nazz
Doubting Thomas
Impossible? Why?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was the First World War Foretold in the Bible?
- Thread starter JayJayDee
- Start date
Impossible? Why?
There are no commas in the Hebrew of that day, thus impossible.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Yes, I know. But there are commas in the English language so it is not impossible to insert them in a translated text. JW's would simply put the comma in a different place. In fact it almost essential in their translation whereas it is not in the former.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Punctuation obviously came later to enhance the understanding of the languages into which the scriptures were translated. Greek had none, nor did it have capitals or an indefinite article.
I have already offered the reasons why we believe that the comma is misplaced by biased translators.
When Jesus said he was going to be "in the heart of the earth" for three days and nights as Jonah had been in the belly of the fish, then we must take him at his word. (Matt 12:38-40) He did not say that his body was in the tomb whilst his spirit went somewhere else. There is no scripture that says that the spirit is a conscious part of man that leaves the body at death. That is a platonic notion, not part of Jewish teachings.
The "spirit" in man is the same spirit that is in animals. It is literally the breath. When the last breath leaves the body, the soul (living creature) dies. Who said souls don't die? (Ezek 18:4)
As Eccl. 3:19, 20 says "For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust".
Jews had no belief in an immortal soul, therefor Jesus did not believe in such a thing.
Being in the tomb for three day and nights meant being dead for all that time. Then he was resurrected "in the spirit" or in a spiritual body.
He could not take his flesh to heaven so he did not take it back.
On the matter of the comma.....
EDIT: George M. Lamsa, an authority on Syrian (Aramaic) customs and languages, states: “According to the Aramaic manner of speech, the emphasis in this text is on the word ‘today’ and should read [as it does in the New World Translation], ‘Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.’ . . . This is a characteristic of Oriental speech implying that the promise was made on a certain day and would surely be kept.”—Gospel Light from Aramaic on the Teachings of Jesus.”—Gospel Light.
The Hebrew Scriptures themselves provide numerous examples of this solemn idiom using “today.”—Zech. 9:12; Deut. 4:26, 39, and 40 other instances in the book of Deuteronomy alone.
This agrees with the rest of scripture because Jesus was clearly not in paradise with the evildoer on "that day".
Last edited:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Right
But Scripture does indicate otherwise. See below.
God is a spirit is he not? Angels, demons are spirits, right? so there is such a thing as a conscious spirit not inhabiting a body? As for disembodied human spirits:
1Sa 28:13-14 And the king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What did you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth.” So he said to her, “What is his form?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is covered with a mantle.” And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed down.
regarding Jesus Scripture says:
Mat 27:50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.' ”fn Having said this, He breathed His last.
I could give you much more than just these.
Is it?
Ecc 3:21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?
Actually the Jews of Jesus day, at least the Pharisees did believe a conscious entity survived death.
What happened to his body then? The tomb was empty.
I think you have the wrong reference here. Lamsa is addressing the idiom of "let the dead bury the dead". In any event, I've got great respect for Lamsa but he doesn't always get things right.
I'll check those references out.
Also see my other response above.
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
I don't believe they do. Looking at scripture through the lens of Christendom's teachings you may see what you want to see....but the truth is otherwise as we discern it from the rest of the Bible.
Before I tackle this point, which will require some detail, can I first ask if you have done any study on the original language meanings of the words "soul" (Heb., ne′phesh [נֶפֶשׁ]; Gr., psy·khe′ [ψυχή]) and "spirit" (Greek pneu′ma, Hebrew ru′ach)?
So many people have been led to believe that these terms are interchangeable, but they have a completely different meanings. There is no such thing as a disembodied "soul". The "spirit" is something else entirely.
Some background to this scripture would be helpful, rather than just producing this account at random to suggest that Samuel's "spirit" was called up by a spirit medium.
King Saul at this point in his life, realized that he had been abandoned by God, so he turns to spiritism, which he knew was against the law of God and which he had, at the beginning, banned from his kingdom. Under cover of darkness he visits a surviving witch at Endor and tries to communicate through her with dead Samuel for information. Saul thus resorts to demonism. A demon impersonates Samuel to the witch of Endor, to her minds eye, and transmits through her a message of doom to King Saul. (1 Sam. 28:4-25)
At no time did Saul see or hear this 'spirit', it was only though the medium describing him and conveying his 'message'.
Knowing what the "spirit" is will allow you to see what he was really saying.
I would like to go into some detail about this if that's OK. In another post once I have heard back a response to this one perhaps? It is so important to understand the difference between these terms. (soul and spirit)
After describing in pictorial terms what it is like to age and die, Solomon then wrote..."Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the [true] God who gave it."
Again, knowing what this 'spirit' is will answer that question.
Since animals do not have a promise of everlasting life (they were designed with a finite life cycle) once they return to the dust, their 'spirit' is gone forever. It is buried in the dust with them.
