Are They In Hell?

Post 247

If you have spent any time at all contemplating the last post beyond the really cool idea that Joshua was the type of Jesus the returning Conqueror to lead his people into the Kingdom of Heaven long anticipated from the wilderness and even before in Abraham, then you have with ever widening eyes of comprehension begun to see the topic we endeavor to reach.
The discovery of Moses’ limit of Type and Joshua’s specific forwarding of the Type to completion is foundational to identifying Jesus as the Christ. It locks in the pivotal point upon which all our related scriptural prophetic interpretation revolves. It opens the door to practical application of things seemingly unrelated. It is the keystone cipher to organize a temporal timeline of many loose prophecies that have no apparent meaning until they can be placed. With this knowledge, crossing the Jordan with Joshua opens the door to an entirely new and wonderful world with seemingly new rules… but it has rules, nonetheless. And now we can learn how and when those rules apply. And surprisingly, those rules of that new world apply at least in part, here, now, in this world, in a fresh and wonderful way.

I jumped ahead in the scriptural narrative to identify Joshua because with that identification established we know where on the timeline to place the Wandering People of the first gen Exodus Hebrews and apply the related prophecies known to be in this same timeframe, the time before Christ’s second coming.

But before we spiritually cross the Jordan River with Joshua into the greatly anticipated new world of “the kingdom of heaven” called the Promised Land, existing both now and future, in spiritual and physical forms, there are a few remaining things we still need to clean up on this side to prepare the way of the Lord (Malachi 3:1, Matthew 3:3).

* * *

The Wandering People:

We ended The Uncommon Christian Walk segment of posts, leaving the first Generation Exodus people wandering the wilderness after having refused to enter the Promised Land;

“Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have (nonetheless) tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it: But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully…” Numbers 14:22-24.

Since this is such a landmark watershed moment, it warrants a pause here to explore for clues that might aid our understanding of their failure:

Why did they fail?

Why were they afraid?

How did Caleb make it where other failed?

Why was Joshua not mentioned with Caleb in this declaration?

And where then does this leave these failed people of God? in Hell?

* * *

Employment:

I had a fascinating discussion with a young waitress today in an otherwise empty restaurant. In short, she does not believe in a specific Creator God as a personality to which we are all accountable because that just does not make sense that such an accountability to His rules should determine if you go to Heaven or end up in Hell. Such a thing is just not logical or fair. Further she queried; What or where is Hell anyway?

So using her situation in life I asked if it was fair that her employer (the restaurant owner) would require of her to obey his rules as a condition of employment, to which she readily understood and agreed it was fair.

So suppose as the waitress employed by this employer, you feel it is just not important to come into work at the appointed time, or to perform the appointed tasks, have you damaged this relationship? Is the resulting consequence of turmoil fair? What right does this person have to direct your life in such a way? How dare he! Who does he think he is?

And if the heart of a particular waitress is constantly at odds with the wishes of her employer, how long will it be before one day he hands her a pink-slip (*1) and she is suddenly unemployed? If the check she receives for employment can desirably improve her condition of life (let’s call it “blessings”), is he evil for terminating their agreement after he said she could work for him? If employment with this owner means such access to blessing and unemployment means the termination of that access, then what and where is hell?

She could easily see that, in this analogy, the absence of the benefiting check would be the resulting hell that is simply the by-product of being unemployed, therefore heaven was where she was gainfully employed because of the benefit it provides.

Regarding this hypothetical termination, why did she find herself unemployed, was it the will of the owner? Can we say if she is suddenly unemployed it is because she wanted to be unemployed or is her condition simply a by-product of her unacceptable belligerent perspective of how her employment should be ordered?

Now as the conversation continued, it turned to focus on religion;

One religion says this but another says that, do this but don’t do that, God says this, but another says No; God says that, it’s all so ridiculous! I believe god is… and she went on to describe her confident self-created perception of god.

So continuing with the representation that she easily comprehend I asked her what significance do the opinions of a pack of customers sitting at the breakfast counter have regarding her successful employment? One might say her boss wants her to put these here, another says no he wants them there, a third says the owner wants her to do this work, but another says no, that’s not important. To this she smiled and agreed that the opinions of such people had very little to do with her successful employment, but then immediately jumped to the logical track that she was the only one who could make those determinations for her successful employment.

