The Afterlife
Views: 320
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Betty on
-
Matthew I know this is true from personal experience. I had, because of trauma as a child, a spirit that came to live with me to take the pain I could not face. He was American Indian and I know he accepted Yahushua as his Savior the same time I did, maybe even before. Why? because we intergrated at the moment almost that I got saved. I was 5 years old. And according to the people who know, intergration cannot happen between an non saved and a saved personality. I also met a man in my recovery process who was the spirit and he too accepted Yahushua as his Savior and without his help the host person might not have come to know Yahushua at all.
Now I also know that Father YHWH would not allow these two spirits this second chance without offering it to all, now would He?
The verses at the end of Ezekiel could be describing a time of teaching for those who "miss the mark" and this second chance is given. From Ch. 40 to the end.
47:5 Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.
Eze 47:6 And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this? Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.
Eze 47:7 Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.There are a lot of very confusing things in those verses for those brought up in the average Christian church. But I know there is not any kind of rivers flowing out of the current temple mount, now or in the past. This could be a time of the millennial and not just of the Bride eating and drinking and partying, but also a time of teaching those who do not have understanding this river seems to divide people in the kingdom, into those that can come to the gate of the temple and those that cannot come over that river. There are also those that can come into the temple too. But people are definitely learning the LAW during that time and keeping the feasts too. I have heard it taught as such. The only other thing this could be to my mind is, if Israel had repented at the time of Ezekiel, then Father would have changed things to this then, but for me the first makes more sense. But then I am a Jew and I do understand clean and unclean and know that a lot of what sacrificing was a big barbeque for everyone. So I wanted to show you that maybe there is more proof in the Word. If I think of any more I will post them too. But I have kind of clung to these verses for my loved ones, who while they loved Jesus, they didn't know Yahushua or really understand how their lives were lived doing the very things Father warned them not to learn much less to do. Hope this helps you.
-
Permalink Reply by Seeker on
-
I will think on this. My views on hell and such are not quite orthodox either...YHVH is good. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
-
-
"But I have kind of clung to these verses for my loved ones, who while they loved Jesus, they didn't know Yahushua or really understand how their lives were lived doing the very things Father warned them not to learn much less to do. "
What do you mean "love Jesus, but not know Yahushua" I love Jesus and I know Him. Jesus in the Latin version for Y'shua. (I've never seen the spelling Yahushua before coming to this site. Jesus aka Y'shua bar Yosef, are you talking about a different Yahushua?
Bets King said:Matthew I know this is true from personal experience. I had, because of trauma as a child, a spirit that came to live with me to take the pain I could not face. He was American Indian and I know he accepted Yahushua as his Savior the same time I did, maybe even before. Why? because we intergrated at the moment almost that I got saved. I was 5 years old. And according to the people who know, intergration cannot happen between an non saved and a saved personality. I also met a man in my recovery process who was the spirit and he too accepted Yahushua as his Savior and without his help the host person might not have come to know Yahushua at all.
Now I also know that Father YHWH would not allow these two spirits this second chance without offering it to all, now would He?
The verses at the end of Ezekiel could be describing a time of teaching for those who "miss the mark" and this second chance is given. From Ch. 40 to the end.
47:5 Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.
Eze 47:6 And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this? Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.
Eze 47:7 Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.There are a lot of very confusing things in those verses for those brought up in the average Christian church. But I know there is not any kind of rivers flowing out of the current temple mount, now or in the past. This could be a time of the millennial and not just of the Bride eating and drinking and partying, but also a time of teaching those who do not have understanding this river seems to divide people in the kingdom, into those that can come to the gate of the temple and those that cannot come over that river. There are also those that can come into the temple too. But people are definitely learning the LAW during that time and keeping the feasts too. I have heard it taught as such. The only other thing this could be to my mind is, if Israel had repented at the time of Ezekiel, then Father would have changed things to this then, but for me the first makes more sense. But then I am a Jew and I do understand clean and unclean and know that a lot of what sacrificing was a big barbeque for everyone. So I wanted to show you that maybe there is more proof in the Word. If I think of any more I will post them too. But I have kind of clung to these verses for my loved ones, who while they loved Jesus, they didn't know Yahushua or really understand how their lives were lived doing the very things Father warned them not to learn much less to do. Hope this helps you.
