Did Lazerus' soul rise when he died?

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by tommy, Nov 18, 2005.

  1. tommy

    tommy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, it was wierd. I am on my own PC now which was a mistake before and am on my own personal time. I believe in freedom of religion and being a soldier in what you believe in because it forms who you are.

    I like you John and admire how you stand firm in your beliefs, you are like a freight train. Early on in this thread we did get stuck in the same ol' trinity loop but it seems like we snapped out of it.
    OK, here's the scriptures coming out of one of my favorite Bibles, the 1901 ASV: Malachi 3:6 "For I, Jehovah, change not; therefore ye O sons of Jacob, are not consumed". This comes out of the last two chapters of the OT and doesn't show any sign that he is about to change. God is the Alpha and the Omega, no start and no beginning. We have a time line, He does not. The Bible teaches us that God is the loving creator of the universe. Notice in the first chapter of the Bible what we read. Gen: 1:26 "And God said, let us make man in our image...". The word us is used and proves God's Son Jesus was with Him from the beginning as his first creation.


    This is beautiful and I too believe that ALL scripture is "God breathed" as well as it is written for us to read to confirm our faith that the Bible is not written by man, but breated from God to his Prophets. Nice job in this quote! Thanks.

    Old King Solomon says it best. "As for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all". He also said that the "dead can neither love nor hate" and that "there is no work nor knowledge nor wisdom in the grave". Ecclesiastes. Psalm 146:4 says that when a man dies, "his thoughts do perish". Therefore if a soul is burning in a fiery hell, they do not know why they are burning, wouldn't this be true? When a flame is put out, it does not go anywhere, it is simply gone.

    Jesus said that "Lazarus our friend has gone to rest". The disciples thought that Jesus meant he was resting in sleep. Jesus said, "Lazarus had died". John 11:11-14. Jesus compared death to rest and sleep. Lazarus was neither in heaven or in a burning hell? Where did he go? He came back here to earth. A great sign of things to come in the last days during the resurrection. Peace and Love, tommy
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2006
  2. johnp.

    johnp. New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello tommy.

    I said: Today's God is not the same as the God of old. The God portrayed in scripture, the God of wrath has been replaced with Sweet Jesus..

    I had no intention of portraying God has having changed rather that people do not care for the God of wrath and have excluded Him from their thoughts. He remains a God of wrath as well as One of love all the same.

    I have told my wife and daughter that if they do as they do on their computers at work the time might come when someone wants to get them.
    If a company ever wants to lay people off without compensation all they need do is look at the computer logs.
    Mind you before I became a Christian, as a bartender I was a lush and as a chef I was stuffed. :cool: And I used to justify it by quoting, DT 25:4 Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. I've no idea how I came to know Dt 25:4. HaHa! Nor did I need it for my conscience as my creed was redistribution of wealth. In particular, to me.

    The 'let us' only tells us that more than one is being presented. If God created His Son to create the creation then this verse does not say it. We have a time line, He does not. That I point out is not proved by scripture. Have we spoken of this? I haven't had time to read back. I see no evidence from scripture that time was created.

    It does yes but at the same time this is not the whole truth. Scripture clearly portrays Him as jealous and vengeful as well doesn't it so His love isn't for all?
    God must be willing that some perish because He is omniscient and knows those who will reject Him, He knows before creating a person if they will eventually end up in Hell yet He creates them nevertheless so He must be willing for them to go to Hell. He must be unless He cannot control who is and who is not born. This fact transcends all doctrines. Scripture must harmonise with this fact and it does. There can be no contradiction in scripture, it's God breathed.

    You have had dealings with the Jehovah's witnesses? PS 146:4 When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing. NIV.
    I have downloaded the 1901 ASV from http://ebible.org/bible/web/ .
    A problem has occured as no verse numbers are present. If you quote would you quote the ASV exactly, cut and paste, or I will not be able to find it. I'll try again later.

    ECC 9:6 Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection either. You misunderstood him?

    Lazarus. ECC 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

    Though his body had no time to return to dust it was no different from it. His spirit returned to God. That's all we can say based on that story concerning the things he saw. Paul says, 2CO 5:6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

    2 Cor 12:3 And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-- 4 was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.

    And Samuel was called back by the witch in Endor. 1SA 28:11 Then the woman asked, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" "Bring up Samuel," he said. 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!"

