Posted on 08/01/2013 8:41:18 PM PDT by pastorbillrandles
If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.(Revelation 14:9-11)
This generation has a hard time accepting the long-standing Christian doctrine of the certainty of Hell, eternal punishment and the wrath of God. How could it be that simply for sinning, or unbelief, that one would have to suffer in the lake of fire for eternity? Doesn’t that seem extreme?
As I suggest in the title, they just don’t “get” hell, and as a consequence, in many formerly evangelical churches,by and large the doctrine is being jettisoned, as if it is an outdated ‘relic’ from the harsh,judgmental past.
One very important reason for this defection from orthodoxy, has to do with the lowered standard of preaching in the churches. All too often, particularly lacking is the exposition of the doctrine of God; his Glory, Majesty, attributes and perfections.
There have never been so many christian churches, teachings, books,seminars or conferences, but rarely do these sermons hold forth the doctrine of God. The vision of “the only true God”, is all but gone for too many christians, therefore it is difficult to believe in Hell and even to perceive the necessity of the cross.
The most important aspect to any person’s character is how they see God. This is the determining factor in every other area of life, it controls how they relate to others, how they live in marriage, business, family, how they parent, everything revolves around how one sees God. (This is true of everybody, even ‘Atheists’). All personal problems are theological in nature.
In order to believe in Hell and judgment, as Jesus, and the apostles described it, one must believe that there is a Divine person,GOD, who is so exalted, so high and lifted up, so Holy and awesome, that to reject and to spurn him, is to spurn goodness itself! Could there be anyone so “high and lifted up”?
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.(Isaiah 6:1-5)
The issue of sin and damnation isn’t so much a matter of what we actually did to deserve hell, rather it is more a matter of who we did it against, who we rebelled against, spurned, rejected, and disowned!
David, the adulterer, murderer and national stumbling block, confessed to the God whom he had grieved, ,“Against You, You only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight…”(Psalm 51)
When we are given some sense of God in his majesty, Holiness and goodness, it becomes easier for us to believe in an ultimate banishment from all that is pleasant and good as the just judgment of those who reject God.
We are told by eyewitnesses to the Lewis revival of the 1950′s, that when the LORD Sovereignly revealed himself to teenagers at a dance, they fell on their faces and many separately confessed, “Hell would be too good for me O LORD….for I have seen you…have mercy upon me a sinner!”
Similarly, the suffering and agony of the cross of Jesus is difficult for this generation to grasp. There are new teachings, denying the wrath of God as being somehow beneath an “All loving God”. Worse yet there are those who reject the doctrine of propitiation, that is that Jesus died as a satisfaction for our sins.
They simply do not see that sin is “that bad”.Nor does this egalitarian generation believe that anyone at all is above them, let alone that God is “That awesome”; so high and lifted up, that it took nothing less than the suffering, agony and rejection of the man who is “The Lord from heaven”, to save us from eternal damnation.
But we behold in the cross of Jesus the awful holiness and righteousness of God, as well as His mercy and compassion. We shudder at the sight of the crucified Messiah, fixed between heaven and earth, and in trembling awe we ask ourselves,”Is this what it took to redeem us” ?
If they could but get a glimpse of who God is, perhaps this generation would be able once again to see the eternal danger they are in, and flee the wrath to come. Is this what the Proverbs taught us when Wisdom said,
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and,b> the knowledge of the holy is understanding.(Proverbs 9:10) ?
Oh for that understanding to be poured out on this erring generation!
MacArthur believes the audience is three sets of people; 1) Hebrew Christians, 2) Hebrew non-Christians who were intellectually convinced, and 3) Hebrew non-Christians who were not convinced. As MacArthur states,
There is no evidence to support your hypothesis as to Apollos writing Hebrews. Origen stated, "No one knows." who the writer of Hebrews is. MacArthur doesn't believe it was Paul due to the writing style. All we know is that it is inspired.