-
FounderPermalink Reply by Cyprium on -
This was posted a while back...i'm not sure Bets is posting anymore and i don't want to speak for her but i think perhaps the name difference used here is used as an illustration between the way Christianity is taught in the mainstream church as opposed to what is actually in the bible.
-
-
Sounds a bit like straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. There are a lot of problems with mainstream Christian churches, particularly in the post-modern or post-Christian West. I am saddened how much of evangelical Christianity has been hijacked into accepting too much of the world, the flesh and the Devil. I won't even talk about the Methodists, Presbyterians, certain Lutherans and the worst of the lot, the Episcopalians.
However, most of what was taught in "mainstream churches" in the 17th, 18th and most of the 19th century was "what is actually in the Bible".
-
FounderPermalink Reply by Cyprium on -
Maybe the best Christian to be is one without a label invented by any man....just be the believer that believes His Word. Makes things simple.
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Kindle on
-
The belief in a Purgatory is not a strictly Catholic idea, nor is it unbiblical. If there wasnt any hope for those who suffer untill the ressurection there would be no prayers for the dead. Praying for the dead can be found in scripture first in Maccabees 12:42-44
"and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen.He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin-offering. In doing this he acted very well and honourably, taking account of the resurrection.For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead."
Paul also prays for Onesiphorus in 2 Timothy 1:16-18
"The Master grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me
and was not ashamed of my chains; but when he was in Rome, he eagerly searched
for me and found me-- the Master grant to him to find mercy from the Master on
that day--and you know very well what services he rendered at Ephesus."1 Enoch also makes mention of waiting places designed for different people. In the book of Enoch the angel Raphael takes Enoch to the underworld. while there Enoch notices four deep hollow places designed for the souls of men. Three of the hollow places are dark, and one is light. Raphael is quoted in Enoch "and these places have been made to recieve them (souls) till the day of their judgement, and to their appointed period". Raphael explains the four hollow places are four different types of spirits. One is for the righteous, there is one for those who are doomed, and there is one for those spirits that make their suit, whos eternal fate is still undecided.
Nothing unclean will enter the Kingdom of Elohim (Revelations 21:9-27), but Yah can make pure consider Isaiah 48:10, and Daniel 12:10.
-
AdminPermalink Reply by Bean on -
Paul did not pray for a deceased person.. he prayed for the person's household.. the person's family and friends... there is no biblical reference for "praying for the dead" being a good or right thing.
-
FounderPermalink Reply by Cyprium on -
Approval of sign-ups can take a while because it requires one of the administrators to be online to do it. It can take hours to days for one of us to catch it. Two memberships were approved today, neither of which have the name you mentioned so i am not sure if one of them is your friend or not. Nevertheless, to address the questions...
"I have read somewhere that there is no concept of hell and heaven in Judaism. The word that is translated as hell is actually the grave or pit. How far is this true?"
It is true that there is no concept of heaven and hell in the way that mainstream churches often teach that subject. The old testament does speak of the heavens and it is described as both the visible universe and other dimensions thereof which are inhabited by angelic spirits (both good and evil) and of YHWH. There is never any reference to departed human spirits inhabiting the heavens, rather there is reference to a paradise or "Abraham's Bosom" where the departed spirits of the saved rest until Messiah's reign on Earth.
The grave is what is literally spoken of in the old testament and it is neither defined precisely as a place of good or evil departed spirits. The understanding was that there were separate places for the good and the evil and these were kept separate by "a great gulf fixed".
The final state of the evil spirit comes after the great judgement at the end of the age wherein all the unrighteous are thrown into the lake of fire. Some see this as annihilation and some believe that is is eternal. The saved are given immortal bodies and a new heaven and earth to dwell in.
"What rules do Christians reject from the Old Testament and on what basis? It seems odd to do so since Jesus Himself had said that He came to fulfill the Law. And two different laws for two different times? Do you have the concept of abrogation too? Why are the followers of Christ, who was a Jew, called Christians and not Jews?"