    I believe there is me, a person in existence, if I ever cease to be I will not exist. If God creates an identical me it will not be me but a copy of me. This problem occurs everytime a person uses a transporter or walks through the Star Gate. (I hope you're up on Star Trek.) A copy is made at the other end from the data sent so it is a copy not the original. This would be the case if I ever ceased to be. 'I' would be lost.

    We might be the people at the end of the bible. Things are shaping up nicely for Armageddon.

    john.
     
  3. E99

    E99 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Johnp

    Your quote:
    Dead forever yes but concious. God told Adam that in the day he touch the tree he would die. His seperation from God is evidenced by the fact that Adam hid himself from God, the seperation of our spirit and His had taken place. That is the biblical meaning of the word death as well as a word that describes physical death.

    I believe that you are taking the scriptural word day to mean a literal 24 hour day. The Hebrew word in this scripture is 'Yohm'...day. Taking the understanding of the original language used in the OT In the 'day of.' ...day did not mean only 24 hours in Hebrew, like the English word day; it is open ended. It is an unspecified time.

    Adam did not separate from any spirit on that literal 24 hour day that he had sinned on, but 930 years later within the unspecified time span, (day-yohm) he died due to his sin later. There and then he laid down in death; and his spirit went out.

    I see that you take the word of the scriptures to be 'God breathed,' which is brilliant as it certainly is Jehovah God inspired, not everyone thinks like this, many will dilute it to be part God breathed, and/or that some of the literal occurences are allegorical etc.

    One thing though that many do is take the English translation as the word of God as the breathed word. But the 'God breathed' word has been sucked in by many with differing views and breathed out with their theological view in mind, and transcribed onto paper as such, hence we get those theological views found in the various bibles. John 1:1 is a major case in point amongst some others. The only way, or best way round it is to get to the root of it all before translation...Original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic (in minor cases.) I trust that you agree that the original language will give Gods true 'breathed word,' as you are one that sees the source of the truth to be solidly found in Gods scriptures.


    Your quote:
    If you hold to the authority of scripture then you must believe Jesus raised Himself, Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." John 2:19.


    Ephesians 1:20
    "With which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he (God) raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places." Romans 8:1 etc.

    This is one of many scriptures that give indications that God raised Jesus up from his death. John 2:19 is a prophetic statement and not wholey a literal one. It can be likened to the words of Ezekiel....with Ezekiel 43:3, where the prophet Ezekiel states: "I came to bring the city [Jerusalem] to ruin," that is, by foretelling its destruction. Ezekiel as an exile in Babylon had no part in actually destroying Jerusalem; that was done by the Babylonians. It reads literally as if Ezekiel did come and be part of doing the destruction himself, similarly, it appears that Jesus was literally going to raise up his own body, but there are so many scriptures that counter this, stating that God raised him up that we can understand that Jesus was not being literal, like Ezekiel wasn't either.

    Jesus could raise up the temple of his body in the sense that he had the authority to receive life again.


    The dead are conscious of nothing.The human dead are without any powers, our spirit is not one with life on its own, we are naturally made of matter, The spirit is our life force that is active once we breathe, but Jesus was of an original spirit form (Phillipians 2:5-8) it was his actual composition, it is his life. I will argue that he was an angel, which is another debate. However, if we take it as literal, by Jesus raising himself up, he merely lifted himself up and went back to his natural form. Jehovah God gave him the alarm, the wake up call, much in the same way our Father would have woken us up from our sleep in the morning in time for school, but it is us, ourselves that 'get up'.

    This is different than lazarus, he was clearly dead and did not travel to any other realm to play the harp or to be eternally jabbed with red hot pokers. Where was Lazarus then in those few days of his death ?


    God is love. God is all encompassing. His love is all encompassing.The hateful, spiteful eternally punishing theology flies in the face of the main attribute of God. If he was like this, allowing everlasting torturing, we could not say that he is a loving God; and hence his breathed word would be a lie.


    It is generally recognised that the word hell is a terrible mistransliteration of the word sheol and hades, which have a different meaning. These are ideas taken from hellenoistic influence, the mythological ideas regarding 'a no mans land' between life and death that have somehow sneaked their way into the scriptural theology.

    Your quote:

    Your understanding of death is wrong.