As far as page after page of evidences exhorting "immature believers", there is no evidence that all of these people were believers. It is a generic book written to Hebrews (Jews).
While Chapter 12-13 is an exhortation to believers (Group 1), Chapter 10-11 is a argument for why Christ died (Group 3).
There is absolutely no need to discuss with believers why Christ had be made a "sacrifice for sins". This is universally understood by all believers. The audience here is unbelieving Jews.
but faith in the Lord Jesus effects obedience towards its Object, relative to the knowledge of His will....The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
I would strongly urge a careful reading of the Confession. It states the following:
[12] JOH 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. EZE 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
[13] PHI 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. 2CO 3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God.
[14] PHI 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. HEB 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: 12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. 2PE 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue. 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. ISA 64:7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. 2TI 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. ACT 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. JUD 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
But if faith appropriates saving faith and works of faith testify to it being that kind of faith, then what does deciding to believe another gospel or living contrary to such a faith do (such as one in 1Tim. 5:8)? Gal. 5:1-4 and Heb. 3 + 10 seem to warn of forfeiting what faith appropriates.
And that is where your erroneous doctrine rightfully leads you. If you must keep up your works, then failure to do so forfeits your salvation. You need to pay attention to Hebrews:
We enter God's rest when we come to know Christ. We cease from OUR works and let Him do the driving.
Thank you, dear brother in Christ, and may God bless you in all ways!
Apollos is just an opinion and i concur is not Paul (the passionate) due the style.
"Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ...." Our good works are NOT the result of our obedience to Christ. Our good works are a result of Christ working through us.
Nowhere did i say otherwise. It is Christ working thru us, but man does not a passively sit by as Christ works in us, but faith works by love which obeys its Object, and in which we respond to God's moving, including to His exhortations and warnings.
As the confession goes on to say, "yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them."
And that is where your erroneous doctrine rightfully leads you. If you must keep up your works, then failure to do so forfeits your salvation.
You are confusing holding firm to the faith, which is what is counted for righteousness, versus exhorting works, which faith effects, as if they actually merit eternal life, when what the believer actually deserves is the lake of fire. (Rm. 6:23) My doctrine is not erroneous as it is just what Hebrews plainly teaches, that of holding firm to the faith that appropriates justification ("Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. " - Hebrews 3:6) versus denying the faith, "having an evil heart of unbelief , in departing from the living God," (Heb. 3:12) which is manifest in negative works, and its consequences, "drawing back unto perdition."
Unless you believe faith without works, or negative works justifies, then you cannot hold that such forsakers have saving faith. But the problem is that Hebrews is writing to believers, and thus the attempt to relegate such warnings against drawing back unto perdition to being written to those who were never converted. Yet is says what it says.
. You need to pay attention to Hebrews: Heb 4:9-10 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
"For believed/believing do enter into" refers to the future promise given to believers, the rest being that of rest from activity, as per God's rest on the sabbath, and which fits Heaven, "that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them." (Rv. 14:13) And thus (what you left out) Heb. 4 goes on to say, "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. " (Hebrews 4:9-11)
And this is written to believers, to wit: "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession " (Hebrews 4:14)
Wait a minute!
Just WHO is supposed to fit in BETWEEN these two?
Except MARY!
--CAtholicDude(Hail!)
Oh?
Just HOW do we 'know' this?
LOL
Thanks for the great example of what happens when we look outside Scripture for the rule of our faith.
By the same means writings were established as Scripture by the time of Christ. By the infallible magisterium of Rome of course! (But what is your answer? Do you accept Hebrews as Scripture?)
Sure; why not?
More learned guys than me...
Wait a minute here!
Ain't this the SAME argument for listening to what the magic men say?
Because it was accepted by all the churches as inspired and then officially deemed inspired. Today Catholics have it exactly backwards thinking the Church can deem something inspired and make everyone believe it to be so.