No Christian should be in the mind to "reject" any of the old testament. Some see the entirety of the Law of Moses as having been fulfilled in Yahushua, others will argue that all the Law is still applicable.
It is clear that Messiah has fulfilled (in past tense) certain aspects of the Law and so those can not any longer be seen as outstanding rules. An example is the practice of animal sacrifice for sin. Messiah was the whole price for the entirety of sin in the Universe. To sacrifice animals now would be dismissing that fact.
There are also the Laws which Yahushua directly addressed and expounded on which changes the common concept of those mandates. For example "You have heard it said love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy, but I say unto you, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you..."
Yahushua directly upheld the ten commandments which many people lump together with the ordinances of the broader Law, but which stand alone as being the sum total of YHWH's initial directive to His people. Messiah summed up the whole Law succinctly as "love YHWH with all your soul and love thy neighbor as thyself"
There is much debate as to whether Christians are obligated to keep all the ordinances (such as dietary restrictions)...but we can understand the Law easily like this: it is the Justice of YHWH. It takes no prisoners and there is no room for error. When you are wrong, you are dead wrong and there is no remedy for it. That Law was given so that men might see clearly their inability to keep it, and so therefor their inability to measure up to YHWH's standard through their own power.
Yahushua is the Mercy that was not in the Law. He is how there IS a remedy for error and how men might call on His righteousness to cover their own lack of it. As He said, all have come short of the Glory of YHWH...all except Messiah.
Messiah is the remedy for the whole world, not just Judah and it is not the nature of our Creator to demand obedience in the absence of a mandate. The world at large had no direct word from YHWH except the gospel which was preached to them which is so simple a child can grasp it. "For YHWH so loved the world that whosover believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." That's it. Acceptance in innocence like a child is all that's required.
Followers of Christ are called Christian because they are followers of Yahushua the Messiah (or Christ). The term "Jew" actually means a physical descendant of the tribe of Judah and the name became assimilated into a description for the religion which is practiced by them. The modern form of Judaism is actually Talmud based....not scripture based. The Law and Prophets come second to the Babylonian teachings of the Talmud which have nothing to do with the word of YHWH Old or New testaments. Ancient Judaism (or the rare non-Talmud Jew of today) followed the Law and Prophets of the Old Testament.
"Why are the Gods of the two testaments so different? Why does a Jew reject Jesus Christ? If He is not the Messiah then who is?"
Nothing has changed about His nature but the Old Testament points to the wages of sin under the Law of YHWH. It is about righteous justice. The New testament points to YHWH's promise of Mercy fulfilled. He came to make a way for the sinner to be clean and to be able to stand before His perfect justice and not perish. Imagine you wrote a book about the problem of world poverty and the first ten chapters covered the problems which cause this issue and the people who contribute to the problem. The last five chapters focus on a solution and a way to remedy the issues of poverty. You are one author who has covered two different aspects of an issue. This is one way to look at how YHWH presented His revelation to humanity.After the Babylonian captivity, many Jews went astray following their teachings and many of these were the leaders in religious practices who taught the people to honor the same things. The prediction came true that the children of the Kingdom generally rejected Messiah...but this also opened up the door for the whole world to hear the gospel and repent. He has a plan in all things and can turn all things to work for the better of those who love Him in sincerity.
Yahushua Messiah IS Messiah...the first, the last, the Only.
Hope this help clarified things a little....
-
AdminPermalink Reply by Sinclair on -
I think there's a difference between saying that the law exists to prove people can't keep it and saying that it was given to people and they were told to keep it in order to show them that they need help with their sin problem.
The law has to be as eternal as the Creator and i'd bet that there's much, much more to it than what people were asked to keep but if you don't know it, you're not accountable.
Adam and Eve had no original restrictions told to them other than don't eat from that tree. It was a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once they did, they understood basic morality. Now they're accountable. The first generation after the flood until the time of Moses had no law given to them other than do not eat blood and the requiring of life for a man's life and they were also not accountable to anything besides those few rules. No one sins until they know they are sinning.