    Matthew 25:46 "And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off...
    Can you explain to me how 'cutting off' becomes annihilation please?

    MT 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." NIV.

    MT 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. KJV.

    Both translations translate the cutting off as eternal punishment what gives your translation authority?
    If cutting off means annihilation why wasn't the word 'annihilation' used? If that is the proper translation, 'annihilation', then it should read 'annihilation' because cutting off never means 'annihilation' does it? Is annihilation always meant in the OT when 'cutting off' is mentioned?

    Here is the original Greek and literal English translation of the verse of Matthew 25:46 .....


    Kai
    (and) Aperchomai (shall be coming) houtos (these) eis (into) Kolasis (chastening) aionios(eonian...<everlasting.>) ho (the) de (yet) dikaios (just) eis (into) zoe (life) aionios (eonian)


    "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
    (Westcott-Hort Greek new testament 1881.)


    "And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life."
    (New world translation)


    The key word here is
    'kolasis' (chastisement?) and the main point is how it is transliterated. Some bibles render this as punishment, some as chastisement. Why have we in the NWT transliterated this word as 'cutting off' ?........

    The word Kolasis appears only two times in the Greek NT, this creates problems when it comes to transliteration as it has a minimal amount of context to go by to verify its meaning. However, the classical Greek meaning revolves around "correction" and "rehabilitation" while an older idea was "the cutting off of branches of fruit trees".So, from the point of view of the concept signaled by kolasis, both "punishment" and "cutting off" are legitimate renderings, Kolasis is diachronic...the word has changed through time. This can be seen with other words in the scriptures.


    The 'kolasis' concept is derived from the Hebrew verb KRT. It seems to be the antecedent of the word kolasis. KRT means 'to cut off,' usually applied to someone wicked. This is applicable to the definate meaning in the OT regarding life or death with no inbetween. The Bible translator, therefore, must analyse. He or she must either take Jesus' words in Matthew 25:46 as an expression of Greek hellonistic thought, or as a continuation of the OT thought.


    Please tell me where do you get the idea that the verses at Luke regarding the rich man and Lazarus are literal and not a parable. This really is a parable. It is part of, and the end of five parables that Jesus gives. Its whole essence is indicative of a parable, one that matches the way that they are rendered within the whole bible, and recognised to be so by many.


    Hello Tommy... (Brother)

    I looked over your posting on the Catholic forum. It was a shame that you got banned, your posts were non conflictional. If you put your head in the mouth of the lion he will eventually close it. These obstructions and bannings happen. I found one morning that I couldn't get onto a standard, but atheist moderator run site. Blocked, No warning, they simply had enough of the ID and scripturally based posts, this amongst other occurences.


    Christian regards


     
  4. johnp.

    johnp. New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello E99 nice to meet you. :cool:

    You are correct. 24 hours is the time it takes for the world to spin once on it's axis. The translators were well aware of the word's meanings. Is it for you to disagree with God's appointed translators and to teach others in disagreement with them?
    That's ok but you will have to be of the same educational level. What papers have you and why was you not on the translation committees? No translation has anything else there have they? They all say 'day' don't they? They do not speak of indefinite ages do they?
    That's the problem I have, it is not as if the experts don't argue about words. My Father wants to communicate with His Children and He chose to do so with scripture. PR 30:5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
    He says 'day' He means 'day'. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Ex 20:11. And He says it again. How do you think those ones would have taken it's meaning?

    This 24 hour day is the one the Church has held to from the beginning I see no reason to think they were wrong.

    I am a literalist but I know Jesus isn't calling sheep and damning goats. If a word can be taken 'as is' then it should be or you better have a good reason for possibly distorting the truth. Safety first. The six day creation demolishes evolution. The integrity of the six day creation must be upheld because if 'day' don't mean 'day' then nothing is true about it all. With Genesis in doubt the rest of the bible falls.

    As it is written, I have no authority to change the normal meaning of a word unless context demands it. All I can see in demanding a change is in aid of a doctrine and that is the wrong way round with respect.

    What like the six day week? :cool: You can't have it both ways.

    That's just your opinion versus my scripture, ...and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Gen 3:8. What is that if it isn't seperation from God?