The early church fathers felt so strongly about these writings as being the "inspired" work of God that they created the Bible and set them apart. 1000 years later the same Church threw out that decision and selected a new set of scriptures. Not only that but they did away with any distinction between what the church fathers felt was inspired. The Bible today holds no more specialty than a Pope's pronouncement-something never accepted by the early fathers.
The Church might have well created the Book of Mormon-for that is what they did with all their gibberish nonsense contained in their catechisms.
“True, those Boomers really don’t seem to get it. Sin has consequences.”
Indeed, the locust generation.
“Behind them, nothing of substance remained.”
Perhaps I'm not clear as to what you mean by "obeys its Object". You have Object capitalized so are you meaning Christ? Are you saying we obey Christ by works of love?
My doctrine is not erroneous as it is just what Hebrews plainly teaches, that of holding firm to the faith that appropriates justification
Just to be clear, do you believe that you can lose your salvation? Do you think that you must hold on to your faith?
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. " (Hebrews 4:9-11)
Please consider the following Entering Into God's Rest.
Mat_11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
No, unless you really believe it was the AIM of Rome that established the writings as Scripture which the Lord and the church established their truth claims upon. If an infallible mag. were necessary to establish both writings and men as being of God, and thus those it rejects must be rejected, s then how could the Jews obey Christ and "search the Scriptures," or be right in believing on Him? And if being the steward of holy Writ makes them the infallible interpreters of it, then it invalidates the church.
Of course, as i thought that was obvious.
Just to be clear, do you believe that you can lose your salvation? Do you think that you must hold on to your faith?
I cannot honestly disbelieve texts which warn believers of making Christ of none effect, profiting them nothing, (Gal. 5:1-4) by departing from the living God in unbelief, drawing back in faith unto perdition. (Heb. 3:12; 10:38) Thus God works to chasten unto repentance lest they be condemned with the rest of the world. (1Cor. 11:32)
And I cannot honestly disbelieve that Gods exhort believers to hold firm to their faith, all of which is by God's grace, as is confessing Christ, and true faith does both. Christ holds onto believers, but works to move them to both believe and to hold on to Him, and which does involve using our wills. Thus
Please consider the following Entering Into God's Rest.
Believers do find rest now for their souls, per Mt. 11:28,29, if not their bodies and trials and temptation, all of which is realized in Heaven, and thus rather than reading Heb. 10:3 in isolation, in context it places this rest as future, likening it to God's rest from creation (Heb. 4:3-8) and saying,
"There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. " (Hebrews 4:9-11)
"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. " (Hebrews 4:16)
"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. " (Revelation 14:13)
Yet later we get to serve Him. (Rv. 22:13) but which is not a trial or temptation nor tiresome. Thanks be to God.
You said concerning Luke 16 as a parable:
“It is not for the accurate reasons i gave.”
Your reasoning is not accurate and you are not “rightly dividing the Scriptures. For example your quote:
“And here, if you regard Eccl. as a doctrinal nook like Romans, then as i showed you, you must agree that “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God. “ (Ecclesiastes 2:24) “Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun. “ (Ecclesiastes 8:15)”
And then you add:
“But which is contrary to such texts as Rm. 14:17; 1Cor. 8:8
....”
But here is what those verses say:
“For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Romans 14:17)
And.
“But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat are we the better neither, if we eat not, are we the worse” (1 Cor 8:8)
One verse discusses welcoming a person with weak faith, the other foods offered to idols, neither are as you said, “contrary” to what Solomon said.
You did not “rightly divide the Scriptures”.
Again you say:
“Another example of a forced interpretation, for the text nowhere says this was a mere vision as in a dream but that they were actually “with Him in the holy mount,” (2Pt. 1:8) and there Moses and Elijah with Christ is what they saw, “optanomai / optomai,” which is the same word which used to denote seeing a real being in many places, (Acts 20:25) including seeing the resurrected Christ (Mk. 16:7; Lk. 24:43; Acts 1:3) - which we dare not make into a mere vision - . “ (2 Peter 1:17-18) Thus Peter wanted to make literal dwellings for them”
First 2 Peter 1:18 does not discuss the vision. And “mere vision” is your words not mine. In fact Jesus called it a “vision”. (Matt.17:9).