Let's face it, humanity could not keep one lousy rule. We do need a Saviour or we're really a lost cause.
-
AdminPermalink Reply by Sinclair on -
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
- Romans 7:6-25
-
-
Good scriptures there Sinclair.
I had quit posting here for a long while , but found myself checking out what was going on here and re-read these postings. Gayle asked a question that I wasn't here to answer. You did a pretty good job tho, Cyprium.
Gayle, for me coming to the understanding I have of what the Word says we should do or live by, the commandments of Yahuah, given to us in the books of Moses, and what the churches of today teach are totally different things. Then moving to the the "new Testament" books, the man who lived and died and rose again, who on the pages of the churches Bible is called Jesus, the way I read the text, and the way the text is taught in those churches again do not match what the man, who I like to call by his Hebrew, given name Yahushua actually taught on those same pages.
The man who is in the book says: Joh_14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
But the man that the church taught my mom and my dad was a man who only had two commandments, love God and love your fellow man. All the rest were done away with at his death.
That just didn't make sense to me. How could all the commandments be "fulfilled" ended, no longer applicable when they were this basis for how we were to live? Or morals set out in clear writing for us all to see? How could "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not bear false witness" be something that is no longer necessary for us to strive to live by? Then I really began studying the whole Word, including those Old laws that the church said were passe' and found this:
Exo_20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Could it be that the man in the new part of the book was quoting the old part of the book? and yes, I found that true even in the parts that the church was using to "prove" the old part had passed away, this one:
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.The truth of the Word was not at all what the church was telling its members it was.
Again the man who was talking in the passages was quoting the old part of the book in part:
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.and the second part had to do with loving your fellow man as is stated in those same commandments. Not lying to him, not cheating him or envying him .
While not everyone sees this the way I do, it is as if the church was talking about a totally different Jesus, than the man in the scriptures that I read about. What is an antichrist? Christ himself tells us:
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.What are workers of iniquity? Men who teach other men to sin instead of teaching them to live the way Yahuah set forth for us to live. Exactly what my father's church taught me.
For me looking at the Jesus of my father's church, he is not my Salvation, my teacher of truth, he through the churches teachings has become "the anti christ", the opposite of what the real man in those passages taught.
I pray this helps you understand what I posted so long ago Gayle and I am sorry I it took me so long to post it for you.
Sinclair's posting of the Word drives home to me , that in order to love Yahuah, what many call by the title of God, I must know the whole of the Word He gave me to live by and with the help and knowledge of the true man He sent us to die for our failings of those Words, do my best to live according to them.
So is the Jesus of the church THE ANTICHRIST? I cannot say that I know that is the truth and nothing but the truth. Can I say that the Jesus that the church is saying told us we are no longer to live according to the "OLD TESTAMENT" is not what the real man the scriptures tells us of. Absolutely.
They just do not match up as being the same.
About the names of God, I posted a vid not too long ago, its long, but it was a blessing to me, and perhaps you too might find it so :
http://timenolonger.ning.com/video/the-seal-of-yahuwah-or-the-mark-...
The post I posted was some time back and much of my study since then has brought me into deeper understanding of the realms men go to after death. Something in the Word that Sinclair posted today , again, opened my eyes to see something I would like to share:
Rev_20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev_20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
The realms that mankind are sent to after death end along with the second coming of Yahushua. He ends those realms of existence outside of our flesh bodies, those holding places of the dead are emptied out and those who are still worthy of being in them are sent along with the fallen ones into the place where they become "wiped out" of existence all together at Judgment Day.
this verse has always intrigued me:
Rev_9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
what days are these? The days when men cannot find death.
It didn't make sense to me until recently when after doing yet another study in Enoch, I found that when I also re-
read the book of Revelation, it did not line up to what the church had taught me so long ago.
This is already a long post, so I won't get into it except to say, now it all make sense for me.
Thanks Sinclair for your post. You have blessed me so many times and today you continued to do so.
© 2024 Created by Cyprium.
Powered by