    You are having trouble with the words again. ...for when you eat of it you will surely die." Gen 2:17.
    Or as your own bible says, Gen 2:17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”
    http://www.watchtower.org/bible/index.htm

    Not 900 years later. Your day seems rather flexible old chap.

    But that isn't what Jesus said is it? He said He would rise it didn't He? "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." John 2:19.

    This is a truth. Jesus said, "I will raise my Body." He does not say He is authorised to receive it but to raise it.
    John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

    He does not say He has authority to receive it does He but He says He has authority to take it up again? I see that you take the word of the scriptures to be 'God breathed,' which is brilliant...

    I know it says God raised Him up, Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead... But the Trinity always act together as They are One.

    Whoever calls on the Name of the Lord but how can one pray to One that is not God? That is forbidden
    1CO 1:2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ--their Lord and ours:

    Jesus is our intercessor we must go to Him and ask for forgiveness of sins.
    JOEL 2:32 And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved;...
    That's the promise.

    Both ways again? ...and/or that some of the literal occurences are allegorical etc. What can you not understand about the story reading it straight? There is nothing to work out, no interpreting needed, and names are used. It is a serious fact and the richman is still there in that condition and will be forever more. ...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.

    It is not nice but reality must be faced.

    The rest of your post was all Greek to me man, I'm a working class hero.
    Catalogue design and illustrator Have you any stuff you have done I can see? Sounds like a fun job.

    Nice one tommy, HaHa! One board I'm on threatened me with a ten day ban last year. Great laugh little patience. They eventually closed the Calvinism/Arminian forum. :cool: That shut us all up.

    john.
     
  5. BlaznFattyz

    BlaznFattyz Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    the matter of rising is really just psychological. to see someone rise means they have overcome this world and are allowed to move on to a higher place, or seem someone descend from heaven means they are coming from a higher place with higher values than ours. and that is how our human minds perceive these events. however, the truth of the matter is going from one dimension to another, both ascending and descending really are not needed for the one doing the traveling. they could easily appear and reappear just the same. like the angels did when jesus was born, they just appeared in multitude to the sheephearders. ascending and descending is for our human minds to understand the world and the event and this is how we perceive things.
     
  6. E99

    E99 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Johnp

    I was not being patronising when I said that it is good that you believe that all of the scriptures are 'God breathed.' I think that this is excellent because it is a rare quality. We are in agreement here, but obviously not on how God breathed his words, but we can learn new reasonings from one another.


    My quote:
    I believe that you are taking the scriptural word day to mean a literal 24 hour day.


    Your quote:
    You are correct. 24 hours is the time it takes for the world to spin once on it's axis. The translators were well aware of the word's meanings. Is it for you to disagree with God's appointed translators and to teach others in disagreement with

    Please, how do you deduce and conclude who Gods appointed translators are; or that they are indeed God inspired ? If translators were God appointed then the various bibles throughout the centuries would be literally identical, which they are not. Would you say that the translators of this rendering of Gods words of John 1:1 are Gods translators ?..... "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This Word was in the beginning with God." This reading is found in The New Testament in An Improved Version, published in London, England, in 1808 (Not one of ours.)

    In this way are you going to pick and choose who the God inspired translators are by way of theology ? Can we decide and conclude for ourselves then ?


    With regards to the word yohm (day) it is not under dispute by any scholar at all, they all know that it means an indefinite period of time, variable....24 hours or any period of time. It is how it is applied to the context of certain scriptures that is at times disputed, mainly the creation account in Genesis, because it is used in line with morning and evening; it is assumed that it is stating 24 hours, but this is not consistent with other scriptures. Its sense relates better with the words ages or time.


    In fact yohm (day) is translated as time in Genesis 4:3 "And it came about at the expiration of some time that Cain proceeded to bring some fruits of the ground as an offering to Jehovah" and at Genesis 17,21 (Including many more scriptures). Implying its truer meaning as an unspecified time period.


    Luke 17:26 "Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man "
    Again the extended meaning of the word day in the scriptures.


    At Genesis 2:4 we see yohm in the singular with an attached infinitive used to indicate an extended period of time.
    "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."
    Here the whole creation event is lumped under the word day.

    It doesn't take much to see the logic in the derivation phonetically of the Greek aeon (time, ages) from the Hebrew Yohm. Other languages are phonetically similar e.g. Swahili 'yuma' for a week.

