- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 28 2010,13:44) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:26) You guys can't answer this can you? Abraham like all the others are with Jesus and the Father.
WJ,I believe that a very few went right from existence in flesh straight to spiritual existence in heaven.
Jesus says that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were three of them. The fact that Moses and Elijah talked to Jesus at the transfiguration says they were included, IMO.
And Jesus says some of his apostles would not taste death…..so I believe that means at least two of them went right from here to heaven.
But I think they are few and far between, and Jesus wasn't one of those, for he had to die to accomplish what he came to accomplish. And if he wasn't raised from a “real” death like us, then where is the promise?
mike
One more thought for you guys.Compare this scripture…..
Matthew 16:28
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”…..with this one,
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.Some of Jesus' disciples did not have to “taste death”, but Jesus did.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,21:53) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:28) Yep This is what happens when the light is turned on. They just start making accusations for they have no defence to the truth.
Not at all a new thing, this is what they accused Jesus of in his day.
WJ
You know what WJ?I have watched you and Jack double team so many people here. You don't even give them a chance to speak their thoughts. The first words out of their mouths are met with arrogance, ridicule and insults.
On the contrary, aside from one joking “high five” 3 or 4 months ago, this is the first time JA and I have ever had this kind of a “consultation” about you and Jack.
I was reading earlier today where you guys were on Kathi like there was no tomorrow. I almost felt sorry for her, but then I thought, “Even with half of her brain tied behind her back, the both of you are no match for her.”
Think about that WJ. How many of us non-trinitarians feel the need to “gang up” on you two with insults and ridicules? It's simply just not necessary. So you wolves go ahead and do what wolves do, and we sheep will just keep running to our Shepherd for protection from you.
mike
“Even with half of her brain tied behind her back…”Thanks Mike, this one was your most unusual word picture and it made me grin and shake my head.
Anyone have a knife?
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 27 2010,17:22) Kathi said: Quote I especially can relate to C.S. Lewis here: According to C.S. Lewis, “To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man.”
from: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qi034.htmlI don't think that C.S. Lewis is thinking about the Son as the man from Mary here, do you? God is not a man. He is talking about what happened before the ages…that is when God beget God, not in Mary for if that were the case, the begotten God would have had a beginning in time and not actually be like the one who beget Him. The one that came from Mary had flesh, blood and bones. God the Father is not flesh. What happened in Mary was not like a begetting that would produce God. God doesn't need a counterpart to produce His offspring.
Kathi Mike and their fragmented quotes. Please note the facts below:
Quote C. Christ In Mere Christianity Lewis referred to “Christ, the Man who was God.” In The Problem of Pain he spoke of “the Incarnate God” and THE SON “CO-ETERNAL WITH THE FATHER” In The Weight of Glory Lewis mentioned “the humanity of Christ” and “His deity.” The liberal scholar Norman Pittenger blamed Lewis “for believing that Jesus claimed deity because the fourth Gospel says He did,” to which Lewis replied: “I think that Jesus Christ is (in fact) the Son of God.” To Arthur Greeves (December 26, 1945) Lewis wrote that at Bethlehem “God became man.”
