Did Lazerus' soul rise when he died?

[johnp.]

Hello E99.

The literal scriptures counter the figurative one.

I recognise no distinction, who says? Now what you are saying is, JN 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will not raise it again in three days my Father will."
I think you should deal with the words of Jesus as truth. "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
I will raise it Must not be dismissed, I will raise it He says and it cannot be made to say otherwise.

Ezekiel 43:3... "I came to bring the city [Jerusalem] to ruin," that is, Ezekiel

That's the ASV 1901. The NIV has ...I had seen when he came to destroy the city...
But even so you will be saying that Jesus did not mean what He said.
I am aware the majority of scriptures say it was God the Father who raised Jesus but as part of the Trinity He also raised Himself and claimed such in John 2:19; 10:18.
...but I don't want to go off track and get into the usual trinity debate. I agree, just the point. Did Jesus say He would raise Himself or not? No would be a denial of scripture.

Still using the English transliterated words only. 2 Peter 2:9 Again the Greek word here is kolaso, which I've tried to show previously... means to cut off.

...the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 2 Peter 2:9.
He holds them for the Day of Judgement while continuing to cut them off?
To hold: 1 a : to retain in one's keeping : maintain possession of : not give up or relinquish
Scripture supports itself. Does God retain a non-existant entity? Can He be continuing in the cutting off while holding them for the Day of Judgement?
Kolazo:
to lop or prune, as trees and wings
to curb, check, restrain
to chastise, correct, punishment
to cause to be punished
2 Peter 2:9 the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment; (ASV)

Would you like to explain what Col 2:9 means when it refers to Christ as Theotes.

It is clearly a parable. The fifth one out of five that Jesus gives. I can give reasons why it is a parable, if necessary, by breaking down the verses.

Ok, yes please. Luke 16:19-31.

"hold." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 24 Feb. 2006)

john.

[E99]

Hi Johnp

Like you John I’m always busy, so a late reply.

My quote:
Please do look into the Greek, Hebrew words and grammar used in the scriptures.

Your quote:
It is unavoidable really. As you say, English wasn't around at the time but nevertheless I cannot place myself above the translators unless I know the language as well or better than them.
I think this is where you run into trouble with the Trinity. You say, (you might not), "The Word was a god." I heard the argument that runs from that but to understand it I would first have to learn English. HaHa! What is a singular predicate noun? Let alone what it is in Greek. Don't get me wrong, I am uneducated but I am smart. I know I don't need to know Greek and Hebrew because I trust God can communicate with me in any language He choses to use. That's smart. ...They will all be taught by God...John 6:45.
Then scripture can only be trusted by the learned? I trust God has given them, the translators, the necessary skill and there are many translations to compare. I have no authority to change a single word of scripture.



What translators would you not want to put yourself above, those that agree with your ideas? As you are a trinitarian, surely you would want to put your ideas above the translators that imply Jesus as a divine being, other bibles that imply that he is not the one and only God ? In this way it is inevitable that you will contest and find yourself putting yourself ‘above some scholars and translators’ somewhere along the line.


Aside from the NWT, there are many bibles that translate John 1:1 with the indefinite article ’a’.... ‘a god’ or a divine being. Similarly, by understanding scholars of the same theology as myself, I would want to put my theological ideas above the translators that state that Jesus is part of a triune godhead, supposedly spoken of in John 1:1....especially if it is grammatically reasonable to make implication that this main scripture is speaking of ...’a god‘. The translators are not infallible.


God asks us to take in accurate knowledge of his word, (Col 1:9,10) so we do the best we can in tandem with the context of the bible. Its not just about sitting back in an armchair and expecting the truth to be implanted in our minds by reading one or two bibles, relying on one translator, but it is by reviewing the translators work and comparing it with other works, weighing it up and relating it to the context of the rest of the bible. This is what finding the accurate knowledge is about. We don’t all have to be Greek scholars though.
Look at John 7:14.... ‘When by now the festival was half over, Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching 15:Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?”
The people were astounded at the knowledge of Jesus.”


They state that he was unlettered. ‘Him, that carpenter, wots he know ?’ He contested the religious leaders of that time, those ones were learned in the scriptures, but they were not putting their knowledge across to the people. Jesus made this clear to them in no uncertain terms. See the comparison here..... The learned types (scholars) of the time of Jesus might have had the knowledge, but they did not always relay it to the people as it should have been. The same with modern day translators. You don’t have to be learned to know the controversial points of theology, knowing oodles of Greek and Hebrew, only enough to understand what the original key scriptures are trying to say. Reasoning on those ones that can swing our theological belief off into different ends of a spectrum.


Your quote:
For the past two years I have been working on a website that sells Lego.
We get orders in from all parts of the world for individual bricks that people need to finish their particular model off with.