    The death of Adam was not going to happen on that particular solar day because the sense of the Hebrew word for day indicates 'to die' within a time period.
    In my understanding, even if naive, I don't see that I'm disagreeing with the translators or teaching any wrongs.


    Your quote:
    That's ok but you will have to be of the same educational level. What papers have you and why was you not on the translation committees? No translation has anything else there have they? They all say 'day' don't they? They do not speak of indefinite ages do they?
    That's the problem I have, it is not as if the experts don't argue about words. My Father wants to communicate with His Children and He chose to do so with scripture. PR 30:5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
    He says 'day' He means 'day'. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Ex 20:11. And He says it again. How do you think those ones would have taken it's meaning?


    As periods of indefinate time. Hebrew: day.... speaks of indefinate ages (above). How would the ancient Hebrews have understood the seventh day; 24 hours or more ? The word yohm is used at Genesis 2: 2,3 ......Following on from the morning and evening of the previous six days, please look here at the seventh day and tell me if it is 24 hours long or not. Has it ended ?.......Where is the 'evening' (end) of this next day. ? This day is still going on. Its longer than 24 hours. (Hebrews 4,1-10) With this in mind Genesis is implying that the days 'yohms' in the creation account are unspecified periods of time. The morning and evenings are figurative so as to express a beginning and ending to each creative period.


    Your quote:
    This 24 hour day is the one the Church has held to from the beginning I see no reason to think they were wrong.

    By their reasoning on the English transliteration of yohm to mean only a 24 hour day,and not applying the obvious infinite sense that this word can have..... an unspecified time period, they haven't applied the alternative, which is not a correct thing to do.


    My quote:
    Adam did not separate from any spirit on that literal 24 hour day that he had sinned on...


    Your quote:
    That's just your opinion versus my scripture, ...and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Gen 3:8. What is that if it isn't seperation from God?

    Hiding. Why is their physical hiding away seperation ? Why hide if they had separated from their spirit, does not the spirit return to God ? So God would have known if they had hidden and what they had done. The scripture here gives an obvious reason, they hid because they were frightened of the consequences, knowing that God would obviously find out about their sin.

    There is no clear indication in this scripture to say that there is a seperation of their spirit from their bodies.


    James 1:14,15 "But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15: Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.
    This says that sin brings about a physical death, later by Gods judgement and not on a literal day.


    Your quote:
    You are having trouble with the words again. ...for when you eat of it you will surely die." Gen 2:17.
    Or as your own bible says, Gen 2:17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."
    Not 900 years later. Your day seems rather flexible old chap.


    I think that you are having trouble with the meanings from Gods original language. They did die didn't they ?....and within the understanding of Gods original word used; within that 'day' the unspecified time period. (above.)

    More-so part of this passage is often translated more literally as "dying thou shall die".For we know from reading the rest of the story the penalty was not sudden physical death, but as soon as the disobedience occurred Adam and Eve's relationship with God was drastically changed.

    Please think of 'yohm,' day in its truer sense as 'time, age'.........

    "In the day of Catherine Howard."
    "In the time of Catherine Howard."
    "In the day that Catherine Howard commits adultery she will surely die." And so she did, not on the literal day though, but later; on the scaffold. The same context regarding this wording applies to Genesis 2:17.


    Your quote:
    I am a literalist but I know Jesus isn't calling sheep and damning goats. If a word can be taken 'as is' then it should be or you better have a good reason for possibly distorting the truth. Safety first. The six day creation demolishes evolution. The integrity of the six day creation must be upheld because if 'day' don't mean 'day' then nothing is true about it all. With Genesis in doubt the rest of the bible falls.


    No distorting of the truth, Will not take the allegorical, literally and vice versa, I prefer to be called a contextualist than a literalist.
    Genesis is not in doubt if the true sense of the word day is 'as is,' creative periods........

    I'm not an evolutionist, but there is some kind of genetic changing mechanism at work, limited, within Gods understanding of his species, natural selection by speciation, but not to the extent that evolutionists apply it all so as to enforce rabid attempts to discount a creator. There has to be changes within the 'kinds' because how did we come by the myriads of varieties of life from the estimated thousands of 'kinds' that were saved on Noahs ark ?...All of the varieties of dogs from a common type. They had to be subject to some form of genetic change. This by no means says that I am in agreement with amoeba to man evolution. There are still by far too many substantially unanswered points, and flaws, mainly within evolutions roots for it to be fact.....The origins of life such as the increase of information of the genome, animated life from inanimate chemical life, the origin of information in cellular DNA, RNA, irreduceable complexity; bacterium flagellum for instance, verification of substantial transitionals, substantial fossil records, anthropic principles, and inconsistent irratic radiometric dating methods, the findings and subsequent recalculating time periods of fossil finds etc.