But God is the one who promises to give the 'spirit' back to man in a resurrection. All future prospects for life are in his hands, so it is in a symbolic way that the spirit is received by God because he is the only one who can give it back. This pertains to Jesus too. His spirit could only be returned to him by his Father. Jesus did not raise himself...God raised him from the dead, returning his life to him.
You will notice that Jesus routinely castigated the Pharisees because of their erroneous teachings....he called it "leaven"
"Jesus said to them: Keep your eyes open and watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.....Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of the loaves, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matt 16:6, 12)
You will also remember that Jesus said "a little leaven ferments the whole lump".
The Jewish religious system by that time was basically corrupted. The ancient Jews had no such teaching from God's word. There is no conscious existence for the dead. (Eccl 9:5, 6, 10; Psalm 146:4)
It was prophesied in Psalm 16:10 that Jesus' body would not be left in the tomb.
Speaking of that prophesy by King David, in Acts 2:30-32 Peter says "Therefore, because he [King David] was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne, he saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in Ha′des nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses."
It was God who saw to it that Jesus' body would not see corruption or decompose in the grave. It must have been taken by God in an undisclosed manner.
On that point, since the Bible teaches that those of Christ's disciples who survive till the end of the age will be transformed, "changed in the twinkling of an eye" what becomes of their body, do you think?
"For this is what we tell you by Jehovahs word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangels voice and with Gods trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord. Consequently keep comforting one another with these words." (1 Thess 4:15-18)
What about those 'saints' who have already gone to heaven...where are their bodies? Are they not buried in the ground? Long decomposed?
If they are to die and go to heaven in the same death and resurrection as our Lord...why was there a body left behind when there was no body of Jesus left behind?
Yes sorry, I did post the wrong reference
...and I corrected it if you'll notice. George Lamsa is as respected a scholar as any who might disagree with him. He did not always confirm Christendom's translations as correct...that was bound to put him off side with a few people.
Thanks
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Well, let's see.
Indeed I have.
I understand the distinction. And I know that quite often, in the OT anyway, "soul" refers to any living thing (animal or human). But there are many exceptions. I give a link with them but this one particularly stands out:
Gen 35:18 And so it was, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni; but his father called him Benjamin.
you can look at more here where "soul" does not simply refer to a living thing but is something in itself:
BLB - Gen 35: Book of Beginnings - Genesis 35 (Blue Letter Bible: NKJV - New King James Version)
Okay
Okay, but we're probably already on the same page on that
Ah, but this contradicts what you said earlier:
When Jesus said he was going to be "in the heart of the earth" for three days and nights as Jonah had been in the belly of the fish, then we must take him at his word. (Matt 12:38-40) He did not say that his body was in the tomb whilst his spirit went somewhere else.
sure but he also had commonalities with them and I think this is one.
Yes, I agree the ancient Jews held a different view from later Jews.
Why could his body not simply be changed?
I think this is probably speaking of the same sort of change. As Paul also speaks of in 1 Cor. 15.
Yes
Hmm, good question there.
I think even you might disagree with some of his interpretations!Yes sorry, I did post the wrong reference
George Lamsa is as respected a scholar as any who might disagree with him. He did not always confirm Christendom's translations as correct...that was bound to put him off side with a few people.
Now don't forget to address my other previous response: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3605646-post115.html
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Here is an intersting quote from The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467."
"Soul" is a term that Jews understood in a vastly different way to Christendom.
The use of this one Hebrew word "nephesh", in many different contexts helps us to ascertain the basic idea inherent in the word as the Bible writers used it, namely, that it is a person, an individual, or a lower creature; or, the life that a person or an animal enjoys as such. This is totally different from what the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans religiously and philosophically called a soul.
In the Christian Greek Scriptures the Greek word psy·khe′ occurs by itself 102 times, first in Matt 2:20. This includes Eph 6:6 and Col 3:23, where it is in the expression “whole-souled.” Additionally it is used in many compound Greek words such as in Phil 2:2, 19; 1Thess 5:14.
The New World Translation consistently renders both ne′phesh and psy·khe′ as “soul.” This uniform rendering by the same English word proves very enlightening as to how the inspired writers used ne′phesh and psy·khe′ and what properties they ascribed to them.
The example you used is interesting when you compare it to say Ex 4:19.
"And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life.[ne′phesh]" (KJV)
If the word "nephesh" had been translated "soul" in that verse, you would see it's connection to Gen 35:18.
If the word "life" had been use there, it would have read, " And it came to pass, as her ne′phesh [LIFE] was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin."
You see the translation is the key to understanding. If it is not faithful to the original language, then you can be misled. This had nothing to do with a "soul" as a separate part of the person leaving the body at death. Rachel's life was ebbing away as she named her son.
The soul is the whole person. Adam was a a soul....he was not given one. The soul is the entire sum of the person....body, spirit, personality, traits and talents.
