Jbarrax

Thanks Evan. You know what they say about a blind squirrel and the nut.... :-) JerryB

Thanks for posting that Cynic. That's essentially the same conclusion I came to, but the autohr presents it much more cogently. To interpret chapter seven as relating to the Christian experience rips it out of the context of chapter six and ignores the numerous references to the Law and the Covenant in the beginning of chapter seven. I think the "inward man" Paul refers to in 7:22 is not the holy spirit, but the mind of the Old Testament believer, which is specifically referred to in verse 23. Peace JerryB

Thanks Dan. I'll add it to my readling list. JerryB

This is an interesting topic. I was just studying some verses in Timothy last weekend. I think the content of I and II Timothy muddlies the waters about the traditional Church teaching about Peter being the "first Pope" and Jesus' appointed successor. The question that came to my mind is, if Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church and appointed him to lead in his absence, why did Paul take it upon himself to appoint a leader to follow him? Did Peter transfer his spiritual authority to Paul, or did Paul just assume it along with his apostleship? Did Peter visit Paul and somehow cede that authority to him? Was there a rift in the church, as Dave Anderson has postulated that left Paul in charge of one faction and Peter (or James) in charge of the other? I know, that's not one question, it's three of four, but once I get started.... Peace JerryB

Thanks Danny.

Hi Danny. You brought up an interesting point about Enoch and angels. My recollection is that the angels of the OT were always in human or physical form. Can you suggest any OT scriptures that indicata angels working in the form of "spirit upon" someone? And just for discussion; I've read Enoch and didn't find it to be particularly credible. Most canonized books present a fairly consistent worldview or are in line with what we know about basic geology and astronomy. Enoch seems to say that the sun revolves around the earth, which is obviously not factual. Because of this glaring error, I found it hard to believe the details of his ascent through the seven heavens. Peace JerryB

Aaaand I'm starting to repeat myself, so If you'll all excuse me, I'm going to try to get caught up on some other projects that have been lingering for the past week and a half. Peace JerryB

You bring up a good point Diazbro. This relates somewhat to Trefor's post about ex ex-gays. If homosexuality and alcoholism are spiritual or partly spiritual problems, then both situations should be treated the same way. With honesty, love, and patience. There are alcoholics who get delivered from booze. I know a few. They get saved and they quit. And there are alcoholics who get saved, but don't get delivered from booze. Does that mean that the experience of those who do get delivered is counterfeit? Are these people Christian frauds? I don't think so. There are people in just about every category of human suffering--whether it be cancer, alcohol, depression, sex addiction, or homosexuality,--who receive miraculous deliverance by Christ. And in just about every category, there are those who pray just as hard, but don't get delivered. I don't think anyone really knows why. Faith is certainly one element, but it's hard to tell someone who's waging a losing battle with one of these things that they don't have enough faith. Only God knows what's in the heart and we can't really make that call. So why are there ex ex-gays? Same reason there are AA dropouts. But that doesn't mean that AA is a scam or that homosexuals can't get delivered. Peace JerryB

George, we've discussed the "choice" issue at length already. My thought is, it's not so much a consious choice but a coercion or spiritual manipultion. You can go back and read it in more detail if you wish. Peace JerryB

I knew as soon as I wrote that somebody was going to take a cheap shot. No Garth; innocent until proven impossible to get along with. There are very few people in that category as I am able to get along with most people; hetero and homo, Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative, black and white, male and female, etc, etc. JerryB

You can use any and all of the Bible Sharon. The reason I've focused on Romans is because it's in the New Testament. Most of the attempts I've seen to discredit the idea that the Bible doesn't condone homosexuality focus on the Old Testament and then equate the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality to other elements of the Mosaic law, which have been set aside. The reason I focus on Romans is to illustrate the fact that, even in what TWI referred to as "the grace administration", in an epistle in which Paul argued stridently for righteousness by faith, homosexuality is presented as an ungodly and unnatural practice. And you would probably be surprised if you met me. I'm a pretty mild-mannered person and always have been. But when it comes to doctrine and institutions, I do get a little pointed, and can be unflinching in my criticism--say, of Microsoft, Inc. the Bush administration, or a denomination. When dealing with individuals however, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt and try to relate to them as a person. So I see the collective influence of homosexuals as bad, but I treat individuals, homo or hetero, as innocent until proven guilty. That may be illogical and inconsistent, but it's the way I relate to the world. Peace JerryB