    It is very clear that the creation periods of the unspecified times relating to the term yohm for a day as longer periods of time in Genesis does not discredit Gods creation at all, It simply means that God created in steps of longer time periods than 24 hours. Saying this, I will not totally discount the six days of creation, as all things are possible with God.


    Your quote;
    As it is written, I have no authority to change the normal meaning of a word unless context demands it. All I can see in demanding a change is in aid of a doctrine and that is the wrong way round with respect.

    I agree, but you are thinking in a limited box still, the one of the English translated words only. The original languages give a different sense and a clearer understanding of context. These surely bring us closer to understanding of Gods ' breathed words.'
    Lazarus died; and he did not go to a heaven or hell. Where do you think he went to ?

    The scriptures are clear on the matter regarding death.
    Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return."

    Shalohm



     
  7. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    yah. that all sounds right to me. nice post, BlaznFattyz.:)
     
  8. E99

    E99 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Johnp.....

    My quote:
    Jesus could raise up the temple of his body in the sense that he had the authority to receive life again.


    Your quote:
    But that isn't what Jesus said is it? He said He would rise it didn't He? "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." John 2:19.
    This is a truth. Jesus said, "I will raise my Body." He does not say He is authorised to receive it but to raise it.
    John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."


    He does not say He has authority to receive it does He but He says He has authority to take it up again?




    Jesus was given many powers by his father Jehovah God. He had authority to do many things and one of them was to say that he would raise up his body...metaphorically that is. Why is this so ? Did he raise it up, do the literal scriptures say this ? There are many scriptures that tell us of the literal occurence that God raised up the body of Jesus. (Below)
    The literal scriptures counter the figurative one.

    Jesus says he will raise his body up, this is figurative speech, like Ezekiels phrase.....Ezekiel 43:3, where the prophet Ezekiel states: "I came to bring the city [Jerusalem] to ruin," that is, Ezekiel as an exile in Babylon had no part in actually destroying Jerusalem; that was done by the Babylonians.
    That is why I put up the scripture in Ezekiel in my last post. Do you believe that Ezekial physically destroyed Jerusalem ?......

    If you are going to take prophetic figurative speech as literal and as truth in one scripture such as the one referring to Jesus raising up his body, then you cannot change the rules and you must assume that Ezekiel physically came to ruin Jerusalem. But in truth; in this sense, God gave Ezekiel authority to prophesy, figuratively. Likewise, he gave Jesus authority to prophecy figuratively in that he says that he will raise up his body, and as it refers to his body as the temple it is all figurative speech.
    God raised him up.........

    He had authority to receive life again because his Father granted it to him. Here are more scriptures that state quite clearly that God was the one that raised Jesus up.

    The Jewish priests clearly understood this to be the meaning of Jesus’ words, since, in their effort to block his resurrection, they quoted Jesus as saying: "After three days I am to be raised up," and then they requested Pilate to issue a command for "the grave to be made secure until the third day."


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


    Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep with the blood of an everlasting covenant, our Lord Jesus.


    Romans 8:11 If, now, the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in you.


    Epheshians 1:20 With which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places.

    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.


    Your quote:
    I know it says God raised Him up, Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead... But the Trinity always act together as They are One.

    Did they act together when Satan tempted Jesus ? It is said that you cannot put God to the test, yet if God was always acting with Jesus as part of the triune godhead, Satan would have been testing God also. Matthew 4:1-11

    When Jesus was on the stake was God acting with him ? Why did he cry out "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" "My God my God why have thoust forsaken me ?" Was God acting with him ('always') ? Did God die with him ? If God was not with him and did not die with Jesus in the sense of acting with him, how can it be said that Jesus raised up his body with God by the two always acting as part of the triune together ? .......God raised him up alone.