One of the sad realities is that as a young man, Arthur Greeves had adopted the Christian view and Lewis the atheistic one. Later Greeves wandered through Unitarianism and other quagmires. Lewis replied to his letter (December 11, 1949): “Your doctrine, under its old name of Arianism, was given a…very full run for its money. But it didn’t last.” Lewis asked his friend, “If [Christ] was not God, who or what was He?” He concluded: “The doctrine of Christ’s divinity seems to me not something stuck on…but something that peeps out at every point [of the New Testament] so that you have to unravel the whole web to get rid of it…and if you take away the Godhead of Christ, what is Christianity all about?” In Mere Christianity Lewis includes his belief in “the Virgin Birth of C
Lewis also tackled an explanation of what is commonly called “the eternal generation of the Son.” He wrote: “One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God ‘begotten, not created’…[which] has nothing to do with the fact that when Christ was born on the earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin.” Rather, “what God begets is God.” This negative explanation clarifies somewhat but is not overly helpful. Elsewhere he penned that “the one begets and the other is begotten. The Father’s relation to the Son is not the same as the Son’s relation to the Father.” Christ as “Son,” Lewis observed, “cannot mean that He stands to God [the Father] in the very same physical and temporal relation which exists between offspring and male parent in the animal world;” this doctrine involves a “harmonious relation involving homogeneity.” The normally ingenious and down-to-earth Lewis left his readers in the complicated and heady realms of theological disquisition on this doctrine, but (let’s face it) who has ever heard a clearly illustrated exposition of it from a pulpit? In one more attempt Lewis declared: “The Son exists because the Father exists; BUT THERE WAS NEVER A TIME BEFORE THE FATHER PRODUCED THE SON.” Lewis would probably have done better to steer clear of this subject altogether.Two other of Lewis’s Christological opinions are interesting. In speaking of the kenosis (Philippians 2:7) he stated: “I certainly think that Christ, in the flesh, was not omniscient-if only because a human brain could not, presumably be the vehicle of omniscient consciousness….” In another comment, bearing upon John 3:13, Lewis claimed “Christ’s divine nature never left [heaven] and never returned to it.” For one who never claimed to be a theologian, Lewis certainly managed to involve himself in some intricate theological twine. Nevertheless, he was emphatic about retaining the full deity and humanity of Christ as addressed in the early Christian creeds.
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000i/townsend2000e.htmLewis said that the Son was “co-eternal” with the Father. To Lewis “begotten” meant that Christ was the SAME KIND AS THE FATHER JUST AS WJ AND I ASSERT. He explicitly said the “begetting” did not have a temporal relation.
Kathi has become a lot like Mike now. She has no scriptural argument so she has to invoke fragmented quotes from the fathers. First Calvin and now C. S. Lewis. Which trinitarian father will she convert to Arianism next?
the Roo
Well,
Good for you Roo, you say that the begetting means that He is the same kind as the Father. That is what I have been saying all along, and it isn't temporal…He was the same kind as the Father in the beginning as He was on earth and back in heaven because God begat God…like begets like. Very good! He will always be like the Father in nature.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,21:53) You know what WJ? I have watched you and Jack double team so many people here. You don't even give them a chance to speak their thoughts. The first words out of their mouths are met with arrogance, ridicule and insults.
Don't speak for me Mike for this is a lie!We do attack the error and speak the truth by quoting scriptures and many don't like it.
It is proof how you started ridiculing me because you were without words to defend the truth.
You constantly make comments to JA and others that we are clowns or blind or decieved, so stop with your hypocrosy!
I don't ridicule anyone, in fact I told Jack that I wouldn't go as far as he did about Kathi.
This is hypocritical for you to say when I have witnessed you more than once condescending and ridculing others including myself.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,11:51) Quote (JustAskin @ July 27 2010,19:27) WJ and KJ are both fakes. First they pretend to be trinitarians,now that they utterly failed at that they have become 'Disputarians', simply disputing against everyone for no good reason. Sad, so sad.
Jesus told the theif on the Cross, 'I tell you this day, you will be with me in Paradise'.
What does anyone not understand?
The theif could only be 'in paradise' after he is judged at the resurrection and found 'sinless because Jesus asked God to forgivd his sins because he believed'Jack, where do you come from?
WJ, why are you following Jack. Do you two take it in turns?
WJ, i know not what it is you are showing me in Revelations but this I know: you have turned the verses into foolishness and you will pay a dear price for that. Your foolishness in coming up against me knows no ends, do you really not learn or do you just keep trying, just in case, trying your luck! Keep trying…but i hope you stop.
Speak the truth and i will be your brother.
JAWhy do you just spout off at the mouth rather than give scriptural support for your eroneous concepts?
All you know how to do is call names and accusations and babyish slurs.
Jack and I are dealing with what the scritpures say and not merely making claims based on the doctrines of men without any spiritual revelation or truth.
WJ
Keith,JA hurls accusations every time he cannot win an argument. That's how we know that truth is prevailing.
The Sadducees denied the resurrection because they denied that the spirit continues to live after death. They tried to trick Jesus with their “suppose” question. “Suppose,” they asked, “a woman had seven husbands in this life, and each one of them died without leaving children? Whose wife would she be in the world to come.”
