• 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!

Israel, the Servant of God

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Certainly. Two examples:
a. "For a fire has flared in My wrath
And burned to the bottom of Sheol..." (Deut. 32:22)

b. "The LORD deals death and gives life,
Casts down into Sheol and raises up." (Samuel 1:2:6)
Ok. The second of the two passages is particularly helpful.

Can you now tell me, given what is written in scripture, what you think has happened to David [1]. Was he cast down to 'she'ol' and then raised up ?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Can you now tell me, given what is written in scripture, what you think has happened to David [1]. Was he cast down to 'she'ol' and then raised up ?
He was not. He is describing having been in a metaphorically bad place, perhaps even physically in danger, but not in the literal "place of the dead".
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
It's relevant because it may help to distinguish between David 1 and David 2.
I already said that your distinguishing between "two Davids" is irrelevant. We are only talking about one King David. David in his """first lifetime""", if you must. Let's stay on topic.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I already said that your distinguishing between "two Davids" is irrelevant. We are only talking about one King David. David in his """first lifetime""", if you must. Let's stay on topic.
We are on topic, as far as death and resurrection are concerned.

Do you believe that David is in the grave at this moment in time, awaiting resurrection?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
One way of discovering if a person died, is whether they were resurrected. Is that not true?
I can see you're attempting to drag us back into resurrection.
Let's stick to the topic at hand. If you're not interested in doing that, kindly say so and I will bow out of this thread.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I can see you're attempting to drag us back into resurrection.
Let's stick to the topic at hand. If you're not interested in doing that, kindly say so and I will bow out of this thread.
You appear to be narrowing the parameters of the discussion to suit your own point of view.

One way of discovering whether Jonah died is to discover whether he was resurrected. You cannot be resurrected to life if you're already alive.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
You appear to be narrowing the parameters of the discussion to suit your own point of view.
I'm not. I began by questioning your claim that Jonah was dead in the fish. You've been dragging us in various directions without ever really disproving the words of the different psalmists. You don't like my view or my questions then say so and I'll go.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I'm not. I began by questioning your claim that Jonah was dead in the fish. You've been dragging us in various directions without ever really disproving the words of the different psalmists. You don't like my view or my questions then say so and I'll go.
I've enjoyed the discussion, don't get me wrong.

If you feel that my questions are too personal, then maybe you could give me the orthodox Jewish view on the questions l'm asking.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
If you feel that my questions are too personal
Not too personal. Just off-topic. All I wanted to know was on what basis you thought that psalms proved your view that Jonah was literally dead in the fish. I'm still waiting for a straight answer on that. If you're willing to give it, say so. If not, say so as well.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
I think you've got a mix of truth and error in this summary.

God has not only given time for Judah and Ephraim to repent, He has sent out apostles to 'preach the gospel to every creature'..... 'And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.' [Mark 16]

Cherry-picking the books, and prophets, of scripture which support your private interpretation is not a convincing approach to uncovering the truth, lMO. l would sooner be convinced of your message if it had taken account of all the books accepted as canonical. I don't believe that God has allowed his word to be corrupted in the manner that you claim.

Then you don't believe Yeshua. His description of the "kingdom of heaven" is compared to "a man (the son of man) who sowed good seed in his field. but while the men were sleeping, his enemy (devil) came and sowed tare seed (the gospel of lawlessness) also among the wheat, and went away" (Matthew 13:24-25). The tares and the wheat were allowed to grow together until the "time of the harvest"/end of the age, when the tares would be "gathered" "first" and burned. (Matthew 13:30)
Your narrative is based Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, and of Paul, the shepherd called "Favor", (Zechariah 11:10), who were to shepherd the "flock doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7), along with their associates. Yeshua came to fulfill the prophets, and Peter was nominated to fill the position of "Shebna", as head of the "royal household"/church, but in the end, was a shame of your master's house" (Isaiah 22:15-18). His successor, the pope, will "fall" in "that day"/end of the age, and those hanging on to him will be "cut off" (Isaiah 22:25).