That seems like a long laborious job ! I would like to see the site if you can give the web address. I’m computer ignorant. I just about understand that the computer mouse is not genetically related to the little hairy ones.


Your quote:
There is only so much SpongeBob one can take.


Lol ! Just another walking talking multi cellular life form. There’s only so much I can take of the other type.


A Jw warmonger a? HaHa! Unique?


In reality... a total pacifist, a peace artist. Somehow in the minds of some, by drawing airguns it makes me an gung ho M16 wielding illustrator.


Your quote:
Some works just mesmerise. We went to Amsterdam last year and visited the Van Gogh exibition. Many of those paintings seemed as if they possessed life or something.


Its the flowers, brilliant painting.


Your quote:
Good old Thatcher. She had opened my eyes to a life on the dole bless her.


And ‘smokescreen’ Tebbett made it sound easy...”Get on your bike”.....
You could get on your bike, but you had no where to cycle to.


Shalohm

[E99]

Hi Johnp (Again)

My quote:
The literal scriptures counter the figurative one.

Your quote:
I recognise no distinction, who says ?


Literal speech against figurative speech is like fact .v. part fiction. It comes down to weighing up metaphorical speech against the literal occurrence. When Jesus spoke of the Temple as his body, it is a clue to how Jesus was utilising the way he normally put across a message that was not understood by non believers, but by those that knew that he was the messiah. A cryptic message. A sacred secret. He did this many times using illustrative talk and told his disciples why he talked in illustrations. (Matthew 13:10,11) Jesus here is using illustrative talk......‘The temple is his body’ (John 2:21) it is obviously metaphorical language. Alternatively, when many scriptures speak of God being the one that actually raised up Jesus; then these scriptures are closer to the truth because they are recognised as literal and not metaphorical. They are believed to have been an actual occurrence by believers. In this way the literal over rides the figurative.


I’m sure that you would have more belief in the actual event that happened, e.g. literal occurrence of say Jesus making a whip out of ropes, above the metaphorical parable of say the vineyard. One we take as truth, the other we take as a story with a meaning. This is the same in essence with John 2:19


Matthew 13:34,35 “All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds by illustrations. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them; 35: that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet who said: “I will open my mouth with illustrations, I will publish things hidden since the founding.”


John 7:16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.


Your quote:
Now what you are saying is, JN 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will not raise it again in three days my Father will."


It works both ways.....Are These scriptures saying something different then ?

Acts 2:24 But God resurrected him by loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to continue to be held fast by it. OR........

Acts 2:24 But God and Jesus resurrected Jesus by loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to continue to be held fast by it

Luke 23:46 And Jesus called with a loud voice and said: “Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.” When he had said this, he expired. OR........

Luke 23:46 And Jesus called with a loud voice and said: “Father, into both of our hands I entrust my spirit.” When he had said this, he expired.

John 8:28

Therefore Jesus said: “When once you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. OR.......

John 8:28 Therefore Jesus said: “When once we have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative; except when it comes to being raised up from death; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things.

Acts 10:40 God raised this One up on the third day and granted him to become manifest. OR

Acts 10:40 The triunity of one dead, one unmentioned one and one fully alive God raised this One up on the third day and granted him to become manifest.


1 Corinthians 15:15 Moreover, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we have borne witness against God that he raised up the Christ, but whom he did not raise up if the dead are really not to be raised up. OR

1 Corinthians 15:15 Moreover, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we have borne witness against Jesus and the sleeping partner.... the holy spirit that they raised up the Christ, but whom he did not raise up if the dead are really not to be raised up.


Your quote:
I think you should deal with the words of Jesus as truth. "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
I will raise it Must not be dismissed, I will raise it He says and it cannot be made to say otherwise.


It is metaphorical and not to be taken literally. By this, and contrasting ‘God raised up Jesus scriptures;’ it can be dismissed on the basis that it is not fully literal truth.
I can’t recognise the metaphorical aspect as a whole truth it has another meaning. The bible is littered with metaphorical, figurative and illustrative talk, John 2:19 is one of these. I don‘t recognise these type of scriptures as whole truth, but holding a meaning within, which is to be ascertained by comparing it to other scriptures.

As I said before, if we are to believe all metaphorical scripture as literal truth then we would have to believe that Ezekiel alone destroyed Jerusalem. (Ezekiel 43:3... "I came to bring the city [Jerusalem] to ruin," )
Please answer this. Do you believe that Ezekiel destroyed Jerusalem ?

The fact that Jesus was raised up is the truth and the many other ‘literal’ scriptures that say God raised Jesus up, is the truth in that he did it.