Jesus replied first by saying that that there is no such thing as marriage and having children in the resurrection. Then He told them that God had said, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Then He concluded, “God is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
Jesus' point was that the three patriarchs MUST LIVE ON if God is STILL their God because He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore, there must be a resurrection.
Mike and JA's annihilationist view is exactly what the Sadducees believed. If the spirit does not live on after it leaves the body then it cannot be resurrected. The Sadducees knew this. But JA and Mike are trying to have it both ways. They cannot have it both ways. If the spirit is destroyed after it leaves the body, then there can be no resurrection.
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 28 2010,12:34) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,11:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 28 2010,11:11) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,11:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 28 2010,10:59) As I understand it, the Sadducees simply didn't believe in a ressurection. Where do you find support for your claim, Jack?
Half truth! A half truth is a WHOLE lie! The Sadducees also denied that the spirit continued to exist after death. Their denial of the resurrection was the consequence of their denial that the spirit continued to exist. For that which ceases to exist cannot be raised.In other words, the Sadducees were annihilationists like you and JA. Keith and I are in the company of Jesus and Paul.
the Roo
Where do you find support for your claim, Jack?
mike
Mike,Don't you think you should do a little homework before you spout off? Save yourself some embarassment. Read Josephus. He states that the Sadducees held that the spirit perished with the body (Josephus, Ant., xviii, 1, 4; Wars, ii, 8, 14).
Their denial of the resurrection was the consequence of their denial that the spirit continued to remain. They deduced that something that does remain cannot be resurrected.
Duh! You should have googled “Sadducees” and made sure before embarrassing yourself. You don't because you are not looking for the truth.
the Roo
Jack,Do you see the simple question I asked above? And asking that question, in your “Christian” mind, is apparently call for saying I spoke a “half-truth” and now insulting and ridiculing me? Why?
Thanks for your answer, for I knew it wasn't in scripture. Now the question is……Should we give any more credence to Josephus than we do to Eusebius?
You see, you find yourself in a conundrum here. I would gladly accept Josephus as a secular source of knowledge about the Sadducees, but you won't accept Eusebius' treatment of the words “prototokos pasa ktisis”……..why?
And if you will not accept Eusebius, I reject Josephus and anything he said.
So, find a scriptural source to support your claim, or consider it “heresay”.
mike
The Sadducees denied the resurrection because they denied that the spirit continues to live after death. They tried to trick Jesus with their “suppose” question. “Suppose,” they asked, “a woman had seven husbands in this life, and each one of them died without leaving children? Whose wife would she be in the world to come.”Jesus replied first by saying that that there is no such thing as marriage and having children in the resurrection. Then He told them that God had said, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Then He concluded, “God is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
Jesus' point was that the three patriarchs MUST LIVE ON if God is STILL their God because He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore, there must be a resurrection.
Mike and JA's annihilationist view is exactly what the Sadducees believed. If the spirit does not live on after it leaves the body then it cannot be resurrected. The Sadducees knew this. But JA and Mike are trying to have it both ways. They cannot have it both ways. If the spirit is destroyed after it leaves the body, then there can be no resurrection.
the Roo
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 28 2010,12:42) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,11:46) Nope! Jesus said, “TODAY you will be with me in paradise.”
Really Jack?There is no punctuation in the Greek. The words say:
amen to you I am saying today with me you will be in the paradise
Yet you are CONFIDENT it has to be rendered YOUR way. That's a trinitarian for you.
mike
And this means that “today” does not mean “today” how?the Roo
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 28 2010,13:12) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,11:50) Good night! 
Mike, Rebuttal# 8 will come in a couple of days. That last one wore me out so I am taking a break.
Jack
I'm not even breaking a sweat yet.And that was a very underhanded dishonest thing you did in our debate. Our original debate was about “Is Jesus God?”, and as one of the sub-topics, we were going to debate “Elohim means God is plural”. That's what this debate was supposed to be about all along – whether the fact that the Hebrew word “Elohim” is plural means that God is a plural God or not.
You lost miserably on that one, so you have distanced yourself from it and tried to say the debate all along was about whether or not Jesus is God. But you know this current debate was never meant to include the entire trinity arguments – that would encompass hundreds of arguments and thousands of scriptures. It was only supposed to be about “elohim”, as your response to my comment about the word “elohim” in Martian's “Echad and elohim” thread attests:
Quote Mike, You are trespassing our agreement. We are supposed to discuss this under the “Is God Plural” subject in our one on one debate. So I will not give you a full reply here.