    Jesus is the mediator, but I don't want to go off track and get into the usual trinity debate. As Tommy said, best to try to keep it on the subject of Lazarus and the meaning of death, with maybe an occasional reference to a 'triune god,' if it is relevant.


    Quote:
    Please tell me where do you get the idea that the verses at Luke regarding the rich man and Lazarus are literal and not a parable.


    Your quote:
    Both ways again? ...and/or that some of the literal occurences are allegorical etc. What can you not understand about the story reading it straight? There is nothing to work out, no interpreting needed, and names are used. It is a serious fact and the richman is still there in that condition and will be forever more. ...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.

    If it is by an enforced idea by means of doctrine then I cannot see that it is literal, We might as well apply all of the other parables of Jesus as being literal occurences then. 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. Where else in the scriptures do the character traits of the rich man come under eternal damnation ? Literally, it implies that merely being rich you will be condemned to eternal torture ! If taken literally, this parable consists of statements that are illogical, unscriptural, contradictory, and impossible.

    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. But you don't seem to think that the original language is too important, so you take it to mean punishment only.


    Your quote:
    It is not nice but reality must be faced.


    The reality is; that God is love and not an eternal torturer of infinitely weaker humans.
    God is a God of order and of purpose. What would he gain by allowing humans to be eternally, yes for infinite time, to be tortured day in and day out ? What would anyone observing get out of this, and what would those being tortured actually ever learn, if they have no hope, why would God continue to torture ?


    What would you think of God if your very own child that you loved was eternally tortured by God just for sinning, being rich or rejecting God ?
    Would you agree with this if man was doing this to your child ?

    Please......... this is trick theology. It is not Gods nature to be like this.
    With respect, this is one of the saddest tenets; and defamation of Gods character to ever have been squeezed out of the scriptures.


    Your quote:
    The rest of your post was all Greek to me man, I'm a working class hero.

    Please do look into the Greek, Hebrew words and grammar used in the scriptures. It is important. You believe that the bible is fully Gods literal word. Think of it like this.....Where was the English language when Gods literal word was breathed upon us ? It is secondary to Gods actual words.


    Your quote:
    Catalogue design and illustrator Have you any stuff you have done I can see? Sounds like a fun job.

    A working class 'hero' also. Like any job it all becomes a little dull after years of doing it ! There may be some of my illustrations and advert designs in some of the magazines on the rack if they were imported to the U.S. Dare I say it...A Jehovahs witness that does mainly illustrations of military survival equipment and model airguns, often teased, called a 'gunrunner.' so what, some JW's are excessively pious. I just tell them to stop polluting Gods earth with their car fumes, usually shuts them up !
    I prefer doing oil painting copies of the original masters...Mona lisa, the laughing cavalier and at present I'm doing one that is a real challenge..King Henry VIII by the artist called Holbein. Have you seen this painting ?... very intricate. Are you an artist ?


    Hi Blazznfattyz
    There is a lot of logic in what you say, but I think that in this case, the raising of Jesus was about the physical appearance that Jesus made before his followers, apart from the actual meaning of his resurrection.
    Shalohm





     
  9. johnp.

    johnp. New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello E99.
    Sorry it has taken so long to reply, please forgive me. I'll start at the end. :cool:
    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.
    Life is easy. I do three hours 4 days a week during term time with all the school holidays off. :cool: Still I moan, but not during the holidays.
    I'm in a role reversal with my wife. After my son was born she went back working while I stayed home with the baby, doing nothing for four years but watch the tele. Almost Heaven. Almost, there is only so much SpongeBob one can take.
    It's half term and my wife has just met her mother half way and deposited our son with her til wednesday. Free indeed.
    A Jw warmonger a? HaHa! Unique?
    I know Holbein. The talent in man is extrodinary. I love art, the seeking after perfection type. If one needs a dictionary to understand a visual piece then I think it just part of a scam.
    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.
    When I arrived in Nottingham in 1982 I found that I could not get employment. I was an itinerant hotel/bar worker and experienced hotel workers were not needed in the 80's.
    I was on the dole and getting a bit depressed when one day I thought I'd get some paints and do some splashing about. I brought some poster paints and some household matt white and painted onto chipboard that I had found in a secondhand shop. My days as an impoverished artist had begun. Good old Thatcher. She had opened my eyes to a life on the dole bless her. I had worked hard all my life only to realise that I had nothing from that and now I wasn't needed, so I stopped working and cheered up. HaHa!
    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.
    It is secondary to Gods actual words.
    Then scripture can only be trusted by the learned? This is my argument. I know the scriptures are not perfect but the few flaws there are do not bear on doctrine. If the unlearned need to hear what God has to say then He will ensure they hear it.
    But like I said it is unavoidable really not to learn some Greek and Hebrew though more Greek than Hebrew I think. But I do not set out my store on the basis of what I think a Greek word is, or not is, but 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.
    I'll leave it here and get back in the morning with a more Theological post.
    I accidently wiped my website off the face of the earth last week. I'll get it back up so you can see what I've done.
    john.
     