But the soul is mortal...it dies. (Ezek 18:4)
Jesus' spirit was his lifeforce sustained by breathing. This is what brought Adam to life...the breath (spirit) that God breathed into him and made him into a soul.
When Jesus yielded up his spirit, he breathed his last breath and expired.
He didn't go anywhere for three days because he was dead. He was not resurrected until God raised him back to life three days later. He was given a spiritual body so that he could return to heaven, but he stayed on earth for 40 days to strengthen his disciples. There is no mention of him staying with them after his resurrection even though they had been his constant companions for three and a half years.
He was not raised in a physical body but could materialize when it was necessary.
There was very little of the Pharisaical teachings that were intact.
When they read from God's word, yes, but other than that, they had nothing good to teach. The "lost sheep of the house of Israel" to whom Jesus was sent, were lost because of these neglectful shepherds.
Perhaps it was transformed...we simply do not know. Just that God had said in his word that Jesus' flesh would not see corruption. I guess there is always the possibility that God wanted to prevent the possibility of his body being used for false religious purposes. Look at the "relic" worship practised by the Catholic church to see what I mean.
Yes, he speaks about the body that they will receive in heaven...just like Jesus' spiritual, immortal and incorruptible body. Only those who are chosen for heaven will be granted this life.
Humans on earth will retain their mortality, just as they had in Eden.
Yes it is...any answers?
Perhaps, but he knows his Aramaic. Who can dispute that? We have used his findings in our publications.
O dear, did I miss one again?
:sorry1:Will address that later this evening Aussie time....promise
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
I don't think there is any question about whether Jesus was divine or not. He was the son of God...how could a divine being not produce a divine son?
The fact that we believe Jesus is Michael is not really relevant. We don't believe that he is Almighty God and never once did he claim to be.
The name Michael means "Who Is Like God?" We believe that Jesus was very much like God.
He is also the only Archangel mentioned in the Bible. He is the chief over all the heavenly host...At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. If Michael was an inferior being to God's son, then why would he be said to have such a voice? That would be tantamount of giving Pavarotti the voice of Tiny Tim
John 1:18 describes the Word (Logos) as "the only begotten god". We know that he is "like" his Father and that he is "only begotten" so this is proof that Jesus is not God because God is not "begotten" but his "firstborn" son is. (Col 1:15, 16) Monogenes means an only child in every sense of the word. "Firstborn" indicates the first child in a family. God has other "sons" but none were brought into existence like this one. He is unique.
The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea.’”
Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Rev 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Dan 12:1)
Since the Son of God is to battle the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels. We have no trinity to fall over do it just makes sense to us.
Sounds a bit similar really. So you are not really a trinitarian then?
I had to look up "aeon" as I am not familiar with it.
Quote from Wiki...
"Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion. Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.[3] Proponents of Universal Reconciliation point out that this has significant implications for the problem of hell"
Aeon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sounds a bit complicated.
I don't see Jesus called an aeon in scripture. But I am assured that he has been "with" his Father from "the beginning".....since God is an eternal being and had no "beginning", this must refer to the beginning of creation.Yes, I am learning about all sorts of beliefs and ideas from the forums.
You won't get an argument from me about that as long as "divine" doesn't mean that he was God Almighty. The term "god" (theos) is not used exclusively of the Father. It means 'a mighty or powerful one' so no one could deny that Jesus' fits the description.
Would you like to cite them and we'll have a closer look? Remember that the Jews did not believe in a conscious existence after death...."When they breathe their last, they return to the earth, and all their plans die with them." (Psalm 146:4 NLT)
Now from the NASB..."His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish."
The departing "spirit" is said to be the last breath leaving the body, but certainly not a conscious entity. Thoughts perish.
This is confirmed by Solomon..."For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun."
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol [the grave] where you are going." (Eccl 9:5, 6, 10)
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Well, again we don't get to tell God what he can and cannot do...that is his prerogative to tell us what to do. There is no one more forgiving that Jehovah is.
Do you remember Jesus parable of the unforgiving slave? (Matt 18:21-35) This well illustrates why God cannot forgive some. He wants to as this story shows but when there is no repentance or forgiveness of others, there can be no forgiveness for the wicked.
The laws in Israel had capital offenses. The death penalty was the highest for any serious crime. The Father authorized his executioners to take the life of someone who did not value the life of others. Justice demands "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life" We all have God's sense of justice....it is not something that should be swayed by sentiment, though it can be tempered with mercy if it is warranted.
We only have to read the account about Manasseh to see how forgiving Jehovah is when one is genuinely sorry.
Well since the virgins only woke up around a hundred years ago, when the bridegroom arrived, it was only burned once it was put in their lamps. The foolish ones are still looking for somewhere to buy some. :sad4:A 2000 year supply of oil is a lot of oil!