As for the last paragraph of Matthew 28, it is not included in some of the early editions, which is to say it was either edited in, or edited out. Not a reliable source, when the editor was the Roman church. As for what Yeshua actually was quoted as saying, he said to not go in the way of the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5) Your canon was cherry picked by the Roman bishop of Alexandria in 367 AD, and is still under debate among the tares themselves. One must separate the chaff from the wheat. A little leaven spoils the whole loaf. Your leaven of the Pharisee of Pharisees, has ruined your whole loaf. Separate out the leaven/hypocrisy of the Pharisee, and all makes sense.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Not too personal. Just off-topic. All I wanted to know was on what basis you thought that psalms proved your view that Jonah was literally dead in the fish. I'm still waiting for a straight answer on that. If you're willing to give it, say so. If not, say so as well.
If l started a new topic entitled 'Resurrection', would you then answer my questions?

I believe that the Psalms of David say the same thing as the book of Jonah, that when the death of a 'faithful one' takes place, that mercy is shown, and that death is followed by resurrection.

I also believe that the both Jonah and David find their spiritual fulfilment in the person of Christ. Therefore, the story of Jonah, like the Psalms, are prophecies that point to Christ.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
If l started a new topic entitled 'Resurrection', would you then answer my questions?
Maybe and maybe not.
I believe that the Psalms of David say the same thing as the book of Jonah, that when the death of a 'faithful one' takes place, that mercy is shown, and that death is followed by resurrection.

I also believe that the both Jonah and David find their spiritual fulfilment in the person of Christ. Therefore, the story of Jonah, like the Psalms, are prophecies that point to Christ.
Neither of your beliefs answer my question.
As such, I will take it that you are unwilling to directly answer my question and so I will bow out of this thread for now. Bye.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Then you don't believe Yeshua. His description of the "kingdom of heaven" is compared to "a man (the son of man) who sowed good seed in his field. but while the men were sleeping, his enemy (devil) came and sowed tare seed (the gospel of lawlessness) also among the wheat, and went away" (Matthew 13:24-25). The tares and the wheat were allowed to grow together until the "time of the harvest"/end of the age, when the tares would be "gathered" "first" and burned. (Matthew 13:30)
Your narrative is based Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, and of Paul, the shepherd called "Favor", (Zechariah 11:10), who were to shepherd the "flock doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7), along with their associates. Yeshua came to fulfill the prophets, and Peter was nominated to fill the position of "Shebna", as head of the "royal household"/church, but in the end, was a shame of your master's house" (Isaiah 22:15-18). His successor, the pope, will "fall" in "that day"/end of the age, and those hanging on to him will be "cut off" (Isaiah 22:25).

As for the last paragraph of Matthew 28, it is not included in some of the early editions, which is to say it was either edited in, or edited out. Not a reliable source, when the editor was the Roman church. As for what Yeshua actually was quoted as saying, he said to not go in the way of the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5) Your canon was cherry picked by the Roman bishop of Alexandria in 367 AD, and is still under debate among the tares themselves. One must separate the chaff from the wheat. A little leaven spoils the whole loaf. Your leaven of the Pharisee of Pharisees, has ruined your whole loaf. Separate out the leaven/hypocrisy of the Pharisee, and all makes sense.
All sounds fine until you insert your parenthesis with the words 'the gospel of lawlessness'. This is not the Gospel of grace preached by Paul. So, where have you got the idea from? I need to know which passages from the epistles give you this impression.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Maybe and maybe not.

Neither of your beliefs answer my question.
As such, I will take it that you are unwilling to directly answer my question and so I will bow out of this thread for now. Bye.
I was under the impression l had answered your question.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
All sounds fine until you insert your parenthesis with the words 'the gospel of lawlessness'. This is not the Gospel of grace preached by Paul. So, where have you got the idea from? I need to know which passages from the epistles give you this impression.

The "broad" "way" to "destruction", which the "many" follow to "destruction", is preached by the false prophets, with Paul being the foremost. Those false prophets who say "Lord, Lord", and perform miracles in my name, I will deny them by saying "I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:13 & 22-23).

The same applies to the gospel of the church of the tares, in that the "stumbling blocks" (Peter), and those who "Commit lawlessness", will be gathered out and cast into the furnace of fire (Matthew 13:40-42).

As for your "epistles", most of them are attributed to Paul, whether he wrote them or not. A false prophet is not the best source if one is seeking Truth of any matter, which in the end, requires two witnesses to confirm any matter (Matthew 18:16).

Matthew 18:16 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
 
Top