Thanks James. God bless. Peace JerryB

I treat them politely just as I do most people. If they ask my opinion about it (which is rare) I share it as diplomatically as possible and we go on from there. I don't think homosexuals are less deserving of kindness or consideration just because they're homosexuals. Especially since they've probably been told by more than one Christian that it's okay to be gay. So I can't assume that they've made a concious decision to reject God and live like the devil. I don't think my kids have gay friends at school, but I don't encourage them to avoid them. My wife is involved in theatre (as was I in college) and has a gay friend. She treats him with kindness and we have discussed his situation after rehearsals. She doesn't condone his lifestyle, but doesn't try to confront him about it either. Our view is that it's good to know the truth so you can live it and teach it to your kids, but, if you scare people away the people who need it most will never hear it. Peace JerryB

Outofdafog I didn't expect you to believe it. I merely hoped you'd have a little more respect for where I'm coming from. This is not some kneejerk response to people I don't like. And, as Johnny lingo stated, I borrowed your tag line for that one post. I really don't think anyone is going to confuse your posts and mine. :-) Peace JerryB

Hi Sharon. If you take the time to reread that post you will find that there's nothing in there about the Law. Romans 1 is not telling people that they'll be judged by the Ten commmandments. But if you'd rather dodge the subject and play with your straw man, have fun. Peace JerryB