But by your reasoning Moses and Elijah were first sent to Paradise/Abraham’s bosom at death, recalled from Paradise/Abraham’s bosom (located in the earth somewhere) to be merely seen by Peter and the others and then presumably they would return to Paradise/Abraham’s bosom (where they would soon by joined by the thief) for a while until going to heaven.
Paradise/Abraham’s bosom must have a revolving door.
Unlike David, I might add who had to stay in Sheol/Hades according to Peter.(Acts 2)
You do not “rightly divide the Scriptures”.
Again you said:
“Thus, rather than remaining in Sheol till the resurrection, the Lord said to the contrite criminal, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. “ (Luke 23:43)”
Then neither Jesus nor the thief were really dead (a condition Jesus likened to sleep) but had been resurrected, brought to life from the death state, and Jesus wasn’t in Sheol/Hades three days but somewhere in Paradise/Abraham’s bosom.
“accurate reasons” you gave? Nope, not accurate, not according to “rightly divided Scripture”.
By the Bye, you should know the placement of that comma is the translators choice since many Greek manuscripts use no punctuation at all, the most notable exception being the Vatican 1209, which places the comma AFTER “today”.
What? Do you really believe these verses support the idea that there is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour?
If the kingdom of God, into which believers have been spiritually translated into now, (Col. 1:13) is not about eating and drinking - denoting the natural man's life, (1Cor. 15:32; Is. 56:12) - and which it would be if there was nothing better in this life than that, and if eating does not gain man favor with to God - unlike righteousness - or make man better or worse spiritually, then how can nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink? This can only be said if one was judging from the perspective of the natural life divorced apart the spiritual side , as he was in stating the dead know nothing. Understanding that division is indeed “rightly dividing the word of truth” from reflections of the natural man.
And “mere vision” is your words not mine. In fact Jesus called it a “vision”. (Matt.17:9).
The word there (horama) denotes "spectacle," and apart from seeing as in a dream or trance, (Num. 24:4) it can mean actually seeing something actually present, (Acts 7:31) and which was so real to Peter in this case that he wanted to build houses with wood in a real physical place. The disciples were able to see something supernatural, but the Lord who brought them up a real mountain was there, as were those He conversed with, unless the Lord was talking to mere images. You must differ, and i will allow that good men can have different opinions on this text, but i see it as consistent with other texts which do teach souls being conscious after death.
But by your reasoning Moses and Elijah were first sent to Paradise/Abraham’s bosom at death, recalled from Paradise/Abraham’s bosom (located in the earth somewhere) to be merely seen by Peter and the others and then presumably they would return to Paradise/Abraham’s bosom (where they would soon by joined by the thief) for a while until going to heaven. Paradise/Abraham’s bosom must have a revolving door.
The problem is on your end in seeing this as a problem in the supernatural realm, as angels left/leave Heaven and returned many times.
Unlike David, I might add who had to stay in Sheol/Hades according to Peter.(Acts 2)
That simply states of David, that [hoti] died and/also [kai] buried [thaptō], and his sepulchre is with us unto this day," not that David's soul and spirit are there, unconscious, rather than being with the Lord now, as the spirit of Stephen went to be with Lord, (Acts 7:59) and such martyred souls are inquiring of the Lord before the resurrection. (Rv. 6:10)
Then neither Jesus nor the thief were really dead (a condition Jesus likened to sleep) but had been resurrected, brought to life from the death state, and Jesus wasn’t in Sheol/Hades three days but somewhere in Paradise/Abraham’s bosom.
