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 

The Words were written by the power of the spirit. It follows that he is the one who would be able to interpret them to us. As the verses above assert. :)

Lansdowne5

You seem to take verses out of context a lot. Paul here is talking about his teachings as an Apostle are inspired by the Spirit. Obviously, Christians today don't teach under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Mindstorm, you may find this book interesting as well. Below is a quote giving a general overview of the view proposed in the book. It's from this thread where I debate it with Lansdowne5.

I typed this somewhere else to answer someone's question about Genesis 1.

First off, the author wasn't writing a scientific narrative here. More importantly, the hebrew word for create here doesn't carry the idea of "manufacturing" with it. It's more about ordering (if you want a source for this, just ask). Also, if you read the whole narrative with an eye for it, you will see the author is more concerned about talking about functions and functionaries, and not the structure of the universe. Thus the first couple of days show that God in creating what we see around us is the one who orders the universe (and therefore its functions).

This is why the author can use language reflective of the ancient world cosmology we know not to be true to communicate this and not be saying the cosmology of the universe is actually like that. He wasn't concerned with communicating about its structure, but functions (like there being waters above the sky which is making the point that God wanted a world where it rained, not that there is actually a water canopy floating in space above the earth).

Also, the first seven days are literal, but as I said, the word for create doesn't carry the sense of manufacturing, so God proclaimed what would happen over billions of year (kind of like a prophecy).

MatrixSamurai27

Oops that's embarrasing. I meant proverbs 3:5, my bad.

domatron23

Proverbs 3:5-7 says,

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart
       and lean not on your own understanding;

 in all your ways acknowledge him,
       and he will make your paths straight.

 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
       fear the LORD and shun evil."

In the overall context, Solomon is talking about living well and morally. Solomon isn't giving advice on evaluating truth claims here. In fact, with the whole book being wisdom literature, it seeks to help a person become more wise. Being wise means being discerning.

I dunno. To me he seems to be saying "don't be so sceptical like this guy here just believe what you're told dammit".

domatron23

Hm hmm. Nothing you're saying is an argument to overturn my position. To further cement it, I offer this.

Probability infers doubt, as does the idea of interpretations. 

RationalAtheist

You don't need absolute certainty to hold a position.

I wasn't waving your views away - I was waving hello to all the equally valid alternative views. "Establishing intent" suggests that intent is unclear. Do you think all the people who know as much as you about the document share your exact view?

RationalAtheist

The intent has to be established because their culture is at least 2000 years seperated from us. The culture as well as the language must be translated. We have the information to do this, as in facts gleaned from different fields of inquiry, so this will necessarily rule out certain interpretations as logically impossible.

Also, Gabu, are you preparing a response to my last response to you?

If you look back to page two you can see my response to that thread which argues that faith takes priority over evidence and in that way makes itself immune to criticism.domatron23

Yeah, that may true of YEC's, but I would propose they're ignoring the passages I cited above that give instruction to Christians about a truth seeking attitude.

What do you think about verses like Psalm 3:5 or John 20:29? I still think there's an argument to be madein favour of what I was saying.domatron23

Not sure how you think Psalm 3:5 helps you and in John 20:29, Jesus is criticizing Thomas about wanting more evidence past the point that he already been given sufficient evidence to believe. He had been around the 11 apostles for years and had no reason to distrust them, yet when they all told him they had seen Jesus with their very own eyes, he wouldn't believe them. To make matters worse, he had already seen Jesus' empty tomb, and witnessed Jesus do miracles over the last three years, including raising people from the dead.

Oh and what do you think about the rest of the points I and others made throughout the thread. Do you think Christianity has any self-preserving elements to it?domatron23

To me it doesn't matter one way or the other because I can't see Christianity being less likely to be true following from that. Although, at its beginning, Christianity had everything going against its preservation.

What I mean by avoiding textual criticism is the reliance on the perceived message, rather than of its origins and possible interpretations.RationalAtheist

I'm quite of aware of its origins, however, and the fact that there are other possible interpretations. However, the interpretations being possible doesn't make them probable.

So many inferences can and have been made from the bible over hell that anyone's view is truly subjective.RationalAtheist

Now you're just trying to hand wave the view away. Authorial intent is not impossible to figure out if you know enough about the document you're reading.