Outofdafog; I have posted numerous times quoting Scripture that is very clear in its condemnation of homosexuality. I honestly believe at this point that it wouldn't matter what I say, you will object to it just because you don't want to accept the possibility that your daughter is living in a state that God finds objectionable. I can understand how you feel, but feelings don't determine truth, nor do they determine judgment. So just for the fun of it, let's take a look at some of the what the Bible says about homosexuality. And since Trefor says it all depends on translation and interpretation, I'll go out of my way to allow for vaguaries in the text that may be interpreted some other way, and we'll look at alternate translations. Romans 1:18-20 This is where the context begins. Note please that the subject at hand is judgement. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven...". God's ****** about something, as we would say. Is it specifically against homosexuality? Nope. Here it only says His wrath is revealed "against all undgodliness and unrighteousness of men...". So we're talking about ungodly, unrighteous men who are in for wrath. Wrath is not good, by the way. Wrath is judgment. "Wrath" is translated from the Greek word orge, meaning anger. Prior to this usage it is also used in Matthew 3:7, Mark 3:5, Luke 3:7, 21:23, and John 3:36. All but one clearly refer to the coming judgment of God. The other (Mark 3:5) refers to Jesus being angry at the Pharisees. In this usage, the context is amply clear that we're talking not just about displeasure, but judgment. God's wrath has been kindled because these men were surpressing the truth. They knew God, but failded to revere Him as God. They knew God because He had made himself known by the world He created, yet they refused to aknowledge His glory. Bear in mind please that verse 20 ends with the clear statement that those who do so are "without excuse". Why would they need an excuse if we were not talking about judgment? But we stil don't know exactly what they're being judged for. What behaviour is it that has incurred God's wrath, for which they have no excuse? Read on. Hmmm. How can we interpret this? It seems to me that these people made the mistake of not honoring God as sovereign. They became vain in their imaginations. What does that mean? "Became vain" is translated from mataioo, which means to make empty,vain, or foolish. They became vain or foolish and empty-headed in their imaginations. This word is translated from dialogismos, which is very interesting in light of this particular discussion. Dialogismos means, "1) the thinking of a man deliberating with himself a) a thought, inward reasoning b) purpose, design 2) a deliberating, questioning about what is true a) hesitation, doubting b) disputing, arguing". Their inward reasoning about what is true had become vain, empty, foolish. Their disputing and arguing was foolish. The result is that their "foolish heart was darkened." The word "foolish" is translated from asunetos. You've heard of the word sunesis which is described as the rivers of thought flowing together. More simply put, it's an understanding. These men had hearts without understanding. In other words, they were stupid. That's not just my interpretation, that's from Thayer's lexicon. They became foolish in their reasonings, and their stupid hearts were "darkened". Darkened means what it appears to mean. Their hearts were covered in darkness. Whether this darkness is evil or ignorance is open to interpretation, but it's certainly not light nor is it wisdom nor is it good. So these men who, in their minds saw themselves as wise men, became foolish in their reasonings and disputings and their stupid hearts were covered in darkness. As bad as that is, it's not the focus of the passage. The main point is their sin in not glorifying God despite their knowledge of Him. Now I find it hard to believe that people who knew God could refuse to glorify Him, but they, in their vanity thought such a decision was reasonable. Verse 22 puts it succintly. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. In what specific manner was their folly manifested? I tink that's pretty clear, don't you? They became idolaters. They replaced God with men, birds, animals, even creeping things. Why someone who knew God would choose to worship creeping things, is beyond me, but that's the decision these stupid "wise men" made. So it is fairly clear that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ungodliness of men because these men rejected God and became idolators. Is that the end of the story, or is there more? The first word of the next verse is "wherefore" which is a conjunction. Conjunctions link thoughts and connnect one statement to another. Think back to Schoolhouse Rock Conjunction Junction,what's your function? Hookin up words and makin em function?" Wherefore connects the following verse to what we've just learned about these foolish idolators. "Wherefore" is translated from dio which means "on account of" or "for which cause" Wherefore (because of their idolatry) God also gave them up to uncleanness. Interesting choice of words here. The phrase "gave them up" is translated from the word paradidomai which means to deliver into someone else's power. It's the same word used in Matthew 14:12 in reference to John the Baptist being cast into prison. The Blue Letter Bible defines it this way. Which usage is the right one in this passage? Could it mean that because of their idolatry, God in His wrath delivered a narration to them? Sounds kind of silly. Did God in his wrath permit the idolators to ripen? Could be. Or it could be that God, in his wrath allowed the idolators to be taken into the power of something or someone else. Unto what were they paradidomai'ed? Unto uncleanness. Now that can't be good. Uncleanness is translated from (akatharsia) can be physical uncleanness such as contamination from touching a corpse, or moral uncleanness from a corrupt heart. It is of course from the root word akathartos meaning unclean. Interestingly the first usage of this word in the New Testament is in Matthew 10:1. Lest you think I'm grasping at straws here, 23 of the 29 New Testament uses of this word refer to unclean spirits. So it is biblically accurate to say the word Unclean in the New Testament almost always refers to devil spirits or demons. It may not be the case here. But the phrase immmediately preceding says that God "gave them up" paradidomai delivered them into the power of...uncleaness. Maybe it's just talking about physical or moral uncleanness, not spiritual uncleanness. The uncleanness to which God delivered or surrendered them was "to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." Well Holy Saint Francis, that could be anything! Oh, wait a minute. It says, uncleanness "through the lust of their own hearts". Still, people lust for a lot of different things. They could have lusted in their hearts for golden chariots which they traded among themselves. OH, wait a minute. It says "to dishonor their own bodies between themselves." "Dishonor" is from the Greek word atomizo meaning, to treat with contempt or to treat shamefully, either in word, deed, or thought. If the verse merely said they dishonoured themselves, we could interpret it as "in word or thought" Since the verse adds the word bodies (soma), the sense of treating each other with contempt in deeds is a more logical interpretation. BUT. It still hasn't told us what kind of uncleanness, physical, moral, or spiritual uncleanness was involved when they, through the lust of their own hearts, dishonored their own bodies between (en) themselves. So it could have been violence. Maybe they had fistfights and just beat the crap out of each other. It could have been...adultery. Maybe they were just cheating on each other's wives. Or, it could have been...homosexuality. We don't really know. But wait there's more. Verse 25 essentially repeats what we learned in verse 23 Since the very next verse repeats the message of what we just learned, it is obvious that we are still on the subject of the wrath of God against ungodly and unrighteous men. We have learned so far that these bastages knew God, but refused to glorify Him, became foolish, and their hearts were darkened. God, in his wrath, delivered them into the power of unleanness and they, in their lust, did some contemptuous things with their physical bodies. Since verse 25 repeats the charge of idolatry, it is established that this is the sin that got the whole foolish, unclean, comtemptuous ball rolling, so to speak. Having seen that the context continues, we should follow it to find out if there is more information about the wrath of God upon these wicked idolators. Hey, look at that. More repetition. "For this cause" in verse 26 repeats the meaning of the "Wherefore" at the beginning of verse 24. And following the repetition of the sin of idolatry, it is obvious and established that the "cause" spoken of is beause they changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. Verse 24 said that on account of that God had given them over to the power of uncleanness to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Here the meaning of being given into some other power is repeated in the use of the same word, paradidomai. God gave them over to the power of "vile affections." The word "vile" another form of the verb "dishonor" used in verse 24. Here again, it means contemptuous or disgusting. "Affections" is translated from pathos and is only used two other times in the New Testament and in both places is translated as lust or "concupiscence". That's delicate King James language for sexual passion. In response to idolatry, God delivered them into the power of contemptible passions.What these contemptible passions, these "vile affections" were is not yet clear. But we have another clue. Here in verse 26 we have a little more information about what kind of uncleanness is being revealed. "For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." The phrase "for even their women" is the first reference to gender. The Biblical use of the word "men" is often gender-neutral, or in the language of Sinatra and Brando, refers to guys and dolls. But the phrase, "for even their women" (te autos thelus) means 'but also' their women. So again, we're getting more specific. This logically tells us that whatever uncleanness was spoken of in which they treated each other contemptuously in their bodies, was among the men only. Otherwise this statement 'but also their women' makes no sense. Furthermore, since the verse links these acts of the women to the same sin of idolatry and the same "for this cause" referring to God's repsonse to the sin, we can assume that whatever information is given about the women applies to what the men were doing. While it doesn't say exactly what the women were doing it does note that they "changed the natural use". The word "changed" is the word metallasso which Thayer's defines as 'to exchange one thing with or for another'. What did they swap? The natural for the unnatural. "Natual" is from the word phusikos. Thayer's Lexicon defines it as "produced by nature, inborn, agreeable to nature, or governed by the instincts of nature". The word "against" is interesting. It's the preposition parawhich is used 200 times in the New Testament. Prepostions, (contrary to VP and PFAL) don't have minutely specific meanings that determine exactly what the context is talking about. Para basically means "beside". So it could be that the women changed the natural use into or exhanged the natural for that which is beside nature. That doesn't sound so bad, does it? But there are a slew of rules and cases and relationships that determine the proper translation of Greek prepostions. If there is some dispute as to how this one should be interpreted, it should show up in variant translations. It doesn't. the Darby, the New Living Translation, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, even the Websters, all translate it as "against" nature. So the women, acting in some as yet undetermined behaviour that is in common with the men (who burned in their lust and treated each other contemptuously, in some physical manner) exchanged the natural use into or for something that is against nature. What was it? Accounting? Politics? Wrestling? No. Verse 27 makes it perfectly clear what unnatural behaviour these women fell into. Not only did the women change the natural for that which is against nature, but the men did likewise. They left the natural use of the woman. Well Gee I wonder what that's talking about? "Likewise also" refers to the leaving of that which is agreeable to nature and in accordance with natural instinct in prference for that which is against nature. The men did as the women. The word for "men" here is arrhen which always refers to the male gender. (See Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6, Luke 2:23, Galatians 3:28, Rev 12:5 and 13). Likewise also the males leaving the natual use of the women. What is the natural use of the woman? That may be subject to interpretation. It could be said to be companionship. But the sins in this context are described as "vile affections" and are associated with "lusts" and dishonoring their own bodies between themselves", so it would be more than a stretch to say that the men were simply displacing their wives in companionship. The natural use referred to must be interpreted in accordance with everything in the context which leads logical people to believe that this "natural use of the women" is sexual intercourse and companionship. This is obvious as the verse continues to reveal its message. These males "burned in their lust" one toward another. Well, what does that mean? They really liked golfing together. Yeah. "Lust" is translated from orexis which means strong affection. Thayer's Lexicon puts it this way. "1) desire, longing, craving for 2) eager desire, lust, appetite a) used both in a good and a bad sense, as well of natural and lawful and even of proper cravings (of appetite for food), also of corrupt and unlawful desires" So lust isn't necessarily evil. Could be lust for a good steak hoagie. And if we want to ignore the context and rip this verse from the flow of thought that precedes and follows it, we can say the it's really not talking about homosexuality. Males with males, having been given into the power of uncleanness, and vile affection, dishonouring their own bodies between themselves, leaving the natural use of the woman and burning in their lust for each other could be....fishing buddies! Sorry, that dog won't hunt. No ladies and gentlemen of the Cafe, the context is quite clear. These males with males left the natural use of the women and, burning with lust for each other, had sex with each other. (yuck). And this is referred to as "vile affection" "that which is against nature" "uncleanness" (spiritual, physical, moral, or perhaps all three) "unseemly" (aschemosune, something you should be ashamed of) And just in case you still think this vile, unnatural, unclean, unseemly behavior of males with males and women with women is okay with God; remember where we started. What's the context? For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven. God does not condone homosexuality. He didn't create it, didn't ordain it, and doesn't approve of it. Now, I could go on in like manner, through the rest of the chapter and demonstrate that falling into homosexuality opens one's mind to all kinds of other sordid vices. But... 1)This post is waaaaaay too long already 2)Outofdafog, Garth, and Trefor probably aren't goinng to accept a word of this anyway 3)And it's almost 2am and I have a ten hour work day tomorrow. Yikes! So why did I bother? Just to show Outofdafog that I don't just pull assumptions out of my mean little heart because I want to point fingers at people. I don't just make assumptions and throw things in because I want to make a point. I believe what I believe because it is, imho, the inescapable conclusion of a logical approach to the Bible, the truth of which has been established in my life. As I said at the beginning, Fundamentalist Christians don't necessarily hate gays. They're not being self-righteous or hard-hearted. They're just accepting the testimony of Scripture. If you want to say that it's okay to be "gay", you have to convince these people, myself included, that the Bible is completely without authority and cannot be trusted. It's not a matter of "interpretation" or "translation". It's a matter of accepting the truth or rejecting it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. JerryB

