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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
1) @Hockeycowboy said to @Brian2 : "Messing with the translation'? Jesus was in the ground / in Hell for 3 days. (Post #72)
2) Clear asked Hockeycowboy : "Can you give me a specific reference to the specific scripture you are referring to when you say Jesus was "in the ground" for 3 days?" (Post #74)
3) HockeyCowboy answered : “Psalms 16:10, which Peter quoted in Acts 2”
I'd like to make a very discrete point here.
Psalms here, in early Judeo-Christian religion is not speaking of being “in the ground’ for 3 days. There is no mention of either “ground”, “dirt”, etc., and no mention of any time period. Psalms speaks of the , early Judeo-Christian doctrine that ones’ soul (or spirit….) would not be left in HADES.
My tongue exhulted and yet also my flesh shall lodge in hope. For you have not abandoned my soul in Hades, and neither shall you allow (give) your holy one to see corruption. Psalms 15:10 LXX
You referred to Peter quoting psalms 16:10 (Mas, or 15:10 in LXX). Peters speech has to do with the resurrection of Jesus from Hades/Sheol/World of spirits, etc. (whatever name one applies) and his resurrection
Acts 2:24 is Peter speaking to men about Jesus "....Whom God hath raised up having loosed the pains of death because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I forsaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did my heart rejoice and my tongue was glad. Moreover also my flesh shall lodge in hope because thou will not leave my soul in Hades neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see (experience) corruption.
While the scripture refers to Hades, it does not mention being in the “ground”.
The distinction between the ground/soil/dirt and Hades is not merely semantics.
For example, when a sailor died at sea accidently, and their body was dumped overboard, the body is never “in the ground” but the spirit still went to Hades in early Christian worldviews.
Similarly, individuals who die in a fire and whose bodies are burned up are not buried. There is nothing to put "in the ground” in such as case, yet their spirits still went to Hades in early Christianity.
I think this is one of the distinctions between @Brian2 and your comments.
Brian2s interpretation is a product of the earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation and religion and your interpretations are a product of a different and a much more modern Christian religion which was created in a larger age with different doctrines and different interpretations than that of the early Christians.
I am not saying the earliest Christians were right and you are wrong, merely that the two religions are different in their interpretations and their doctrines.
In any case HockeyCowboy, I hope your spirituals journey is wonderful and insightful and full of joy.
Clear
ειδρνεφιω
earliest Christianity ?? which would be ,what? 200 years after the death of Jesus ? which would be more than enough time for odd understandings to get excepted. fact is hades is that place where the dead are put. in time the earth consumes them the bodies are gone ,destroyed. you dont want to go there i dont want to go there. however there is a very good chance we all will. only by the power of God through Jesus the Christ can any one be saved from the clutches of Hades@cataway replied : "You are going to be red in the face when you find out Hades is the grave. A hole doug in to the ground to put a dead person" (post #81).
Hi @cataway;
One of the problems in historical religious discussions is often differing theology caused by differing interpretations.
For example, your comments stem contextually from the meaning the Jehovahs Witness created for the ancient word "Hades" (which they describe in their own literature)
My comments stem contextually from the meaning of "Hades" held by the early Judeo-Christians (which they describe in their own literature).
These are two different Hades from two different religions having two different interpretations.
Keep in mind that your religion is NOT the same religion as that of the earliest Christians who wrote and described their religion and their beliefs and their interpretations.
Your religion is a relatively modern religion (1800s) with it's own modern beliefs and interpretations compared to that of the ancient Christianity with their ancient set of beliefs and interpretations.
For example, your religion and it's interpretations are not found in the early Historical Christian literature where the earliest Christians witness to their earliest beliefs and interpretations.
It is these historical differences that will keep your religion from being historically coherent with the religion of early Judeo-Christianity.
This specific point does not indicate that the earliest and more original Christianity is superior to yours, merely that your religion is different in it's doctrines and interpretations that the early Judeo-Christian religious movement.