You're cherry picking again. Either God's word is God's word or it is the word of men...you have to choose...can't have a foot in both camps my friend. :no:
Most translation just have "today" not "this very day", remember that there was no punctuation in the Greek so the translators put it where they thought it should go. But the rest of the Bible says that where they placed it can't be right. Was Jesus in paradise that day? No he was in his tomb...dead. He did not go back to heaven for 40 days so how could he have been with the man in paradise that day? He was not a chosen one...he was a criminal.
As for the expression "today" see Deut 4:39, 40; 5:1-3; 6:4, 11; 8:1, 11; 9:3; 10:13; 11:2 etc...This is in keeping with Jesus' expression and use of "today" as a promise made that day.
Please show me scripture that says so. Did Jesus say that "he" was going to be in the 'heart of the earth for three days and nights"...or did he say that his body would be in there but his spirit would be occupied elsewhere?
Please show me the contradiction and we'll see if an explanation can be found elsewhere in scripture. That is usually the best way to tackle things.
All good?
Last edited:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
What I am trying to get you to acknowledge (I'm not sure if I have been successful) is that the Hebrew word nefesh has many layers of meaning. It's not correct to say it is simply a synonym for a living being if by that one means merely a functioning physical body. A physical body is simply dead matter unless it is animated by spirit (I'm speaking according to the ancient view and not scientifically). It is the interaction of spirit and matter which creates the soul. So a soul is the living conscious being within the physical body.
Nefesh also connotes certain aspects of man's inner being such as appetite, desire, emotion, passion, ie the seat of emotion and even the mind, the rational aspect.
But such a translation only makes sense if one understands the thinking of that time. I think confusion sets in when we think of "life" according to our modern understanding and try to insert that back into this ancient understanding. When we say someone "lost their life" today we mean their body died. According to this way of thinking there is no more "life" when the body is dead. I don't think that is the way the ancient Hebrews understood it. They did not think of the physical body as being alive but rather that life was in the physical body. When life, or soul, departed, the physical body died.
Yes, that's close but not quite. Nefesh is not the body; it's the life within the body. But it is not something given one per se; it's the result of spirit animating the body. But it's important to understand it is something in itself. It's not simply a description of a living thing. The ancient Hebrews even precisely identified it as the blood which is why they are so many prohibitions regarding blood in OT law.
Yes. That's why I would not contend that it is immortal if that means indestructible. But we shouldn't confuse that with the idea that it can survive the death of the physical body.
Right.
But as you would have it his soul was basically recreated when he was resurrected. That does not seem right. Nothing in Scripture suggests that nor that Jesus was in an unconscious state while his body lay in the tomb.
Let's go back and revisit something we discussed earlier. Saul's encounter with the ghost of Samuel. You say this was a demon impersonating Samuel but nothing in the text suggests that. Saul did have direct communication with Samuel and Samuel relayed information from the Lord to him. That does not sound like something a demon would do.
Not yetYes it is...any answers?
Actually some do. Lamsa was a native speaker of Aramaic but a different dialect than the one Jesus spoke.
I'll respond to your other posts as I have time.
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Yes, I can agree so far.
Yes, agreed again.
This is where the argument begins to unravel. You seem to be attributing more to the word "soul" than what the scriptures say and what the ancient Jews believed. :sad:
What is resurrection to your understanding? What did the Jews understand resurrection to mean? What was their definition of death based entirely on the word of a God, without influence from other religious cultures?
When we see resurrections recounted in the Bible, what do we see? Take a very famous example...Lazarus. The account in John 11 is very interesting if you read it carefully. Jesus is first of all informed that his friend is very ill and has been summoned by the family, knowing that Jesus can make him well. Jesus does not respond to the request, but purposefully remains where he is in order for Lazarus to pass away. (v 4, 5)
The conversation with his disciples on the road to Lazarus' house was also interesting.
From v 11..."After he said these things, he added: Laz′a·rus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him. The disciples then said to him: Lord, if he is sleeping, he will get well. Jesus, however, had spoken about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus said to them plainly: Laz′a·rus has died, and I rejoice for your sake that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.
Lazarus was clearly dead, but Jesus said he was "sleeping". That term "sleeping in death" was also used by Paul. If someone is awake somewhere else, can they be said to be sleeping? Are those who sleep aware of what is going on around them or how long they have been sleeping, once they are awakened?
When Jesus called Lazarus out of his tomb, he had been dead for four days. No doubt his body would have begun to decompose in the middle eastern heat. His sister said that by that time his corpse would smell. (v 39)
But out came Lazarus still clothed in his burial wrappings. Jesus instructed them to "loose him and let him go" (v 44)
Where had Lazarus been for four days?
If he had been somewhere blissful and happy as a righteous man, why would Jesus bring him back to this life, only to get sick or old and die again?
What advantage was there for Lazarus?
Where did Lazarus say he had been? If he had been in a wonderful place why was there no such expression when he came out of the tomb? There is nothing on record about Lazarus being alive somewhere else. He was dead in his tomb, awaiting "a resurrection on the last day" according to Martha. (V 24) What did she understand the resurrection to be...and when did she expect it to take place?