Mister P and Trefor, I know where you're coming from. I've pondered some of those issues in Genesis and haven't come to a conclusion on some of them. Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed. After they ate of the f.o.t.t.o.k.o.g.a.k, they were ashamed and in hiding. But there's not much in Genesis that indicates that they were fundamentally different afterwards. God asked Adam "who told thee thou wast naked?" The implication is they were made corrupt and sinful; they just didn't have a mirror. The Serpent gave them one and they ran and hid from their reflections. And in the aftermath of the whole sordid affair, God is recorded as having said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." There's a whole doctoral thesis in there. Is God both good and evil, or is he only good but aware of evil? The questions start there and just get worse. But, if you take the Bible as a whole, which I try to do, you have to conclude that, whether he is perfect or not, God is in charge and he doesn't approve of homosexual conduct. Whether or not we approve of his character or methods or judgments, is really irrelevent. The bottom line is, this is His universe and we're in it for the duration. We can decide we don't like His rules (I can think of one or two I'd rather not have to observe), but in the end, we're going to be judged by His standards, not ours. If it were up to me, I would make it so that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ had instantly and eternally blotted out everyone's sins, cleansed every human heart and mind, and eliminated every evil influence, every pain, etc. Because basically, I love people. (Don't laugh Sharon) I don't like having to believe that people I consider "nice guys" may be judged unworthy of eternal life or suffer some other punishment because they rejected the truth. But I don't make the rules. I just live here. Peace JerryB