1. The virtue of faith. According to Christianity believing in the existence of God and Jesus as the messiah without any good evidence or reason is a virtue. domatron23

Sorry, but you're falling flat at the very beginning here. The New Testament emphatically declares that Christianity should only be accepted because of evidence, namely the resurrection of Jesus. In fact Paul says in the New Testament itself that Christianity shouldn't be believed if Jesus can be shown to have not risen from the dead. Faith to the first Christians meant placing your trust and loyalty in Jesus because of evidence that demonstrated that he was who he said he was.

Here is the passage mentioned above.

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."

-1st Corinthians 15:12-19 (NIV)

Also, in Acts 17:11 (NIV), Luke says

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

There is no way the NT teaches that Christians should ignore evidence that may upend their faith, but in fact calls them noble for checking out its claims for verification.

Sorry, but hell-fire and enduring physical agony still sounds worse than "Pirates from the Caribbean." I have love now, so can't agree on your definition of love that necessitates God.RationalAtheist

Well, of course being physically tortured every conscious moment would be worse. However, in my view, the common graces of love and human fellowship God gives non-Christians in this life would not be present in hell. They are here so that we may enjoy them and be more drawn to the special grace of the Gospel found in Jesus. Of course, once one is in hell, there will no longer be an opportunity to accept the special grace of the Gospel, so it is quite unnecessary for the common graces to be given. Another thing you're missing that I'm saying is that in my view, non-Christians are seperated from God in hell to a much greater degree than they are in this life.

I find it amazing how you're are able to detail your own personal view of hell, that differs from the establishment view of hell and Gabu's temporary hell so knowingly, based on mere inference from texts and avoiding their textual criticism.RationalAtheist

What do you mean by avoiding their textual criticism? One thing I think you're saying is that you find it strange that we accept what the Bible has to say about the afterlife? I agree that it would be strange to accept it if it hasn't been shown to be reliable with regard to truth claims. But of course, I do think it is reliable for many reasons.

How would you find the shame of uncovering a falsely held belief system in this life?RationalAtheist

Could you state this question another way? I'm not sure what you're asking.

I thought you did say that punishment there may be non-physical. There would be seperation from God (done ok without so far) and from the righteous. (Sounds great - the righteous always seem full of themselves to me!)RationalAtheist

Well let me go into what those graces are. It's very likely pleasure could be one, seeing as all pleasure comes from God (things could be like they were for the cursed pirates of the Black Pearl from the first Pirates of the Carribbean movie). Also, in hell, God would not be restraining people's depravity like he does now. Then, of course, you have love, which would not be around after a complete and total seperation from God. People will not be pleasant to be around in hell. Finally, the imagery used for hell shows that dealing with the shame will not be enjoyable at all.

Imposing a set of definite post-mortem rules from a faith plagued by textual criticism seems ludicrous to me.RationalAtheist

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. Care to elucidate?

I'm sorry - I must have missed your painless hell. Hell doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as it used to - after reading this thread.RationalAtheist

I wouldn't say my view waters down hell all that much. It's still a place non-Christians will not desire to be. All the wonderful graces God gives to Christians and non-Christians alike in this world will not be there.

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22)

This is not "all in Christ", but "in Christ all" - all will be made alive in the end, "so that God may be all in all" (panta en pasin - "everything in all things").  Thus our conclusion: it is not some elected minority who will live forever in the grace of God at the end of time, but everyone.  As I've said to others, we ought not to approach this with apprehension, but rather with joyous rapture - Jesus truly will be as victorious over death as he said he would be.GabuEx

In the whole context of 1st Corinthians 15, Paul is talking about the resurrection of the dead. His point isn't about eternal life, but how Christ's resurrection guarantees that everyone else will rise from the dead someday.

No offense, but this is plainly just hand-waving in an attempt to say "that doesn't count" without actually addressing the points being made.  Revelation says in no uncertain terms that those being punished are in the presence of the Lamb.  Period.  You can't look at that verse and then tell me that the punishment is separation from God when it plainly says right there that Jesus is present.GabuEx

Sorry, but Paul explicitly states that they are separated from God.

"They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power."

-2nd Thessalonians 1:8-9 (NLT)

Now, I gave you a hint later when I specified that the damned are separated from his glorious presence. This verse poses no contradiction with your Revelation cite because God, being omnipresent, is present in a sense in hell, but Jesus himself and the Glory of God are not there. This once again goes with my view that Heaven is a place of honor, because it is a great honor to be able to be with Jesus Himself and the Glory of God.