The problem is your idea that one must be resurrected to be with the Lord, and that "sleep" refers to the total being and thus the deceased are unconscious, but it no more means that than that someone being in their grave nearby means that is where they really reside. Stephens spirit was with the Lord but he was "asleep," resting in Jesus. (Rv. 14:13)
Once again, in the fullness of revelation, and comparing Scripture with Scripture, Scripture clearly says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, to depart and be with Christ - and which is not a vain hope as you attempt to construe it. Both the "good thief" and his Savior died that day, and both are in paradise today.
You do not “rightly divide the Scriptures”.
By the Bye, you should know the placement of that comma is the translators choice since many Greek manuscripts use no punctuation at all, the most notable exception being the Vatican 1209, which places the comma AFTER “today”.
You should know that is is understood that punctuation was not part of the inspired text, thus Vaticanus does not define the original, but placing the comma after "you" is a correct translators choice as it is what is sensible, and consistent with Scripture.
We can even look at the WatchTower’s own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures for this, in which placing the comma after "today" in Lk. 24:43 is contrary to the 69 other places in which "truly I say to you" occurs, in which the comma is after "you," or more rarely, there is no comma at all.
You do not “rightly divide the Scriptures”.
No matter how much you deny it, the manifest reality is that it is you is not “rightly dividing the word of truth, comparing Scripture with Scripture according to the principle of progressive revelation. Solomon is not teaching the spiritual aspect of man's postmortem state, but the conclusion of the natural man in Eccl. 9:5, while Luke 16:19-31 is simply NOT a parable, nor are the souls of Rv. 6 resurrected saints, nor is Paul expressing some vain hope of being with the Lord at death.
Meanwhile, you are becoming increasingly arrogant, and though soul sleep is part of your doctrine, i believe one can be saved and still believe that, and it is not the same as annihilationism, which is a more serious deviation. And tomorrow i will be setting up a new PC the Lord gave , so will not be online for a time.
“What? Do you really believe these verses support the idea that there is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour?
You cited : “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Romans 14:17) And. “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat are we the better neither, if we eat not, are we the worse” (1 Cor 8:8)
as contrary to what Solomon said about enjoying the things God has blessed us with but they are obviously are not. Solomon contrasted the activity of life with the inactivity of death as at Ecc. 9:10 and he sums up what is important in life, Eccl 12:13, to fear God and keep His commandments, this being the whole obligation of man.’
Then you say:
“If the kingdom of God, into which believers have been spiritually translated into now, (Col. 1:13) is not about eating and drinking - denoting the natural man’s life, (1Cor. 15:32; Is. 56:12)........”
But these verses do not address any “natural man” , rather at 1 Cor. Paul show how the resurrection of Christ gives us hope and he quotes Isa. And Isa 56:12 is God speaking to unjust shepherds of Israel, not any “natural man”. Did you say “forced interpretation”?
“The problem is on your end in seeing this as a problem in the supernatural realm, as angels left/leave Heaven and returned many times.”
But the vision was not of angels leaving and returning to heaven but of Moses and Elijah, whom you say were already resurrected from death to life in a spirit realm, Paradise/Abraham’s bosom.
“The problem is your idea that one must be resurrected to be with the Lord, and that “sleep” refers to the total being and thus the deceased are unconscious, but it no more means that than that someone being in their grave nearby means that is where they really reside. Stephens spirit was with the Lord but he was “asleep,” resting in Jesus. (Rv. 14:13)
Rev. 14:13 reads:
“And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.”
Nothing about waiting in Paradise/Abraham’s bosom or spirits being in heaven, simply that death is a rest from their labors, quite like what Solomon said.
Paul called Christ “the first fruits of those asleep in death. Being the first would therefore preclude David, or Abraham or Elijah from being resurrected from death to any place before Christ. (1 Cor. 15:20)
Hence Peter and the others did not see Moses and Elijah brought back to life or brought from Paradise/Abrham’s bosom but a vision of them.
Thus both Jesus and Paul described death as sleep not traveling about from Paradise/Abraham’s bosom to above, back and forth.
The comma?