We are not entirely without proof Mister P. We do have speaking in tongues, which I still believe to be the only physical proof of the presence of holy spirit. That in turn validates much of the New Testament, which also tells us that there are both angels and demons, that we have dominion over the latter, etc, etc. There's another thread on this topic in the doctrinal section. To summarize what we discussed there: I have not yet read, seen, or heard anything that disproves what TWI taught about speaking in tongues being a genuine manifestation of holy spirit that cannot be counterfeited. There are people in other religions who chant in foreing languages, and there are even Christian ministers who say that speaking in tongues is a pagan practice, but their arguments do not apply to the phenomenon as we were taught it and as we practiced it. Chanting is not speaking in tongues. Being taken over by a supernatural force and being made to speak against one's will is not speaking in tongues. Only Christians have the ability to freely speak fluently in languages unknown to themselves. This is physically impossible, but it happens every day. Now, is that proof that demons exist? Nope. But it is, imho, proof that God exists, and that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. These are biblical doctrines. So the logical conclusion for me is that there are other truths in the Bible that relate to the spiritual realm. Some of these I have experienced and so for me, the existence of demons has been validated. Everyone has to make up his own mind. I respect your desire to be logical, scientific and objective. That's my mindset as well. And for me, the logical proof of the existence of the spiritual realm is speaking in tonogues. Peace JerryB