Read the account and tell me your thoughts.
The life within the body is possible only because we breathe. The heart beats carrying oxygenated blood from our lungs to the rest of our body.
The spirit (breath) of life departs or "goes out" in the same way a candle or light "goes out". It doesn't leave the room...it is extinguished, waiting for it to be turned back on or relit. This is what happens with the spirit. Once extinguished, the physical body dies. It returns to the dust and not a single molecule of it is required for the resurrection. God will re-create the bodies of resurrected ones, returning the breath that was lost when they died. He will re-created that individual with all his traits and memories. They are all stored in his own memory, which is infinite.
The reason why humans get so hung up with the concept of continuing life, is that we have no programming for death. It was never meant to happen, so our normal expectation is to go on living. God has placed "eternity in the hearts of men" Solomon wrote, so we see death as a foreign concept. Aging is a state of body, not a state of mind. Ask any older person who enjoys a measure of health if they feel any old in their minds? Most will tell you they feel exactly the same as when they were young. It was only physically that sin affected man's lifespan. Ageing occurs outside...not inside.
Believing that a conscious part of us lives on after death is not what God told Adam. (Gen 3:19)
I believe we shouldn't confuse everlasting life with immortality. There is a distinct difference. Only spirit beings can be immortal. Humans rely on many external things to keep living....breathing is just one of them. It is part of being mortal.
Jesus was no ordinary human. He was perfect...but his life existed in heaven before he came to earth. Ours didn't. That means that his life was transferred from the spirit realm to the earthly one, and back again. Same life...same person...different bodies. But in order for Jesus to pay the ransom, he had to be the exact equivalent of Adam. A perfect life had to be offered for a perfect life to pay the debt that Adam left for his children.
Jesus had to die in every human respect to fulfil his commission as redeemer.
It was Jesus who said he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and nights. What do you believe death to be? What did the Jews understand death to be...life in a conscious state somewhere else? :no:
You forget satan's favorite tactic....he "transforms himself into an angel of light". He is the master of deception after all. Do you not wonder why God forbade his people to communicate with spirits? (Deut 18:10-12) They are deceptive, wanting to perpetuate the very first lie that satan told Eve...."you surely will not die"... Do you see what he is doing?
Carry on......
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Okay
InterestingAt 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. If Michael was an inferior being to God's son, then why would he be said to have such a voice? That would be tantamount of giving Pavarotti the voice of Tiny Tim
No need to convince me. We are basically on the same page here.
But I do believe the Son shares the same nature and essence as the Father and I don't think you would agree with that? Again, very interesting. I have a better understanding of why you believe what you do now. Thanks.
I suppose it depends on how you define that term. I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that's the trinity. But I don't believe the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father as stated in the Athanasian Creed. That is definitely not a biblical idea. Jesus definitely referred to the Father as his God as I am sure you are aware.
I like to define "aeon" as a spacetime dimension. The first aeon was the Father. That is to say that spacetime dimension consisted of the Father only. The Son was generated from the Father which makes the Son the second aeon. The Spirit is the energy generated betwen those two so now we have a third aeon. And so on it goes. In this aeon, the one we inhabit, there is a multiplicity of many forms that include both spirit and matter.I had to look up "aeon" as I am not familiar with it.
Quote from Wiki...
"Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion. Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.[3] Proponents of Universal Reconciliation point out that this has significant implications for the problem of hell"
Aeon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sounds a bit complicated.
To explain a little further we call the highest realm of existence the "Pleroma" which means "fullness" in Greek. This is the abode of the Father and all spirit beings united with him. You would call it "Heaven". All lower aeons are progressively more kenomic (empty) in nature. That is, they lack the fullness of the Divine Presence. And that is why this world is so full of suffering and evil. The goal of the Gnostic is to ascend back to the Pleroma.
Me too
Exactly. That is why Gnostics acknowledge the existence of many gods, many divine beings. Satan is the god of this world. What defines "god" is the relationship between that being and those below it. So I can say Jesus is my god, and I can say the Father is my god, without contradiction. But the highest form of deity is the Father.
Right. I'm not saying the spirit is a conscious entity. It's just an aspect of our being. And I think this is how the ancient Hebrews saw it as well.
But I have already cited a few verses that support a conscious existence after death but you don't accept them as saying that. I could bring up the Rich Man and Lazarus but I already know what you think about that. Then there is this:
Rev 6:9-10 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”
Jesus spoke of the suffering of those in Gehenna. How do you explain that?
I acknowledge that the ancient Hebrews did not believe in a conscious existence after death. At least not one like this conscious existence. This might be helpful to look at to get a full glimpse of the ancient belief:
SHEOL - JewishEncyclopedia.com
But my point is more that the Jewish view underwent changes and that Jesus upheld the changed view.
Last edited:
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Actually it is the same principle though. We are told to forgive when someone seeks to be forgiven. And we will be forgiven to the extent we are willing to forgive others. That is what that parable addresses. The same applies with God. God is always willing to forgive those who seek forgiveness.