“You should know that is is understood that punctuation was not part of the inspired text, thus Vaticanus does not define the original, but placing the comma after “you” is a correct translators choice as it is what is sensible, and consistent with Scripture.”
Nope, not consistent with Jesus being dead for three days as attempts are made to define death as simply life elsewhere thereby nullifying the meaning of the resurrection, that raising of Christ from being dead to life again as Paul described.
“We can even look at the WatchTower’s own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures for this, in which placing the comma after “today” in Lk. 24:43 is contrary to the 69 other places in which “truly I say to you” occurs, in which the comma is after “you,” or more rarely, there is no comma at all.”
Do any other translators follow “today” with a comma? If so, which ones?
“Meanwhile, you are becoming increasingly arrogant”
I have but few virtues but one I cherish is not being concerned about petty name calling.
“And tomorrow i will be setting up a new PC the Lord gave , so will not be online for a time.”
Hmmm... I had to buy mine but have fun with the set up.
as contrary to what Solomon said about enjoying the things God has blessed us with but they are obviously are not. Solomon contrasted the activity of life with the inactivity of death as at Ecc. 9:10 and he sums up what is important in life, Eccl 12:13, to fear God and keep His commandments, this being the whole obligation of man.’.
CYC, what Solomon actually said is the issue, that "there is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink..," and THAT is surely contrary to Scripture and reflects the judgment of the natural mind. Nor is he contrasting the activity of life with the inactivity of death, but is saying that since man dies and that's it, then he might as well live for today. No one could ever make that statement.
Eccl. is in fact the record of a man who is indulges in earthly things "to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly," seeking "What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? for he laments "I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." (Ecclesiastes 1:3,7,14)
Seeking answers to this vexation, "I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life." (Ecclesiastes 2:3)
And like a typical lost American, he got himself this and that, and had great possessions, yet, "I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 2:11) "For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun?" "For all his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity." (Ecclesiastes 2:22-23)
It is in this context, that good men have no reward for all their labour and trouble, that he concludes in the next verse, "There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God." (Ecclesiastes 2:24)
Because he sees no consciousness in the next life, even after the resurrection, but "All go unto one place.." (Ecclesiastes 3:20) he concludes, "Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?" (Ecclesiastes 3:22)
This is in stark contrast to the NT which living a sacrificial life for Christ is what is best, with forsaking all to Him gaining eternal rewards, (Mk. 10:28-30) and the conclusion that we should "eat and drink for tomorrow we die" as if there will be no eternal judgment, is just what Paul rebukes. (1Cor. 15:32) And rather than rewards or punishment being all in this life, after stating "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," that he states, "Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted [approved] of him." (2 Corinthians 5:8-9)
Thus there is a clear contrast between Solomon who is viewing life apart from the perspective that there are no postmortem rewards, thus eating and drinking now is his highest reward, and that of the NT which reveals that realm.
as at Ecc. 9:10 and he sums up what is important in life, Eccl 12:13, to fear God and keep His commandments, this being the whole obligation of man.
That is a correct conclusion, and if he may have finally seen ther toward is consciousnesses after death, but which does not change the fact that is was blind to that, and thus declares, "there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." (Ecclesiastes 9:10)
But these verses do not address any “natural man” , rather at 1 Cor. Paul show how the resurrection of Christ gives us hope and he quotes Isa. And Isa 56:12 is God speaking to unjust shepherds of Israel, not any “natural man”. Did you say “forced interpretation”?
If you cannot or will not see this then it is not my problem, as 1Co. 15:32 is what i just referenced, as it is indeed contrary to the ethos Solomon expresses, for Paul states, "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die." (1 Corinthians 15:32)
But Solomon states, "I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine , yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom," (Ecclesiastes 2:3) And his advice is, b>drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works." (Ecclesiastes 9:7) And which the second rfernced you dismiss relate to, "Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant. (Isaiah 56:12)
But the vision was not of angels leaving and returning to heaven but of Moses and Elijah, whom you say were already resurrected from death to life in a spirit realm, Paradise/Abraham’s bosom.
