Wait a minute, asygo! My emphasis of point was:

Do you think the Bible states specifically what Jesus died of (i.e. heart failure, etc)? If so, please post it here. Thank you.


Please restate it here. That is, what would a coroner name as cause of death?


It means death is the inevitable result of capital punishment. But it doesn’t explain what they will die of (i.e. heart failure, etc).


What do you think they will die of?

Kland, do you believe God commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? You have yet to answer this question.

I already addressed this. I said there are those who see this in John's account that water and blood came from his spear wound. There's also Ps. 22 where Jesus said that His heart was melting like wax.



I quoted from DA 764 and DA, don't remember the page, but the paragraph about Christ's not seeing through the portals of the tomb. There is speaks of Christ's heart being broken.

Ty Gibson has some interesting things to say about the death of the lost. I'll see if I can type these in tonight.



Capital punishment would be the opposite of DA 764. That only doesn't fit with context, but goes diametrically opposed to it. Especially the 2nd paragraph.



I'll see if I can type something from Ty regarding this tonight. I think he has a good handle on this. You said you know him personally. Given this is the case, I don't understand why you don't have his books. In particular, I would recommend the books "See With New Eyes" and "Shades of Grace." These books explain the concepts I've been sharing very nicely, better than I can.

I started to type the Ty Gibson thing I mentioned, but didn't get it done. However, here's a portion from something else he wrote which touches on a similar thing:



What I hope to post has to do specifically with fire.

I do believe I addressed this. Is there a specific way I need to answer it? Maybe you didn't see it since you didn't address my questions related to it. Also, you didn't distinguish between variableness and variety. It would be helpful if you clarified the terms you use so we can understand you better.

Thank you for answering my question. However, I am sorry to say I didn't see it. I must have overlooked it somehow. Would you mind restating it here? Thank you.

When the Bible says there is no variableness or shadow of turning with God, that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, I take it to mean He does not contradict Himself. What do you think it means?

I also happen to believe God uses a variety of means and measures to accomplish His aims and goals. Do you agree?

Why do you think stating what others believe about it answers my question? Do you agree with them that Jesus died of heart failure? If not, what do you (Tom) believe He died of?


Do you think the wicked will die of the same thing Jesus died of?


Let’s assume you’re right for a moment, what will the wicked die of? That’s my question.


Yes, Ty and I are friends. However, we do not see eye-to-eye on this issue. I have not read the books you named above. Thank you for quoting the following from Ty: “God does condemn sin. He cannot do otherwise. But He continues to love the sinner. The condemnation we feel is in the sin, not in God.”

Amen! God loves the sinner, but He hates their sin. I totally agree. But condemning sin and punishing sinners is two different aspects of judgment. Just because God is forced to punish condemned sinners it doesn’t mean He ceases to love them. How should sinners feel about God because their sins are forcing Him to execute justice? I believe they will see God as holy, just, and good. But I also believe they will fear and hate Him. Is God to blame for their feelings? Or, is sin to blame? Both are responsible. It is because of their sins that the wicked will experience contradicting feelings.

Why wouldn't I? Your question was if there is evidence in Scripture to support the idea that Christ died of a broken heart, so I said there are those who see this from what John wrote. That seems like it's answering your question.



I've answered this. Why are you asking this again? I not only answered this, I quoted from the SOP to do so.



What have I said?



I addressed this. I said I'd try to post something from Ty. Specifically I intend to post from "Shades of Grace" around page 98.



That's too bad.



I think you should, if you're interested in this subject. I can't think of anyone who explains it as well as he does. Being in print, you could re-read it whenever you wanted. Plus if you had any questions, you could ask him for clarifications.



Of course this is true, but this wasn't really the main point. The main point in the quote is that the condemnation is in the sin itself, not in God. This is a great insight!



As Ty points out, the condemnation is in the sin itself. This is not something God does to people.



This is assuming a false premise. God isn't forced to do anything. He's God. Also, Ty's point is that the condemnation (or punishment) is in the sin itself.

I heard someone talking about vice, explaining that the punishment for the vice was inherent to the vice itself. For example, if you smoke, you get cancer. If you use drugs, you suffer the side effects. If you have unprotected sex, there are consequences.



Again, the condemnation (or punishment) is inherent to the sin. Sinners should feel that sin is a bad thing.



I don't think this makes sense. It is seeing Christ that causes people to see this. Not the fear of God's punishing them. As Scripture puts it "the goodness of God leads us to repentance."



Not just them either! Anyone one fear an all-powerful Being who they thought would set them on fire for days if they didn't do what He said.



No, God is innocent. The enemy has accused God, but his accusations are false. God is not to blame for this or any other unfortunate consequence of sin. Satan is the author of sin and all its results, including this one.



I agree with this.

There's a lot in this one!

1.When Lucifer and his angels refused to bow before the throne of God, the Father would not then destroy them.

This sounds like she's going to say, "but the Father would destroy him later." But then comes this:

2.They should live until death should come as a result of the course they pursued.

Oops! The same point in DA 764:



This is the same argument.

Going on:

3.The motive power in the heavenly government is love; human power when exercised becomes tyranny.

Again the contrast of the power of the heavenly government (prevailing power is truth and love), vs. that of Satan's (force).

4.All tyranny is a repetition of the Babylonian principles.

Here we have a definition of tyranny. It is to use compelling power to force others to obey. How was this specifically applied in Babylon's case?

5.The command must be backed by some form of punishment,-a fiery furnace,-and the conscience of man is no longer free.

The thread was one of fire.

The logic here is clear. If:

a.There is a command to obey.
b.That command is enforced by force (specifically, in this case, being burned alive)
c.There is a threat involved.
d.Then the conscience is not free.

Let's suppose that God will set people on fire who do not obey Him. Then what can we conclude? From the above, we see that this would involve the implementations of the Babylonian principles of tyranny. What would this make God?

From this we see the importance of understanding the principles that:

a.Rebellion is not overcome by force.
b.Compelling power is only found in Satan's government.
c.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
d.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

Why is this important? In addition to what it says about God, there is also the issue that if this were not the case, then, from what's written above, we would conclude that the conscience is not free. If we believe God will set us on fire for hours or days if we do not do what He says, then our conscience is not free.