I know where you're coming from Mr P. I've pondered some of those issues in Genesis and haven't come to a conclusion on some of them. Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed. After they ate of the f.o.t.t.o.k.o.g.a.k, they were ashamed and in hiding. But there's not much in Genesis that indicates that they were fundamentally different afterwards. God asked Adam "who told thee thou wast naked?" The implication is they were made corrupt and sinful; they just didn't have a mirror. The Serpent gave them one and they ran and hid from their reflections. And in the aftermath of the whole sordid affair, God is recorded as having said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." There's a whole doctoral thesis in there. Is God both good and evil, or is he only good but aware of evil? The questions start there and just get worse. But, if you take the Bible as a whole, which I try to do, you have to conclude that, whether he is perfect or not, God is in charge and he doesn't approve of homosexual conduct. Whether or not we approve of his character or methods or judgments, is really irrelevent. The bottom line is, this is His universe and we're in it for the duration. We can decide we don't like His rules (I can think of one or two I'd rather not have to observe), but in the end, we're going to be judged by His standards, not ours. If it were up to me, I would make it so that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ had instantly and eternally blotted out everyone's sins, cleansed every human heart and mind, and eliminated every evil influence, every pain, etc. Because basically, I love people. (Don't laugh Sharon) I don't like having to believe that people I consider "nice guys" may be judged unworthy of eternal life or suffer some other punishment because they rejected the truth. But I don't make the rules. I just live here. Peace JerryB

However, you have failed to prove the existence of spirits, or even the effects that they have on people. If we can treat mental illness by medication, and in some cases even cure it with surgery, then how does that fit in with the theory of evil spirits? What makes your belief in devil spirits any more real or valid than the belief in body thetans? As I mentioned to Garth, it is a little disingenuous to tell someone they have to "prove the existence of spirits." The kind of 'proof' you're referring to requires a closed system in which variables are controlled. Scientists cannot setup a laboratory in which they can control the activity of beings that have wills and personalities and exist on a plane beyond the natural. Therefore, no one can prove or disprove the existence of spirits. So your complaint is essentially groundless Peace JerryB

If God didn't make homosexuality, then who did? Obviously, anyone with the capability to create things outside of what God did must be equal to God themselves, right? Otherwise, if God created everything, then he's also the creator of death, murder, rape, and evil in general. Hi there Mr. P. That would be the work of the Serpent. What God designs, the Devil distorts. Pagan worship is a distortion of true worship. Homosexuality is a distortion of God's plan which He described as "good". God didn't create murder, rape, or evil. God created good, life, love, sexual intimacy, and kindness. We have a choice. We can follow God's order and seek love, life, and goodness, or we can follow Satan's curriculum and major in murder, rape, evil...and homosexuality. The basic principle is described in Galatians 5:16-23 with which I'm sure you're already familiar. I'm sure someone will point out that homosexuality is not listed here. It is however, discussed in similar contexts in Roamns and I Corinthians. We have to choose God's way, the walk in the Spirit, or Satan's way, which is grounded in the lusts of the flesh. If we choose wrongly and suffer dire consequences, that's not God's fault. Peace JerryB

Okay. Sounds like a good idea to me CM.

Hi Todd, Yes, I do think that there can be subjective and objective truths in the Scriptures. But I don't think it is wise to interpret such things as the return of Christ and the judgements to come as purely subjective. The problem I have with interpreting the lake of fire of Rev 20:15 as something we can experience now is the sequence of events that is presented. Before any of the resurrected dead are cast into the lake of fire death and hell are cast in. To me that indicates the final victory over death of which Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15:54 & 55. It seems pretty clear to me that the final victory over death has not yet occurred. Until that happens, no one can say, imho, that they have been cast into the lake of fire. You may be purged by God, a process of which Jesus spoke (John 15:2), but, as unpleasant a process as this may be, I wouldn't equate it with being cast into the hellfire. Peace JerryB

I "assume" that the lake of fire referred to in Revelation is not something that exists in this age. I assume that you are interpreting as subjective things that most readers interpret as objective. Granted there is much in Revelation that stymies scholars, but I don't agree with the concept that the return of Christ and the judgements spoken of in I Corinthians 15 and Revelations 21 are subjective realities that people experience in their own lifetime. As I recall you have questioned whether I am born again on these same threads, so the assumptions and premuptions go both ways. Peace JerryB

Quoi? Are you saying you've already been thrown in the lake of fire, judged and purified? Peace JerryB