I did not say it was angels being seen leaving and returning to heaven, but that they did, unless you think these visions were not of angels actually being presnt. (Lk. 1:22; 24:43)
Nothing about waiting in Paradise/Abraham’s bosom or spirits being in heaven, simply that death is a rest from their labors, quite like what Solomon said.
How can you fail to see that rather than being dead and unconscious as per Solomon's idea, and your idea of asleep, these were very much conscious souls?
Paul called Christ “the first fruits of those asleep in death. Being the first would therefore preclude David, or Abraham or Elijah from being resurrected from death to any place before Christ. (1 Cor. 15:20)
And where did i say these or Abe and Lazarus were resurrected before Christ in order to be conscious? You are forcing your doctrine into my argument. The resurrection of OT saints who appeared to many was after the Lord's resurrection.
Nope, not consistent with Jesus being dead for three days as attempts are made to define death as simply life elsewhere thereby nullifying the meaning of the resurrection, that raising of Christ from being dead to life again as Paul described.
You are making both Lk. 23:43 and 1Cor. 15 to conform to your doctrine, but as shown, there is only a precedent for the comma behind after "thee: in the many occurrences of "Verity, I say unto thee," and how much more when there was not need to say "today as if to distinguish it from tomorrow, except that presently the criminal would find mercy and grace, not the future as he hoped.
Do any other translators follow “today” with a comma? If so, which ones?
Among unwarranted multitudes, very few.
As far as texts as , "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," (1 Corinthians 15:22), being "made alive" refers to the body, rather than the spirits of the elect being dead, for the spirits of the just are with God. (Acts 7:59; Heb. 12:23) And as "the body without the spirit is dead," (James 2:26) when the bodies shall be made alive they will be inhabited by the spirits of the just, the body being a transformed one, to the glory of God who makes all things new!
I have but few virtues but one I cherish is not being concerned about petty name calling.
Relegating a perception of what manner of spirit to being name calling is not a virtue.
Hmmm... I had to buy mine but have fun with the set up.
The other one was 8 years old and I did not ask for money for the new one, and do not charge for anything i do, trusting the Lord to supply what is needed to do His work, but i diligently shopped for the best buy for the money, wanting to be a good steward. Its up and running well, thanks be to God. But i think i have taken enough time writing on this worthy subject.
as contrary to what Solomon said about enjoying the things God has blessed us with but they are obviously are not. Solomon contrasted the activity of life with the inactivity of death as at Ecc. 9:10 and he sums up what is important in life, Eccl 12:13, to fear God and keep His commandments, this being the whole obligation of man.’.
CYC, what Solomon actually said is the issue, that "there is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink..," and THAT is surely contrary to Scripture and reflects the judgment of the natural mind. Nor is he contrasting the activity of life with the inactivity of death, but is saying that since man dies and that's it, then he might as well live for today. No one could ever make that statement.
Eccl. is in fact the record of a man who is indulges in earthly things "to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly," seeking "What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? for he laments "I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." (Ecclesiastes 1:3,7,14)
Seeking answers to this vexation, "I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life." (Ecclesiastes 2:3)
And like a typical lost American, he got himself this and that, and had great possessions, yet, "I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 2:11) "For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun?" "For all his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity." (Ecclesiastes 2:22-23)
It is in this context, that good men have no reward for all their labour and trouble, that he concludes in the next verse, "There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God." (Ecclesiastes 2:24)
Because he sees no consciousness in the next life, even after the resurrection, but "All go unto one place.." (Ecclesiastes 3:20) he concludes, "Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?" (Ecclesiastes 3:22)
This is in stark contrast to the NT which living a sacrificial life for Christ is what is best, with forsaking all to Him gaining eternal rewards, (Mk. 10:28-30) and the conclusion that we should "eat and drink for tomorrow we die" as if there will be no eternal judgment, is just what Paul rebukes. (1Cor. 15:32) And rather than rewards or punishment being all in this life, after stating "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," that he states, "Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted [approved] of him." (2 Corinthians 5:8-9)
Thus there is a clear contrast between Solomon who is viewing life apart from the perspective that there are no postmortem rewards, thus eating and drinking now is his highest reward, and that of the NT which reveals that realm.
as at Ecc. 9:10 and he sums up what is important in life, Eccl 12:13, to fear God and keep His commandments, this being the whole obligation of man.