Clear
ειφιφιφιω
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
That looks right to me. It is amazing that some want to change the position of the coma to after "today" and end up with a sentence that says something else. But of course the common saying of Jesus in the gospels is "verily I say unto thee" and is not "verily I say unto thee today".
occam's razor.How do you know the quote is correct? all the gospels contradict the event so which is true?
There are opinions on whether the Luke 16 story of the rich man and Lazarus in Hades is more than a fictional story. I think that is based on the fact that the name of the Lazarus is given.
But I suppose those opinions do not really matter.
I do agree however with the idea that Jesus was teaching around things the people would have been familiar with (conscious existence in an afterlife realm called hades/sheol). The parable was not specifically saying that hades in that sense was a reality, but there was no denial of it's reality and possibly just an acceptance of it's reality by Jesus.
I don't think that Jesus was purposefully wanting to confuse the people He was speaking to and us with such a parable.
When I think about the parable I notice that Jesus actually told specifics about the realm (there is a gulf between the part of hades that Lazarus was in and the part that the rich man was in etc) and I doubt that He would have done that if hades does not exist as a place for the departed spirits of the dead.
You are right. In ancient Jewish concept (mostly Pharisaic in nature) Hades is partitioned or zoned. Everyone will descend to Hades once dead, unless he didn't taste death. Elijah and Enoch didn't taste death thus they are not in Hades. Bad souls go to a place of torment. There is also a place called the Lake of Fire reserved for use after the judgment. There's yet another place usually called Abyss or pit with a specific meaning to indicate a location for the fallen angels to be chained. By extending the concepts there is also a place for the good souls, which is the paradise. However there's yet another paradise not in Hades. It's in the third heaven or called Abraham's Bosom. That's where Elijah and Enoch stay.
and i said "how is it that you did not know in the ground" did you never read the bible ?
Luke 23:42-43.Makes me think jesus and the thief went to paradise the same day they both died together.Because of Eph 4:7-10 it makes me think they went underground.And there jesus lead the souls of the righteous dead to heaven to be with God.I think they(jesus and the thief)went to hades together and not right to heaven to see God.Because of Jh:3:13.In Acts 2:27-31 it talks about jesus's soul going to hades.And not being abandoned in hades.Or seeing corruption.I think hades was a temporary paradise for everyone who made it to the goodside.Or acted as a hell for you if you didn't make it to the goodside.The bad side was for the bad people(in God's eyes)like in Isa 14:9-11 for the king of babylon.Or was good for people like samuel.Like in 1 Sam 28:1-20.
occam's razor.Hi @cataway ;
I claimed the the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s is historically incoherent to and historically irreconcilable with the religion of the earliest Judeo-Christians as described in their literature.
In post #90 (above) @kjw47 gives us a very good example of this historical incoherence and why Jehovahs Witness religion cannot enter into the early Christian historical literature.
1) DIFFERENCES IN TYPE AND TIME OF RESURRECTION BETWEEN EARLY CHRISTIANITY VERSUS THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS RELIGION
@Frank Goad asked in the O.P. regarding the promise Jesus made to the thief Dymas, that they would be in paradise together. The traditional promise reads as follows : “And Jesus said unto him, “Verily I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:43
My point does not regard the recent debate as to where the comma goes in this sentence, but rather my point concerns the type and timing of the resurrection described by early Judeo-Christians versus the doctrine of the resurrection adopted by the Jehovahs Witness religion.
The Jehovahs Witness, @kjw47 states : “Revelation is clear on the ressurection, It occurs after Har-mageddon occurs.” (post #90)
The early Christians took Matthew 27:52 at face value in their belief and descriptions and witnesses that a resurrection of many of the Christian Saints took place at the time of Jesus’ resurrection.
For example : Matthew 27:52, says that, after the resurrection of Christ : “… the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city (Jerusalem), and appeared to many." (gk Και τα Μενμεα ανεωχθησαν και πολλα κεκοιμημενων αγιων ηγερθη και εχελθοντες εκ των μνημειων μετα την εγερσιν αυτου εισηλθον εις την αγιαν πολιν και ενεφανισθησαν πολλοις)
In early Christian theology, only the body of Jesus died. His spirit was active and continued to accomplish further works he came to accomplish.