To illustrate: What is metaphorical here ? The words of Jesus as truth? They seemingly contradict.....

John 10:11 “I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his soul in behalf of the sheep.”

Is the trade of Jesus a shepherd ? Or was he a carpenter ?

Mark 6:3 This is the carpenter the son of Mary.

The first scripture is metaphorical, the second is literal. This is recognised by nearly all Christians, because other scriptures would help to define this. If you wanted to argue the metaphorical saying that Jesus was a shepherd because one scripture implies this, but the literal states that he was a carpenter, then it is stretching the imagination. This would be saying that the metaphorical over rules the literal and Jesus was a shepherd. Similarly, John 2:19 ‘Jesus raising himself up’ does not counter Acts 2:24 ‘But God resurrected him.’ in as much as John 10:11 above does not counter Mark 6:3

In the same way that you are debating the literal application of the words of ...‘Jesus raising himself up,’ should you apply this to the following ?........Jesus was not the son of God but the son of a carpenter. Relying on one lone scripture......

Matthew 13:55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

The many scriptures that say that Jesus was the son of God counters this.
Likewise, the many literal scriptures that say God raised up Jesus outweighs his own illustrative idea that Jesus would raise himself up.


Your quote:
I think you should deal with the words of Jesus as truth.

Everything as literal truth ? This scripture too ?

John 6:56, 57 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him. 57: Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me.

Would the apostles have attempted to eat the flesh of Jesus because they are to deal with his words as truth ? Many left Jesus after hearing these words. Those with understanding, continued with him.

Now please try to apply the words of Jesus ‘as literal truth’ to this scripture above, and then to his implied words ‘I will raise up this temple (his body) There is a connection here, metaphorical speech regarding his body. Neither the raising the body by Jesus himself from his own death, or the eating of the flesh of Jesus is to be taken literally.

Shalohm

[E99]

Johnp.....

My quote:
Still using the English transliterated words only. 2 Peter 2:9 Again the Greek word here is kolaso, which I've tried to show previously... means to cut off.

Your quote:

To hold: 1 a : to retain in one's keeping : maintain possession of : not give up or relinquish
Scripture supports itself. Does God retain a non-existant entity? Can He be continuing in the cutting off while holding them for the Day of Judgement?

Kolazo:
to lop or prune, as trees and wings
to curb, check, restrain
to chastise, correct, punishment
to cause to be punished

...the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 2 Peter 2:9.
He holds them for the Day of Judgement while continuing to cut them off?

You say this by an understanding regarding ‘continuing’ by the way your bible has phrased it, but look at the original Greek words, it does not insinuate a continuing punishment. The word continuing seems to have been superimposed.


The original Greek is worded as:

*Oida*kurios*eusebes*ek*peirasmos*rhuomani*adikos* de*eis*hemera*krisis*kolazo*tereo

Which reads as: *Has perceived*master*devout ones*out*of trial*to be rescuing*unjust ones* yet*into*day*of judging*being*chastened*to be keeping.

Neutral rendering by Westcott-Hort:

“The lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgement to be punished.”

There is no ‘continuing punishment’ emphasised here. ‘Keeping the unjust’ for a particular day to be chastened. If it truly means chastened, but it means to be ‘cut off’

The NWT words it as “ Jehovah God knows how to deliver people out of godly devotion out of trial, but to reserve unrighteous people for the day of judgement to be cut off”

Back to the root of the Greek word ‘kolazo’........I described it in one of my previous posts, and you have described it in your above quote.

We of course translate the word kolazo as cutting of. This is a logical transliteration as its original meaning was 'to cut off' and there is nothing to say that it was not understood to mean ‘to cut off’ at the time of Jesus. In fact it is closer to the way the root of this word in the OT renders it.

If you apply the Greek word kolazo to the end of the Westcott-hort scripture above it makes sense.....

“ To reserve the unjust unto the day of judgement to be cut off”

This of course dispels the idea of people (Children included ?) being put to roast for eternity in everlasting punishment. That is not how a God of love works.

Finally......I find this one of the most tantalising of scriptures. It says so much but gives so little:

John 21:25
“There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.”

There is so much missing from the scriptures, if indeed these had been written down, I believe that there would be no debate about who Jesus was, his existence.... literal or metaphorical. Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if all accounts had been passed down ? Somehow I think that it is deliberate that the God inspired scriptures are patchy...A test of faith, more than on just knowledge alone, and a God indirectly saying ‘study my words more to get to know me.’


Your quote:
Would you like to explain what Col 2:9 means when it refers to Christ as Theotes.