That is a correct conclusion, and if he may have finally seen ther toward is consciousnesses after death, but which does not change the fact that is was blind to that, and thus declares, "there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." (Ecclesiastes 9:10)
But these verses do not address any “natural man” , rather at 1 Cor. Paul show how the resurrection of Christ gives us hope and he quotes Isa. And Isa 56:12 is God speaking to unjust shepherds of Israel, not any “natural man”. Did you say “forced interpretation”?
If you cannot or will not see this then it is not my problem, as 1Co. 15:32 is what i just referenced, as it is indeed contrary to the ethos Solomon expresses, for Paul states, "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die." (1 Corinthians 15:32)
But Solomon states, "I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine , yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom," (Ecclesiastes 2:3) And his advice is, b>drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works." (Ecclesiastes 9:7) And which the second rfernced you dismiss relate to, "Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant. (Isaiah 56:12)
But the vision was not of angels leaving and returning to heaven but of Moses and Elijah, whom you say were already resurrected from death to life in a spirit realm, Paradise/Abraham’s bosom.
I did not say it was angels being seen leaving and returning to heaven, but that they did, unless you think these visions were not of angels actually being presnt. (Lk. 1:22; 24:43)
Nothing about waiting in Paradise/Abraham’s bosom or spirits being in heaven, simply that death is a rest from their labors, quite like what Solomon said.
How can you fail to see that rather than being dead and unconscious as per Solomon's idea, and your idea of asleep, these were very much conscious souls?
Paul called Christ “the first fruits of those asleep in death. Being the first would therefore preclude David, or Abraham or Elijah from being resurrected from death to any place before Christ. (1 Cor. 15:20)
And where did i say these or Abe and Lazarus were resurrected before Christ in order to be conscious? You are forcing your doctrine into my argument. The resurrection of OT saints who appeared to many was after the Lord's resurrection.
Nope, not consistent with Jesus being dead for three days as attempts are made to define death as simply life elsewhere thereby nullifying the meaning of the resurrection, that raising of Christ from being dead to life again as Paul described.
You are making both Lk. 23:43 and 1Cor. 15 to conform to your doctrine, but as shown, there is only a precedent for the comma behind after "thee: in the many occurrences of "Verity, I say unto thee," and how much more when there was not need to say "today as if to distinguish it from tomorrow, except that presently the criminal would find mercy and grace, not the future as he hoped.
Do any other translators follow “today” with a comma? If so, which ones?
Among unwarranted multitudes, very few.
As far as texts as , "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," (1 Corinthians 15:22), being "made alive" refers to the body, rather than the spirits of the elect being dead, for the spirits of the just are with God. (Acts 7:59; Heb. 12:23) And as "the body without the spirit is dead," (James 2:26) when the bodies shall be made alive they will be inhabited by the spirits of the just, the body being a transformed one, to the glory of God who makes all things new!
I have but few virtues but one I cherish is not being concerned about petty name calling.
Relegating a perception of what manner of spirit to being name calling is not a virtue.
Hmmm... I had to buy mine but have fun with the set up.
The other one was 8 years old and I did not ask for money for the new one, and do not charge for anything i do, trusting the Lord to supply what is needed to do His work, but i diligently shopped for the best buy for the money, wanting to be a good steward. Its up and running well, thanks be to God. But i think i have taken enough time writing on this worthy subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.