In early Christian theology, Matthew 27:52 meant that it was not only Jesus who resurrected, but a resurrection of many of the saints took place at the same time Jesus was resurrected.
A) The difference in TYPE of resurrection between early Christianity versus the religion created in the 1800s by the Jehovahs witnesses.
While the Jehovahs Witness resurrection is a resurrection of clones or copies of the original Jesus and the rest of mankind (since the original no longer exists at death in their theology).
The ancient version, however was a resurrection of the actual original spirits of the actual, original individuals that were resurrected into new bodies. The original, cognizant spirit of the original person did not die with the body.
B) The difference in TIMING of resurrection between early Christianity versus the religion created in the 1800s by the Jehovahs witnesses.
The Jehovahs Witness, Kjw47 describes the doctrine of the Jehovahs Witnesses created in the 1800, stating : “Revelation is clear on the ressurection, It occurs after Har-mageddon occurs.” (post #90)
The Earliest Christian religion in their literature describes in great detail that they believed the version of Matthew where many individuals were resurrected “many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city (Jerusalem), and appeared to many.”
If a family member had died and was resurrected and returned to us in like manner that Jesus had returned to the disciples, one would expect the early literature to reflect this witness and, importantly, the early Christian literature describes their early faith in detail, even relating specific individuals who had died and returned to life and who described their cognizant existence while in the world of spirits (or Hades / Sheol / world of the dead spirits / etc.)
My point is NOT that the more original Christian religion is better or worse than the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses almost 2000 years later.
The point is that one can never create a historically coherent version of Christianity in the 1800s that coheres with that described in the earliest Christian literature without paying attention to historical literature.
OR, one must somehow discount and discard the importance of early Judeo-Christian literature in some way. This is usually done by claiming the early Christians apostatized or their literature represents apostasy.
In any case, a non-historical religion is unable to use this literature to support such base doctrines.
On the OTHER HAND. Those Christianities that ARE similar to the earliest Christianities are best able to use the ancient Judeo-Christian literature. This principle means something important.
Whatever readers choose to believe and however they choose to interpret the sacred texts, I hope all have good spiritual journeys and find happiness and fulfillment in this life.
Clear
εισεφυδρω
it means you are making things far more difficult than it really is . likely because of ignorance and or because you want some thing different . you's don't know all the facts so too then tie your disjointed ideas together . things get made up, making it more difficult to understand .In post #91, Clear made the points that the Jehovahs Witness doctrine of resurrection is different than that of early Judeo-Christianity in both type of resurrection and timing of resurrection
1) The TYPE of resurrection
The early Christians taught : Resurrection was of the original person
The Jehovah Witness religion created in the 1800s teaches : Resurrection was of a copy or a clone of the original (since the original person no longer existed after death).
2) The TIMING of resurrection
The early Christians taught : Some individuals resurrected at the time Jesus was resurrected as per Matthew 27:52 : "...many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city (Jerusalem), and appeared to many.”
The Jehovah Witness religion created in the 1800s teaches : Resurrection will occur after armegeddon. (Kjw47, post #90)
@cataway responded : “occam's razor.”
Hi @cataway :
If “Occams razor” says that the more simple among answers is preferred, are you saying that to destroy an original person and to then re-create a clone or copy of personality and knowledge and experience and morals and emotions and loyalty and all other characteristics that make up a personality as well as creating a clone or a copy of a physical body is more simple than simply placing a spirit into a new body?
Can you explain what this cryptic answer you offered readers means?
If you are arguing “simplicity”, then why is it not just as simple to resurrect a body at the time of Christs resurrection as to resurrection others later?
What do you mean by your reference to “occams’ razor” as a response to the point that the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s is a different religion than the religion of the earliest Christians they themselves describe in their literature?