Really it about our acknowledgement we have done wrong. We can't spiritually progress until we have done that. That's repentance in a nutshell.
Well here I must inject the Gnostic perspective. We don't recognize that everything attributed to God in the OT is the Word of the Father but rather comes from other sources.
Well, okay
Well, I refer to the Gnostic perspective above. Plus I would again encourage you to do a word study on "Word of God" to see it is not a reference to the Bible. But actually in this instance I am merely saying that it is difficult to separate the actual words of Jesus from those of the gospel writer because again there is no punctuation in Greek.
I can wrap my head around what you are saying and concluding. But "this very day" is the exact translation from the Greek. When you put it all together, even without punctuation...
Assuredly I say to you this very day you will be with Me in Paradise.
...it certainly sounds like he is talking about the man being in Paradise that very day. But I acknowledge it could be read differently.
Mat 27:38-44 Then two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right and another on the left. And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him." He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, I am the Son of God.  Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.
kjw47
Well-Known Member
Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.
Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.
Gods word clearly teaches Jesus went into the grave( hades) for 3 days.
So it is impossible for the thief to be in paradise with Jesus the same day. Unless one actually believes that paradise is in hades.( and some do believe that) but we know it is not truth.
The reality is that Jesus told him on that day--the comma belongs after the word today.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I don't believe I am
Well I think we covered this already, no?
Frankly I think you make a strong case for what you believe. How's that?
But overall, I think the Bible presents different ideas that can't really be totally harmonized. I know because I tried by darnedest to do so in the past. I've let that go now. I think this issue is one of those things.
As regards this particular story I have to be honest and say I find it very hard to believe it. Raising someone from death who has been dead for four days is a pretty dramatic miracle. Why do none of the other evangelists even mention it? Wouldn't it be talked about and be common knowledge throughout the early Christian community?
I should also explain that the reason I believe in a conscious afterlife is not really based on anything the Bible has to say on the subject. It has more to do with evidence from near death experiences, past life memories, and paranormal activity.
I think the soul is the core of our being. What makes us unique from someone else. Something like the personality but deeper than that. I think it survives the death of the body but I would not say that the soul is actually what is conscious. Rather we are conscious of our soul. If that makes any sense.
I believe many different fates await an individual soul. Some souls continue to wander the earth in disembodied form, what we call "ghosts". Some are reincarnated back on earth, and some are reborn into different aeons.
Going back to Lazarus think of what would need to happen. His flesh, including his brain, would be rotting away. It would need to be restored, new cells regenerated. But really that means a new person, a sort of clone of the other. That is what you are saying happens in that resurrection. But unless something like a soul is returned to your body you would not really be you. See what I mean?
That reminds me of what Buddhists say
And it is certainly harmonious with a scientific view of death as well.Okay
What confuses me is that you believe Jesus pre-existed as Michael, a conscious spirit being with no physical body. Yet when he takes on a body and dies he is no longer a conscious spirit being. How do you make sense of that?
I understand what you are saying but I think that is reading into that text.
Hey, lookie there. I am all caught up on my responses! OK, your turn!
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Just to reiterate then....."Resurrection" in the Greek is a·na′sta·sis which literally means “raising up; standing up.” It is used frequently in the Christian Greek Scriptures with reference to the resurrection of the dead....literally bringing a lifeless soul back from the grip of death.
The Hebrew Scriptures at Hosea 13:14, quoted by the apostle Paul (1Cor 15:54, 55), speak of the abolition of death and the rendering powerless of Sheol (Heb., she’ohl′; Gr., hai′des). She’ohl′ is rendered in various versions as “grave” and “pit.” The dead are spoken of as going there. (Gen 37:35; 1Kings 2:6; Eccl 9:10) Its usage in the Scriptures, along with the usage of its Greek equivalent hai′des in the Christian Greek Scriptures, shows that it refers, not to an individual grave, but to the common grave of mankind, gravedom. (Ezek 32:21-32; Re 20:13)
Christ himself when on earth performed resurrections. (Luke 7:11-15; 8:49-56; John 11:38-44) Only through Jesus Christ can resurrection, with everlasting life thereafter, be possible. (John 5:26)
I know it made perfect sense to me when I heard it. :yes:
But our ideas about the Bible are at odds here I think. I cannot see the word of God as containing "different ideas" because that would mean that God is confused or is deliberately misleading people with ambiguous statements.....that is something he would never do.
If I find a scripture that seems to disagree with what I believe, rather than assume that the Bible is wrong, I will assume that my understanding is wrong. I will then do research until I have an answer, that fits the rest of the Bible's teachings.
This is why we have four gospels. Each has details that the others do not include, making for a well rounded out story. Some news media have several researchers working on one story, each gleaning information to add to the overall account. I would be more inclined to believe four people than just one. It makes for more reliability ans scope than just one account. Three of the gospel writers were eye witnesses to the things they wrote.