You knew all along the “Plural God” debate we're having is supposed to be about “elohim”, not the trinity in general.
That's okay, because I could NEVER lose that debate either…..I have the scriptures on my side. But it was still underhanded and dishonest. You should have been honest once you found out about the other uses of the plural of majesty in the scriptures, and conceded the debate. But whatever……like the good old George Strait song says, “I wouldn't treat a dog the way you've treated me…….but I've come to expect it from you”.
mike
Mike,Want a little cheese with your whine? Typical Mikeboll response. When it doesn't go his way he starts whining.
The debate is about the Plural God. You just picked a poor strategy and now you are stuck with it. Why would you be so inept as to try to disprove Christ's divinity from a passage in Ezekiel that says “David?” You don't help your image here by whining about it.
You call me “underhanded.” You chose your own topic from your own list “GOD IS A PLURAL GOD” Not, “Elohim means a plural God.” Trinitarians do not claim that the Plural God doctrine is proven by the word “elohim” alone and neither do I. And you can't bind me to approach the subject your way.
You say that you are not even breaking in a sweat yet. Your point is …?
Grow up Mike!
the Roo
TO ALL:
I said that my last rebuttal wore me out and Mike replied saying, “I haven't even broken in a sweat yet.”
Maybe not a sweat. But Mike CLEARLY tried to bail out of defending his opening statement. In his Rebuttal# 6 he said:
Quote I will NOT be discussing whether or not Jesus is God anymore, because that is not what the title of this debate is.
about “David” in Ezekiel he said,Quote I won't debate it with him any farther, for we obviously disagree.
This is CLEARLY bailing out! Mike attacked the divinity of Christ from Ezekiel in his opening statement. He said,Quote And finally, Ezekiel 34:24 clearly has God foretelling about Jesus. It says, 24He will be your leader, and I will be your God. I, the LORD, have spoken. Jehovah clearly says, HE (someone other than God) will be the leader, AND I will be your God. (Elohim) So, if Jesus is set apart as someone different than Elohim, how can it be said that he is a part OF Elohim?
There it is! Mike attacked the divinity of Christ from Ezekiel in his opening statement. But after he learns that he has no argument from Ezekiel he bails out saying, “It is not a part of this debate.” Oh yes it is a part of our debate because he included it in his opening statement.Mike may not be sweating. He is just going in his pants.
the Roo
Quote (JustAskin @ July 27 2010,21:31) WJ, Then you are blessed.
Would you like me to revile you some more?
Is this the glory that you seek? Do things to make people revile you so you feel you are blessed…it doesn't work that way, WJ.
The reviling is for when you are speaking the truth, that's when you are blessed if you keep yourself.
So Please show me how I am not speaking the truth?In the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus, was Jesus using false concepts to prove a spiritual truth?
Answer it Mr. big guy instead of just puking out accusations and ad hominems.
WJ
TO ALL:
The Sadducees believed that the souls of men die with the body just as Mike and JA believe. I asked Mike to google “the Sadducees” and for some reason he was afraid to do it. So I must do his homework for him-again.
The Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul (or spirit):
Quote Several other aspects of Sadducee theology are known. For example, many sources state that they maintained that souls die with the bodies (e.g., Flavius Josephus, Jewish antiquities 18.16; Mark 12.18-27). The rabbinical text known as 'Avot de rabbi Nathan states that a discussion about this subject was the cause of the schism between Pharisees and Sadducees. [The Pharisee teacher] Antigonus of Sokho had two disciples who used to study his words. They taught them to their disciples, and their disciples to their disciples. These proceeded to examine the words closely and demanded, 'Why did our ancestors see fit to say this thing? Is it possible that a laborer should do his work all day and not take his reward in the evening? If our ancestors, forsooth, had known that there is no other world and that there will be a resurrection of the dead, they would not have spoken in this manner.'
So they arose and withdrew from the [study of the oral] Torah, and split into two sects, the Sadducees and the Boethusians: Sadducees named after Zadok, Boethusians after Boethus.