But is this so?

Or is she, in this mindframe, not just another Joe at the breakfast bar with an opinion? The only difference being her consequence of error, as she is on this side of the counter (employed). Shouldn’t she rather go ask the employer what he wants her to do instead of assuming that whatever she thinks she should do, is in fact his desire?

Employment is not about what you want to do or even think you should do. Employment is all about the will of the owner. You’re there for the check, not to usurp his ownership with your opinions of how it should be.

Today this Type still works to a degree, though as a result of multiple corruptions the “occupier’s” Social Gospel is even now decimating the successful application of this Type and I expect will soon have it so convoluted that the proper comprehension of the Type will be entirely destroyed though employment will sort of continue in a new democratic way.

Stepping on very dangerous ground, I offer you in addition a similar, though now already utterly decimated, type that God originally intended us to use. Please see my meaning not in the form we now observe, or even in the previous form that was already corrupted before we got to it, but see it in the form originally established by God himself.

*  *  *

The Gender Roles:

Originally God set up the genders and their very different roles, as a Type for us to easily understand our relationship with God. Being both human, God’s point was not to raise one gender as “superior” to the other, but simply to describe an unseen reality with a seen condition. Man played the part of God and woman played the associated part of humanity. This is why Man was given the inheritance and authority, and why woman was dependent upon man for her provision and protection. This was the original intent of marriage pre-designed between genders for after the fall, as a Type, to grant the favored woman incorporation into the man’s inheritance by marriage, so that we could grasp our proper standing with God.

Originally this wonderful type worked very, very well. The man wanted by desire a companion whom he could love and care for, and the woman needed protection and provision, and in return was fulfilled in blessing her loved husband with mutual children and a warm and happy home.

But this Type to aid our comprehension of how to have a happy and successful relationship with God was decimated by our mutual perversions and self-centered humanity of both men and women until we utterly destroyed that type which is now despised, and by simply bringing up the idea of these roles I am in danger of stirring up the wrath of liberated women declaring me a male chauvinist dinosaur. I am openly declaring that type now destroyed and though it has created new problems I am not disparaging liberation because of man’s abuse of his Type role, but rather for other reasons.

Yet so far we still have the remaining shreds of the institution of marriage though it now utterly corrupts, or at best misses, the Type it was originally intended to provide. Having abandon the Type, we have no reason to retain the shadow, and so, many today simply trade partners at will, and/or live together in happiness without feeling any need or consequence of abandoning an empty shell of a perceived meaningless institution.

The reason this is possible is because the institution was simply an important Type of something more important. Abandon the purpose; abandon the Type. But by abandoning both, we miss the more important door, i.e. the instruction to a successful relationship with God. Abandoning the desire for a successful relationship with God naturally results in the evaporation of the shadow of that relationship.

Today, with both men and women no longer properly playing their given roles of the Type, they have no reason to avoid fornication and adultery as the archaic rules have become meaningless and even despised because the only thing they know of the old ways are the oppressive corruptions that were handed down. Now with not only the meaning of marriage, but marriage itself so corrupted with self-serving designs, to attempt to declare marriage such a Type, is to further Scolios (twist) the comprehension of our relationship with God.

But we still have marriages… as best we can.

And we still have employees… as best we can.

And we still have a Faith… as best we can.

But all our types are quickly evaporating and so who can explain a proper relationship with God?

“If God is like my ex-husband, I want nothing to do with him!”

“If a relationship with God is like a marriage, I certainly want nothing to do with it!”

“My boss is a self-centered tyrant, is this the image or power of God?”

And just as the abused wife, or the maltreated employee, humanity shakes our tiny fist to demand our rights against an imagined tyrant God. But it was man who corrupted that Type, not God who is not a tyrant but a frustrated husband and employer with a willful wife and employee demanding their rights against his loving and all-wise authority.

Can you see that to now use this Type it is nearly impossible to sort out (straighten) the scoliosis in the effort to find the important truth?

But now we go even further:
Today our governing administration openly sponsors sodomy as an additional legal form of marriage, and so, though we do so in ignorance, marriage becomes the image of Mankind uniting with Mankind and not with God.