Clear
εισιδρσιω
Basically the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are in the Bible. Now it is true that Jesus took the disciples aside and explained illustrations to them. The major application of Christian principles do not change.@cataway replied : "You are going to be red in the face when you find out Hades is the grave. A hole doug in to the ground to put a dead person" (post #81).
Hi @cataway;
One of the problems in historical religious discussions is often differing theology caused by differing interpretations.
For example, your comments stem contextually from the meaning the Jehovahs Witness created for the ancient word "Hades" (which they describe in their own literature)
My comments stem contextually from the meaning of "Hades" held by the early Judeo-Christians (which they describe in their own literature).
These are two different Hades from two different religions having two different interpretations.
Keep in mind that your religion is NOT the same religion as that of the earliest Christians who wrote and described their religion and their beliefs and their interpretations.
Your religion is a relatively modern religion (1800s) with it's own modern beliefs and interpretations compared to that of the ancient Christianity with their ancient set of beliefs and interpretations.
For example, your religion and it's interpretations are not found in the early Historical Christian literature where the earliest Christians witness to their earliest beliefs and interpretations.
It is these historical differences that will keep your religion from being historically coherent with the religion of early Judeo-Christianity.
This specific point does not indicate that the earliest and more original Christianity is superior to yours, merely that your religion is different in it's doctrines and interpretations that the early Judeo-Christian religious movement.
Clear
ειφιφιφιω
Actually annihilation at death is not a term I would use. What death is is a cessation of life. Annihilation would be complete destruction. God can remember every hair on our heads, so He can bring back the dead to life if He desires.Hi @YoursTrue, I hope your holiday season was wonderful.
YoursTrue said : “Basically the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are in the Bible. “ (post #98)
1) USING DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL TEXT TO SUPPORT MULTIPLE, CONFLICTING DOCTRINES
Most Christianities, even those with conflicting doctrines, find evidence to support their conflicting doctrines in whatever bible they have.
One reason that strongly conflicting beliefs can come from similar bibles is because differing interpretations allow them to support differing beliefs from these similar texts.
a) Recent examples of different doctrines supported by different interpretations of similar text :
1) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the concept of a spirit placed in man and replaced it with a purely physical nature.
2) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the ancient concept of Hades/Sheol/world of spirits as a way station to which these spirits went after their bodies died and replaced that doctrine by the physical grave and complete annihilation of the person.
3) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the resurrection of this same spirit into a new body and replaced it by a recreation of a clone or copy of the original person that is resurrected. (since the original is annihilated)
4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and placed the resurrection only after Armageddon. (post #90)
These and other new doctrines differ from the basic doctrines of the early Judeo-Christians in profound ways.
The Jehovahs Witnesses, and other Christianities support conflicting set of beliefs by having different interpretations of similar biblical texts.
2) WHOSE SYSTEM OF INTERPRETATION DO WE USE TO CREATE DOCTRINE? THAT OF ANCIENT HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY OF THAT OF A MODERN RELIGION?
The HISTORICAL observations concern WHOSE context and WHOSE interpretation does one use in determining what a scripture means?
Does one use the context of the ancient Christians to determine what they, themselves meant by their own texts or does one use a modern, non-historical context to determine meaning of ancient texts?
I think the ancient context will most accurately reflect the ancient meanings.
My historical point is that the earliest Christians such as those the apostles taught and their earliest converts together with THEIR interpretations and base beliefs, have a higher likelihood of representing early and authentic Christian doctrine than do the interpretations developed by Christian movements of almost 2000 years later.
While I have not proposed that the earliest Christian religion was more or less true than any other version of Christianity, on the other hand, I have not seen any advantages to the theories of modern Christian movements over the earliest Judeo-Christian religion or their worldviews.
For example, I do not see any moral or theological advantage of the modern Jehovahs’ witness interpretation and their theory that annihilation at death and the resurrection of a clone or copy of the original person over the early Judeo-Christian concept that bodies die and the spirit of the original person is resurrected.
Clear
εινετζειω