['Avot de rabbi Nathan, version A, 5;
translated by J. Goldin]
http://www.livius.org/saa-san/sadducees/sadducees.htmlQuote Beliefs
The Sadducees are said to have rejected all Jewish observances not explicitly taught in the pentateuchal law. In their legal debates, the Sadducees consistently pushed for a strict and narrow application of the law. They repudiated the notions of resurrection and rewards and punishments after death. According to Josephus, they even denied the immortality of the soul. The Sadducees tended to diassociate God from human affairs. For this reason, they maintained that human choices and actions were totally free, unrestrained by divine interference. Consistent with this emphasis on human autonomy, the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and preterhuman spirits.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/sadducee.htmThe Pharisees confessed the immortality of the soul:
Quote Resurrection. The evidence is clear that the Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection. Acts 23:6-8 records how this issue divided the Sanhedrin, for it was the Pharisees who believed in the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the soul. Matthew 22:23 and Acts 4:1-2 also refer to the Sadducees in this way. It is probably because the resurrection was so critical for Christianity that the New Testament focuses on this point. Josephus confirms that the Sadducees denied the resurrection, the immortality of the soul, eternal rewards, or the “world to come.”25 The Sadducees kept their focus on the status quo of the nation of Israel in this world and not the next.
http://bible.org/seriespage/sadduceesJesus (and Paul) sided with the Pharisees:
Quote 18 Then some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him; and they asked Him, saying: 19 “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies, and leaves his wife behind, and leaves no children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife; and dying, he left no offspring. 21 And the second took her, and he died; nor did he leave any offspring. And the third likewise. 22 So the seven had her and left no offspring. Last of all the woman died also. 23 Therefore, in the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife.”
24 Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?[a] 27 He is not the God of the dead, BUT THE GOD OF THE LIVING. You are therefore greatly mistaken.”
According to Jesus if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had ceased to exist as our Sadducee friends Mike and JA say, then God could not have STILL been their God for He is the God only of the LIVING. Just as Jesus told the Sadducees they were “greatly mistaken” so WJ and I tell Mike and JA that they are “greatly mistaken.”Jesus and Paul sided with the Pharisees and WJ and the Roo side with Jesus and Paul. Instead of telling us “thank you for giving us truth” JA accuses us of evil.
the Roo
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,21:29) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:20) Really WJ? Why did Jesus tell the parable about the weeds? Is this earth literally full of human “weeds” and “wheat”? Is that what humans are literally?
It was a parable, man.
mike
Humans are like weeds when the harvest comes Mike.
Do you see the parallel to reality?
WJ
Yes, I see the parallel. Does that mean human beings are literally plant life that grow from the ground with sun and water?Solomon, the wisest man ever until Jesus, said,
5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun.
What do you take that to mean?
mike
MikeWhy do you always look for scriptures to contradict Jesus words or the scriptures in the NT that prove that our Spirits leave this flesh tent and are still alive and conscious?
The dead are not conscious of what is going on in the realm of the living.
Verse 5. The living know that they shall die
This is so self-evident that none can doubt it; and therefore all that have this conviction should prepare for death and eternal blessedness.But the dead know not any thing
“Cut off from life, they know nothing of what passes under the sun. Their day of probation is ended, and therefore they can have no farther reward in living a holy life; nor can they be liable to any farther punishment for crimes in a state of probation, that being ended“. Adam ClarkThe dead do not know anything, but that Solomon, one of the wickedest men who ever lived, said it. Even if Solomon believed it, which is questionable, because he might have been recounting his religious philosophy during the times of his apostasy, — but even if he believed it, it could not possibly be true. “The glorious one who is Greater than Solomon gave us the story of the rich man and Lazarus; and the rich man is represented as being, not merely conscious after death, but in terrible pain and anxiety regarding his brethren who had not yet died, but who were living wickedly as he had lived. (See Luke 16:19-31). Oh yes, this is a parable, but it is not a fable; and one of the characteristics of a parable is that it is based upon an event which either happened or could have happened. Jesus never used parables to teach lies to his followers.”
Also, in Revelation we have this, “I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held; and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost not thou judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth”? In the light of what the Christ has said, one may safely set aside what the wicked Solomon is here reported in God's Word to have said.