What I was saying is this: every single Christian we have on record in the first five centuries for whom the original Greek New Testament was their primary source for Biblical insight believed that the aionion kolasin was temporary and that all men would be reconciled to God.GabuEx

I think we will have a more fruitful discussion about this area if you can provide some sources that argue this while taking into consideration the whole context of what they were saying. It would take quite a while to check out the context of all the people you cite for myself.

Yes, it does.  The Hebrew of the Old Testament did not even have the concept of eternity.  It just was not in the vocabulary, full stop.  Thus, no Hebrew word can be translated into "eternal" without some hefty mental gymnastics.GabuEx

You're missing the nuance here in Daniel 12:2. Just because they didn't have a word for eternity doesn't mean they didn't have a mental concept of eternity. What other word would they use when they wanted to express the concept? Also, you didn't address the point about how the Jews viewed the resurrection body as eternal, which is another point in favor of seeing the concept of eternity being communicated here.

"This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:9-10)

Jesus additionally saves those who believe from the aionion kolasin that is required to purify those who die in sin.  But by no means does "especially" remove what precedes it from the tent formed by the sentence in which it appears.  If I say that I like science, and especially physics, then I do not say that I only like physics to the exclusion of the rest, but rather that I like it all.

Similarly, though many try and try and try some more, the end result is the same: Jesus is the Savior of all men.  And that, my friend, is the truly Good News.GabuEx

The problem is that Paul doesn't say Jesus will save all men. He says Jesus is the Savior because he is able to save all men, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will. Paul is emphasizing Jesus' title here. If Jesus was going to save Christians and non-Christians alike, then why would Paul see it necessary to emphasize that Jesus is especially the Savior of Christians? It makes much more sense to see that his reason for putting it this way is because the especially points to the fact that Christians accept his title of Savior.

But here's the thing: you have stated quite clearly that you do not believe kolasis to refer to punishment with the intent to improve the one being punished.  And if punishment is not intended to improve the one being punished, then the only other conclusion is that it must be an end unto itself.  Yet, here is where we run into a problem: the Greek word for punishment for the sake of punishment is timoria.  You are thus effectively asserting that kolasis is a synonym for timoria.GabuEx

No, I think kolasis gives a clue to the nature of the punishment, unlike timoria.

Yet, there are many texts such as the one from Clement of Alexandria that draw a clear distinction between kolasis and timoria: far from being synonyms, all the evidence points to them being mutually exclusive in nature.  So if you are to assert that kolasis does not refer to punishment with the intent to bring about an improvement, then to what form of punishment does it refer such that it is differentiated from timoria?  This is a question that you absolutely must answer for your position to be tenable.  Kolasis cannot refer to punishment for the sake of punishment, as that would make it timoria.  But you assert that it also does not refer to punishment for the sake of improvement.  Then what options remain?GabuEx

Timoria means what you said, but it doesn't really specify the nature of the punishment. Kolasis would refer to punishment but it also delineates the nature of the punishment. As I have argued, it can gel with my view because it deals with something being cut off. Also, as I have said, I have not seen you demonstrate scripturally that it is the wicked having their evil cut off from them, contra the wicked being cut off from the righteous which I assert and have provided scripture cites for.

Well, here's the thing regarding Sodom and Gomorrah.  People look at Sodom and Gomorrah as though the punishment meted towards it was final and annihilatory in nature, and then conclude that the lake of burning sulfur is the same.  But that just isn't so:GabuEx

Um, the actual cities were never rebuilt. Ezekiel is using them as a figure of speech.

For how can we declare that "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13) if it is the case that the vast masses will be subject to unceasing, merciless judgment for all eternity?  The Greek word here translated to "triumph" is katakauchaomai, a word referring to the rejoicing at the sight of another's defeat - and until there be no sting of judgment left in existence, there can never truly be such a triumph, as clearly mercy will have had no final victory with which to lord over judgment.  If it is truly the case that mercy triumphs over judgment, then we must conclude that, in the end, mercy will indeed have the last laugh.GabuEx

The problem is that you misunderstand what "mercy" meant back then. It meant "fulfillment of covenant obligation." See here. So "fulfillment of covenant obligation" will triumph over judgment because God is obliged by the terms of the new covenant to save its participants from judgment.