I’ll answer the question about the true meaning of ‘theotes’ as found in Colossians 2:9 in my next post, but we are getting side tracked, maybe you could put this up as a new debate on the Christian forum ? However, briefly, the word theotes has a broader meaning than the way it seems to be made out that it is the same as theos (God.)
As have you asked, I also said I’d give a breakdown of the parable of Lazarus, reasoning why I think that it is not a literal occurrence. If I have time !

Shalohm

[tommy]

As have you asked, I also said I’d give a breakdown of the parable of Lazarus, reasoning why I think that it is not a literal occurrence. If I have time !

Shalohm


[/quote]Hello Brothers and Sisters:

I've been following this thread fade away from the discussion of the immortal soul, but appreciate John and E99 keeping it going.

The accounts of Jesus and his experience is so amazing, it gives me so much hope and faith of everlasting life. The story of Lazerus raises me eyebrows and makes be belive in the afterlife even more. Didn't Jesus say he will bring back those in the memorial tombs? Wasn't Jesus' accounts chilling? I love him and the Father.

How could the resurrection of Lazerus not be real? Lazurus' Mother was like any mum (isn't that how you say it in the UK?) and I believe it was real. This is what upset the religious leaders that wanted Jesus put to death. If it was just a meade up story why did they want our Christian King put to death?

[Quahom1]

...Same reason they stoned Stephen to death...he publically called them on their imperpriaties...eight years later.

v/r

Q

[E99]

Hello Tommy


Your quote:
How could the resurrection of Lazerus not be real? Lazurus' Mother was like any mum (isn't that how you say it in the UK?) and I believe it was real. This is what upset the religious leaders that wanted Jesus put to death. If it was just a meade up story why did they want our Christian King put to death?



Please look at all of the previous posts again....I agree with you.
The resurrection of Lazarus was real. I don’t think otherwise.
If God gave us the ability to procreate, in a sense ‘in his image’ from Gods ability to create, then for God to recreate and resurrect is not a problem for him or for us to understand.


I’m not certain if we are talking at cross purposes here Tommy, but I was not saying that the resurrection of Lazarus, (He, the brother of Martha and Mary) was not a real event, or neither was I saying that it was not a literal scriptural account.


I was talking about the parable of Lazarus...you know the one at Luke 16: 19-31..... Rich man, beggar man, dog licking ulcers and Abraham etc ?


This I believe to be only an illustrative account of a man named Lazarus told by Jesus, and he is not to be confused with the walking talking sleeping living Lazarus; friend of Jesus.


There is no Biblical statement nor any reason to link the historical Lazarus with the beggar of Jesus’ illustration of the rich man and Lazarus. The Jewish name Lazarus itself was common in ancient times, a fact evidenced by ossuary inscriptions.


I believe that you are Jehovah’s Witness Tommy, so am I. We have the same beliefs world wide (except, I suppose, in the way we affectionately say Mother.....Mum not Mom !)


Christian regards

[tommy]

Originally Posted by E99

Hello Tommy


Your quote:
How could the resurrection of Lazerus not be real? Lazurus' Mother was like any mum (isn't that how you say it in the UK?) and I believe it was real. This is what upset the religious leaders that wanted Jesus put to death. If it was just a meade up story why did they want our Christian King put to death?



Please look at all of the previous posts again....I agree with you.
The resurrection of Lazarus was real. I don’t think otherwise.
If God gave us the ability to procreate, in a sense ‘in his image’ from Gods ability to create, then for God to recreate and resurrect is not a problem for him or for us to understand.


I’m not certain if we are talking at cross purposes here Tommy, but I was not saying that the resurrection of Lazarus, (He, the brother of Martha and Mary) was not a real event, or neither was I saying that it was not a literal scriptural account.


I was talking about the parable of Lazarus...you know the one at Luke 16: 19-31..... Rich man, beggar man, dog licking ulcers and Abraham etc ?


This I believe to be only an illustrative account of a man named Lazarus told by Jesus, and he is not to be confused with the walking talking sleeping living Lazarus; friend of Jesus.


There is no Biblical statement nor any reason to link the historical Lazarus with the beggar of Jesus’ illustration of the rich man and Lazarus. The Jewish name Lazarus itself was common in ancient times, a fact evidenced by ossuary inscriptions.


I believe that you are Jehovah’s Witness Tommy, so am I. We have the same beliefs world wide (except, I suppose, in the way we affectionately say Mother.....Mum not Mom !)


Christian regards

Dear Brother E99:

I am studying to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I would have laughed at the idea of going door to door and preaching the good nes of the Kingdom a year ago. I want to become a Minister and go into Prisons too and help those that need this ministering.

Thanks for your clarification on Lazurus, I too believe his resurrection happened and is the sign of the New Earth hear on Earth. These times are tough and all Bible prophecy is being fullfullied until the wicked one is driven out.

Your Brother in Christ, Tommy