As to the point of finding it hard to believe....God created Adam from the dust...what makes you think he lacks the power to renew the cells in a newly deceased body?
If scientific principles established by God can be used by scientists to preserve and later reconstruct a visible and audible scene by means of video, how easy it is for the great Universal Sovereign and Creator to resurrect a person by repatterning the same personality in a newly formed body. Concerning the revitalizing of Sarah to have a child in her old age, the angel said: “Is anything too extraordinary for Jehovah?” (Gen 18:14; Jer 32:17, 27)
Well, you see, I have to correlate all these things with what the Bible says...and I have. The Bible gives us an explanation for these happenings. Near death experiences have been explained by medical science. Since the Bible has no evidence for a conscious part of man that exists after death, the medical explanation makes sense. The dying brain is flooded with chemicals which can induce hallucinations. Not everyone has these experiences you know.
Often people remember past lives under hypnosis. Since the Bible forbids us to come under the control of another in that way, being hypnotized, (a state that is not fully understood) leaves us open to demonic influence. Under hypnosis, they will speak about real people and real events, but don't forget, the demons have been around a long time and know everything about everyone. Spirit mediums can tell people things about the departed dead that no one else knows....we know why.
Losing control of ourselves under the influence of alcohol or drugs can also leave us wide open to demon influence. Consulting spirit mediums or dabbling in the occult is also dangerous and hence forbidden in scripture.
Paranormal occurrences can be attributed to demon activity too. The spirit realm has two kinds of occupants...both good and wicked spirits. The demons have been scaring people for centuries. Their activity was foretold to increase as we neared the end of the present age....can't we see it?
That is a bit ambiguous actually.
"Old King Cole was a merry old soul"...is this the man or some shadowy thing that inhabits him?
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
I don't believe that 'ghosts' are the spirits of the departed dead. There is no consciousness in death, so the spirits are either demons or angels. I believe that they are demons because angels never appear as 'spirits' or apparitions...in the Bible they appear in human form or in divinely inspired dreams. The word "ghost" is actually from a German word "geist" meaning "spirit". The connotation of the word has been warped by Christendom. By referring to the "Holy Ghost" they try to give 'personhood' to God's spirit. It isn't a person. :no:
Yes I do....but did you realize that the process of cell renewal in the human body means that every seven years, there is not a cell in your body that is part of the original "you"? Our bodies are regenerating constantly, but due to sin our bodies, cells stop renewing as vigorously and the process slows down more and more as we age. This what causes aging and death. Cell renewal was designed originally to be a perpetual process.
Adam and his wife would still be here youthful and vibrant, enjoying a wonderful life...if only they had remained obedient. :beach:
It harmonizes with what the Bible says.
Since Jesus' life on earth was unique, we have to understand what God did in order to save Adam's offspring. No imperfect human could offer a ransom to God for Adam's life, so an equivalent life had to come from outside the now imperfect human race to cancel the debt. God's law stated "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life". The exact equivalent of Adam's life was the price. No other human could pay it.
The lifeforce of the spirit being we know as Jesus, was transferred from heaven to the womb of a Jewish maiden. Her child carried no genetic input from either his mother or his earthly father. This child had to have no inherited sin in his flesh.
Growing up in a typical Jewish household with siblings, Jesus did not have anything that was dramatically "special" about him other than his amazing intellect and his perfect health. No miracles are recorded before his anointing with holy spirit. Apparently, the memory of his own past life in heaven was then given to him as "the heavens were opened up". (Matt 3:16) He then withdrew into the wilderness to commune with his father and prepare himself for his role as Messiah.
According to Jewish custom, the firstborn stayed in the household till they were of age...Jesus did not begin his ministry until he was 30. By this time we can assume that Joseph had died.
As a perfect human of flesh, the exact equivalent of Adam, Jesus had to die in every respect, the same death as Adam. In paying "Life for life", Jesus freed Adam's children from his debt. It was a very unselfish gesture on his part, but his Father knew he was trustworthy to fulfill the assignment when other free willed creatures had let him down. There was so much resting on the outcome.
The lifeforce of Jesus was then returned to a spiritual body upon his resurrection.
Mere humans cannot possibly comprehend how this was done...we just know that nothing is impossible with Jehovah.
Nazz said:
We have already established that Saul was by this time abandoned by God. He was breaking God's law by consulting a spirit medium in the first place. The spirit impersonating Samuel did not speak to Saul, nor did it tell the truth. Not tomorrow, as the demon incorrectly said, but a number of days later King Saul and three, not all, of his sons fell in battle at Mount Gilboa. King Saul, wounded by a Philistine arrow, hastened his own death by falling on his royal sword. (1 Sam. 28:4-25; 31:1-13)
If God would not speak with Saul by means of his living prophets, why would he do so through a dead one breaking his own law?
That makes no sense at all.I hope you are enjoying this interchange as much as I am....