1.    It has been established that fire is a powerful symbol for the transformation of the negative to the positive.  If you are accepting the idea that the sulfur is intended as symbolism, then you must accept that the fire is symbolic as well, as they are inextricably linked.  So, then, how does the fire fit into the picture?  Where does purification fit into the picture of eternal shame and separation from God?GabuEx

It's time for you to deal with what I said above.

"They believed it purified it because they believe it drove the evil spirits out of the house whom they believed caused sickness. Going along with the judgment at the end of time, the imagery for hell would suggest the universe is purified because the wicked are driven away to hell."

If we are to believe the sulfur imagery suggests the actual people are purified, then you have to show that the ancients believed that evil spirits themselves were purified by the sulfur instead of being driven away from the home.

I was only trying to point out that ad-hominem attacks are the weakest form of argument. To me, they indicate the end of a bad one.RationalAtheist

I wasn't using the word ignorant in the insulting sense, but the simple descriptive sense.

The evil spirits being driven away during purification is still a valid interpretation of sulphur-usage in hell though, isn't it?RationalAtheist

Yes, if it is understood that the universe is being purified, not them.

Or that the wickedness is driven away from them, leaving them pure.ChiliDragon

Yes, but that is only tenable if the Bible teaches that somewhere in an explicit sense, which I haven't seen yet. I have provided references that I think explicitly teach my view.

Okay, now that I've finished my reply, it's time I throw something new into the discussion. Namely, if Gabu's view on hell is correct, then it throws the doctrine of atonement on its head and makes it nonsensical. Gabu says people's punishment in hell will last a certain time, in proportion to the wickedness of their deeds. This brings up the question then, if God's punishment for sin is a function of time, then how in the world did Jesus' half a day on the cross pay for all the sins of the people that would become Christians?

Now, I have proposed an honor/shame view to explain what people experience in heaven and hell. This makes perfect sense of the atonement, namely, why Jesus' "short" sufferings were enough to pay for all Christians' sins, and why people stay in hell for eternity.

First I will provide this list (Source).

1.    God is in the position of highest authority, of the highest good, and is therefore a being of the highest personal honor.

2.    All sin and evil are therefore an insult to the honor of God, a disregard of His rule and authority and an honor offense.

3.    Any who commit sin/evil, therefore, are degrading God's honor and status. Because this honor rightly belongs to God, it must be restored.

It should be noted here that some may object that it is impossible to take away honor from God. This argument fails because ancient people recognized two types of honor: Acquired honor and what we might call inherent honor.

The second type of honor is honor due someone because of what they were by nature -- their family associations, for example. This type of honor is associated with God's nature and indeed can't be taken away.

However, acquired honor is a different matter. It has to do with one's deeds and authority. This kind of honor, even if it belongs to God, can indeed be taken away, because at its core is what others (including us) think of God.

4.    God's proper response to disobedience, which dishonors Him, is to require the shaming and punishment of those who degrade His honor.

5.    Jesus Christ underwent the crucifixion, a "status degradation ritual," in our place. In other words, he experienced the shame that was rightly owed to us. Crucifixion was the most shameful death in the NT world. See more on that here.

6.    As a corollary, one who accepts the payment offered by Jesus ought, sensibly, to be aware of this price that has been paid and respond accordingly. One who does not respond accordingly is not appreciative of the paid price and may not truly have accepted the gift.

7.    In the process of the crucifixion, then, Jesus acts as a broker for those who wish to enter into a covenant with God. Those who enter that covenant are expected to serve within that covenant if they have indeed made a commitment."

God, the being of highest honor, is the one doling out the shame so to speak. We are humans, and thus can only have human honor, which is not as "high" as divine honor. We can thus only ever suffer human shame (deprivation of all human honor), which would never satisfy the shame quotient punishment coming from a being of divine honor. This is why people can never be punished long enough in hell to get out. It has to do with the quality of the beings involved. To put another way, it's a qualitative matter over a quantitative one.

Now, you may already see this, but this is why Jesus crucifixion was enough to pay for all sin even though he was only up on the cross for half a day. He, having divine honor, suffered the worst shame possible in the world at the time. The Divine Son allowed himself to be shamed, thus giving the only offering that would satisfy the shame quotient punishment coming from a being of divine honor.