THIS, AND ONLY THIS, is why we are to outlaw sodomy. Abandon the message (Type) of God and there is no other legitimate reason. Disease, non-propagation of the species, unbalanced companionship, confusion, etc., are all arguable; for and against, like Democrats and Republicans you will never get the issues resolved because they each have been given an equally empowered platform from which to debate. The God platform has no equal so rejecting his authority is the only way to allow an opposing value as plausible. Once the God of values is rejected, the variety of contending values becomes unlimited, each demanding their equal rights with equal review, and without God they are equally valid from the perspective of a spiritual sodomite. To further argue fine points of logic against these contending values is to be shown a fool. Without the foundation of God as your sole support, your Christian values are hollow shells.

Such is this seemingly righteous political add preaching nothing but a foundationless desire for the god called freedom that has no ability to stand for anything except self-serving lusts: (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JVAhr4hZDJE&vq=medium#t=19)

* * *

The Exodus People:

Such a Type of marriage to God were the Exodus people. They needed protection from Egypt, and provision once rescued. And in their confused, wretched state, he led them gently through their cleansing, healing, instruction, and glory, to present himself such a magnificent bride, somewhat as Henry Higgins did with Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Fair_Lady_%28film%29) But having been adapted from a play, itself adapted by George Bernard Shaw (*2) from another work, this representation of something wonderful has been twisted to make us despise Mr. Higgins for his generosity in what he did for her because our perception of Mr. Higgins is a careless self-centered rich goat that had not taken into consideration the personhood of Eliza until after he saw what he had made, whereas Christ made clear his intention of marriage before he began the self-sacrificial work:

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” Romans 5:8.

Nonetheless the gender type is already utterly destroyed and with this additional confusion we just fight with the application of such a distasteful sexist Type. So let’s use the Type of an employer:

Such a Type of employment were the Exodus people. They needed protection from a tyrant employer and a job once rescued, And in their confused, unemployable state, he led them gently through their misunderstanding resentments, instruction of the basic Show-up-to-work-on-time stuff, education of a useful employee, and the glory of a potential manager, to present himself such a magnificent business partner somewhat as Pharaoh did with Joseph. But today we despise Pharaoh for his generosity in what he did for him because even our perception of Pharaoh is that of a careless self-centered powerful goat that had not taken into consideration the personhood of Joseph.

This employment type is also now dangerously distorted as we “rise up” to bring down this tyrant employer and demand we all share in the ownership of his business. And today’s Christian is acting out this same resentful revolt against God our employer, demanding better conditions and better hours with more benefits, and the right to negotiate our ideas and desires into his business.

Regardless of the type used, at each step to help them, these people pulled away the shoulder in resentment and at the tenth “confrontation” they openly shamed God by refusing to fulfill his purpose for them; they refused to go in and take the Promised Land in his name and glory, and today we question his right to do so. Since this was the ultimate purpose for all the preparation, they had no more usefulness and he handed them their pink-slip. They were suddenly unemployed. Divorced.

But where does that leave them now? Is this not hell?

The answer is not simple; If viewed in comparison to employment or marriage on the other side of the Jordan, then yes it is. But (and it’s a very big BUT), they did not return to Egypt. This is critical to identifying where they ended up.

* * *

In God’s unimaginable extension of generosity, after termination due to an unalterable rebellious nature, God has yet a continuing benefit for them. Call it a severance package if you will. And since we called it hell by comparison to employment of the other side of the Jordan, we must in fairness evaluate the existence on this side in comparison to returning to slavery in Egypt. But this is not an easy comparison to make. It depends on what you choose to remember about Egypt.

All through their rehab they constantly remembered the abundant food that filled their lusts. These lusty foods were not provided here in the wilderness. That makes this hell. But remember Pharaoh killed off an entire batch of their male children in Egypt. No children died here in the wilderness but instead entered the Promised Land. That makes this heaven. And on we go with the two-sided argument that can never be reconciled because each side has an equal platform from which to argue. Why? because they are no longer where they were intended to be; on the other side of the Jordan.

There is a very curious passage in the Revelation that has remained a mystery for a long time. I believe this passage specifically (but not exclusively) applies here with this generation:

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the Churches…” Revelation 22:14-16a.

If you study the topic seriously, you will find that this is not hell, but it’s not inside the kingdom of heaven either!
* * *

The City and the Not:

Since this came from the last Chapter of the Last book of the Bible, the city Jesus is referencing is the last and final city, not a Type, and not a Type of a Type. So what city is this?