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Almost forgot this one again :sorry1:
What happens to those who don't think that they have done anything to forgive? What about those who flout God's laws and thumb their nose at him? Is there forgiveness for those who don't want to be forgiven? or those who refuse to forgive others?
God's word is God's word. If that is not the case, then there is no truth.
As for other scripture that speaks about 'the word of God'...
"O see that I have loved your own orders.
O Jehovah, according to your loving-kindness preserve me alive.
The substance of your word is truth,
And every righteous judicial decision of yours is to time indefinite." (Psalm 119:159, 160)
"That is why, since we have this ministry according to the mercy that was shown us, we do not give up; 2 but we have renounced the underhanded things of which to be ashamed, not walking with cunning, neither adulterating the word of God, but by making the truth manifest recommending ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor 4:1, 2)
What the apostles and their associates preached was the straight, unadulterated message of God. (2Co 2:17) The apostle Paul told Timothy: Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. Furthermore, Timothy was commanded: Preach the word, be at it urgently in favorable season, in troublesome season. (2Ti 2:15; 4:2) Paul also counseled Christian wives to watch their conduct, so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively. (Tit 2:5)
There are clearly times when the "word" is scripture.
"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."
Like I said, we don't get to choose which part of the Bible are God's words and which are men's. It's all "God's Word"...inspired by his holy spirit.
Luke's account gives even more detail...
"But one of the hung evildoers began to say abusively to him: You are the Christ, are you not? Save yourself and us. In reply the other rebuked him and said: Do you not fear God at all, now that you are in the same judgment? And we, indeed, justly so, for we are receiving in full what we deserve for things we did; but this [man] did nothing out of the way. And he went on to say: Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom. And he said to him: Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise. (Luke 23:39-43)
It obviously would have been helpful if someone on hand had a mobile phone, but hey, I think we get the picture. :yes: The detail isn't one that would alter anything of importance anyway.
I never jump to the conclusion that the scriptures are wrong....that I am not understanding them correctly would be my first thought.
If we cannot trust the word of God contained in the written form, then what are we basing out faith on?....the words and thoughts of men...who could be completely wrong. :ignore: I will not go there.
What happens to those who don't think that they have done anything to forgive? What about those who flout God's laws and thumb their nose at him? Is there forgiveness for those who don't want to be forgiven? or those who refuse to forgive others?
God acknowledges that there will be those who will not repent even when given opportunity to do so. What do you make of Jesus' words at Matt 24:36-39?
I can't do that for reasons I have already stated.
God's word is God's word. If that is not the case, then there is no truth.I would say it isn't "always" a reference to the scriptures. But clearly as "The Word" (Logos) Jesus carries this title because he is Jehovah's spokesman. He is the bearer of God's word to others.
As for other scripture that speaks about 'the word of God'...
"O see that I have loved your own orders.
O Jehovah, according to your loving-kindness preserve me alive.
The substance of your word is truth,
And every righteous judicial decision of yours is to time indefinite." (Psalm 119:159, 160)
"That is why, since we have this ministry according to the mercy that was shown us, we do not give up; 2 but we have renounced the underhanded things of which to be ashamed, not walking with cunning, neither adulterating the word of God, but by making the truth manifest recommending ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor 4:1, 2)
What the apostles and their associates preached was the straight, unadulterated message of God. (2Co 2:17) The apostle Paul told Timothy: Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. Furthermore, Timothy was commanded: Preach the word, be at it urgently in favorable season, in troublesome season. (2Ti 2:15; 4:2) Paul also counseled Christian wives to watch their conduct, so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively. (Tit 2:5)
There are clearly times when the "word" is scripture.
I am surprised that you believe there is a difference.
"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."
Like I said, we don't get to choose which part of the Bible are God's words and which are men's. It's all "God's Word"...inspired by his holy spirit.
Did you look up the references in Deuteronomy? It was indeed a Jewish figure of speech to make a statement "today".
I don't see that as a contradiction. I see that as a lack of detail. Both robbers were ridiculing Jesus at first, but one it seems, was moved to change his mind. Perhaps because Jesus' demeanor? It doesn't say.
Luke's account gives even more detail...
"But one of the hung evildoers began to say abusively to him: You are the Christ, are you not? Save yourself and us. In reply the other rebuked him and said: Do you not fear God at all, now that you are in the same judgment? And we, indeed, justly so, for we are receiving in full what we deserve for things we did; but this [man] did nothing out of the way. And he went on to say: Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom. And he said to him: Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise. (Luke 23:39-43)
It obviously would have been helpful if someone on hand had a mobile phone, but hey, I think we get the picture. :yes: The detail isn't one that would alter anything of importance anyway.
I never jump to the conclusion that the scriptures are wrong....that I am not understanding them correctly would be my first thought.
If we cannot trust the word of God contained in the written form, then what are we basing out faith on?....the words and thoughts of men...who could be completely wrong. :ignore: I will not go there.