  10. tommy

    tommy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good Morning CR:

    Here's a few more thoughts on the soul not being "immortal":

    Jesus Christ told his disciples "Lazarus our friend has gone to rest, but I am joureying there to awaken him from ssleep". Jesus said plainly, "Lazarus has died" John 11:23,24. Lazarus' mother Martha expresses no thought of an immortal soul living elsewhere at death. She did not believe that Lazarus had gone to some spiritual realm to continue his existence. Marth had faith in a wonderful "resurrection" of Lazarus from the dead which Jesus proved to mankind a glimpse of what happens in the afterlife.

    Jesus is the one empowered by God to redeem mankind (Hosea 13:14). In response to Martha's statement, Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life". "He that exercises faith in me, even though he "dies" will come to life (John 11:25)

    The Bible never uses the expression "immortal soul". The Bible simply states that the sinning human soul dies (Ezekiel 18: 4,20). Therefore the Bible points to the resurrection as the real remedy for death.

    Our Almighty Creator who has abundant power can create a newly formed body for a resurrected soul and a Heavenly body for those in Heaven who share in Jesus' Holy annointed class of Holy Ones and priests who will share in the undoing of all the efects of death and satan influences inherited from the first man, Adam (Romans 5:12, Revelation 5: 9,10).

    Adam did not have a soul, he was a soul. God formed man - the soul - from elements here on earth and breathed air into him to form him. (Genesis 2:7). Once Adam died, he returned to "dust" and his soul was no more.

    Psalms 146:4 says that "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish".

    So in other words, we are totally asleep with no thoughts until the resurrection (no immortal soul). Seems a bit complicated but the Bible gives us a wealth of information on the subject. Peace and Love, tommy

    John says in Revelation 20: 12-14 "The sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Hades gave up those dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. And death and Hades were hurled into the lake of fire. This means, the second death, the lake of fire".

    The Bible removes this confusion about death and states plainly that "death is the last enemy" that will be destroyed. (1Corinthians 15:26). Since God can can't evey hair on our head he will have a stored memory of us to judge
     
  11. johnp.

    johnp. New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello E99.
    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.

    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.

    ...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.

    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.
     
  12. E99

    E99 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    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


     
  13. E99

    E99 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    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



     
  14. E99

    E99 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    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


     
  15. tommy

    tommy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0

    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?
     
  16. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    ...Same reason they stoned Stephen to death...he publically called them on their imperpriaties...eight years later. :mad:

    v/r

    Q
     
  17. E99

    E99 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  18. tommy

    tommy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  19. tommy

    tommy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Be cautious of organized religion that tries to tear family members apart and teach shuning (hatred) if you decide not to be in their Cult. A relationship with God is between the individual and the Father and no Man should add to the Scriptures to incorporate Man's changing rules thier Leaders (Body of Elders) come up with as well as predicting end times. Only the Father knows when the end will occur. Jesus said to feed the poor and by just shoving Watchtower and Awake magazines on people and sitting in Starbucks does not give them food to provide what the poor lacks. Most of what Jesus taught was to feed the poor. Shunning is a way of teaching hatred, something Jesus spoke out against. Two things, Love the Father with your entire soul and strength and love your Neighbor, is the key to salvation.
     
  20. tommy

    tommy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the resurrection of Lazerus is truly a sign of the Father's intention to restore a perfect New Earth to His original purpose. Many Christian faiths have had this revealed to them thru the Scriptures and I respect them all, but agree Man always fails to rule on their own and am weary of their Doctrines. Brothers and Sisters the biggest thing we learn from the Word is to feed and help those in need, especially the poor. God Bless, The End
     

Share This Page