To discover the answer we find this city comes AFTER Revelation 21:1;

“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.”

Well that pretty much eliminates the New Jerusalem as the kingdom that comes down onto the old earth and lasts for 1000 years in the physical reign of Christ Jesus’ 9th kingdom (ref. Revelation 20:4-6 and Daniel 2:44-45+Revelation 17:10-14), but wait! Contrary to popular exposition, there is nothing in these passages that states the New Jerusalem comes down at this time! Clearly the New Jerusalem does not come down from heaven until the new heaven and the new earth are established!

“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” Revelation 21:2 (see also 9-10).

I must stop myself from running ahead to jump into this exciting complex prophecy of still future days, but that is for a much later study. I bring it up here because it is the dogs and their companions that are my focus. These never make it through the gates of the city but are just outside the city wall. This is typed in the border “wall” of the Jordan River separating this from that. Is this place hell? Well now we have to define hell. We will soon see clearly that this place outside the gates (this side the Jordan) is not the Lake of Fire called the pit that in ignorance we tend to lump everywhere undesirable into and call it hell. We will explore this more as we go.

Now with this understanding of their corrupt unalterable nature and their end not the Lake of Fire, let’s continue in scripture and follow them in their wandering to see what we can learn.

* * * * * * *

*1 Pink Slip:

“Pink slip refers to the American practice, by a personnel department, of including a discharge notice in an employee's pay envelope to notify the worker of his or her termination of employment or layoff. Receiving a "pink slip" has become a metaphor for the termination of employment in general. According to an article in The New York Times, the editors of the Random House Dictionary have dated the term to at least as early as 1910.

Pink slips came back into the news circa 2009, with the layoffs following the Wall Street crash. The origin of the phrase is undetermined, and there is no evidence that termination notices are, or ever were, conventionally printed on pink-colored paper. In the UK and Ireland the equivalent of a pink slip is a P45; in Belgium the equivalent is known as a C4.

The term pink slip may also relate to the fact that many applications (including termination papers) are done in triplicate form, with the dismissed employee receiving the pink copy (hence the pink slip).”

 - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slip_%28employment%29)

*2 George Bernard Shaw:

Please, it’s not necessary to get side tracked with the following details; I only place them here for your curiosity.

“If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.”

“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him (Mohammad) - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”

"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."

- Sir George Bernard Shaw in “The Genuine Islam”, volume 1, Nov. 8, 1936.

Justify your social existence or be exterminated video

 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Ljkoh_vmE&feature=fvst)

Abolish the U.S. Constitution video (only need to watch the first part)

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pk0NUiw2o&feature=related)

Designer of the famed Fabian Socialist Window:

(http://thinkinginchrist.com/2009/08/08/the-fabian-socialist-window/) I do not agree with everything this author declares, but the window information is good.

Wikipedia on the window:

“The stained glass window was designed by George Bernard Shaw in 1910 as a commemoration of the Fabian Society, and shows fellow Society members Sidney Webb and Edward R. Pease, among others, helping to build 'the new world'. Four Fabians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Graham Wallas, and George Bernard Shaw founded the London School of Economics with the money left to the Fabian Society by Henry Hutchinson. Supposedly the decision was made at a breakfast party on 4 August 1894. Artist Caroline Townshend (cousin of Shaw's wife Charlotte Payne-Townshend and daughter of Fabian and Suffragette Emily Townshend) created the Fabian window, according to Shaw's design in 1910. Also included in the window besides Shaw and Townshend themselves, were other prominent Fabians such as H.G. Wells, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Hubert Bland, Edith Nesbit, Sydney Olivier, Oliver Lodge, Leonard Woolf, and Emmeline Pankhurst…”

- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Window)

The Fabian Website:

(http://www.fabians.org.uk/fabian-review/) Remember the Fabians are the company of the guy who wants to kill all those who cannot justify their existence.

Don’t miss the whole point, that Fabian Socialism is the intent to bring its designs by slow constant un-alarming changes often through answering “convenient” disasters, and this is my point of naming him here in the “harmless” corruption of an older message.

While today the claim is that we cannot know the nature of the plant until it is grown, I am instructing the education that we can and must identify the nature of the seeds we plant. After the crop is grown is not the time to reject the seed; “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” Galatians 6:7.

*