The Seventh Day Adventist notion that the resurrection is the creation of the non-existent dead is also an outright contradiction of Christ's declaration that “God is the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, and that he is the God of the living, not of the dead.” (Matthew 22:32). This clearly states that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living (even in the state of death) and that they are not non-existent. Coffman Commentaries
So did Jesus use false concepts to teach a spiritual truth in the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus or not?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2010,04:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,21:29) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:20) Really WJ? Why did Jesus tell the parable about the weeds? Is this earth literally full of human “weeds” and “wheat”? Is that what humans are literally?
It was a parable, man.
mike
Humans are like weeds when the harvest comes Mike.
Do you see the parallel to reality?
WJ
Yes, I see the parallel. Does that mean human beings are literally plant life that grow from the ground with sun and water?Solomon, the wisest man ever until Jesus, said,
5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun.
What do you take that to mean?
mike
MikeWhy do you always look for scriptures to contradict Jesus words or the scriptures in the NT that prove that our Spirits leave this flesh tent and are still alive and conscious?
The dead are not conscious of what is going on in the realm of the living.
Verse 5. The living know that they shall die
This is so self-evident that none can doubt it; and therefore all that have this conviction should prepare for death and eternal blessedness.But the dead know not any thing
“Cut off from life, they know nothing of what passes under the sun. Their day of probation is ended, and therefore they can have no farther reward in living a holy life; nor can they be liable to any farther punishment for crimes in a state of probation, that being ended“. Adam ClarkThe dead do not know anything, but that Solomon, one of the wickedest men who ever lived, said it. Even if Solomon believed it, which is questionable, because he might have been recounting his religious philosophy during the times of his apostasy, — but even if he believed it, it could not possibly be true. “The glorious one who is Greater than Solomon gave us the story of the rich man and Lazarus; and the rich man is represented as being, not merely conscious after death, but in terrible pain and anxiety regarding his brethren who had not yet died, but who were living wickedly as he had lived. (See Luke 16:19-31). Oh yes, this is a parable, but it is not a fable; and one of the characteristics of a parable is that it is based upon an event which either happened or could have happened. Jesus never used parables to teach lies to his followers.”
Also, in Revelation we have this, “I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held; and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost not thou judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth”? In the light of what the Christ has said, one may safely set aside what the wicked Solomon is here reported in God's Word to have said.
The Seventh Day Adventist notion that the resurrection is the creation of the non-existent dead is also an outright contradiction of Christ's declaration that “God is the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, and that he is the God of the living, not of the dead.” (Matthew 22:32). This clearly states that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living (even in the state of death) and that they are not non-existent. Coffman Commentaries
So did Jesus use false concepts to teach a spiritual truth in the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus or not?
WJ
Keith,I had corrected Mike in our first debate on the sayings of Solomon. But he turned a deaf ear to it. It was when king Solomon was still under the influence of worldly thinking or “the wisdom that is under the sun” that he believed that men were unconscious after they left the body. But after Solomon acquired the wisdom that is from God he changed his mind about a lot of things. For instance, in 9:5 Solomon said that men will have no reward after they die. Solomon said this while he was taught by the wisdom of the world. But God had instructed him otherwise for in 12:13-14 he said this:
Quote 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
14 For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.9:5: Solomon was taught by the wisdom that is “under the sun.” He says that men have no reward.
12:14: Solomon now instructed by God's wisdom and confesses that men will receive reward.
Mikeboll deliberately ignores the journey that Solomon made in his thinking. I say “deliberately” because he was corrected about this and he spat on it. Mike pits the once worldly thinking king Solomon against King Jesus.
Jesus inferred that God was the God of the living when He said, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Mk. 12:18-27).
Jack
WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote The dead do not know anything, but that Solomon, one of the wickedest men who ever lived, said it. Even if Solomon believed it, which is questionable, because he might have been recounting his religious philosophy during the times of his apostasy, —
Keith,Solomon was indeed recounting his religious philosophy in the days of his apostasy from God. But in the end he got it right.
Jack
WorshippingJesus cited:
Quote Oh yes, this is a parable, but it is not a fable; and one of the characteristics of a parable is that it is based upon an event which either happened or could have happened. Jesus never used parables to teach lies to his followers.”
Exactly!the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,12:55) WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll: Quote The dead do not know anything, but that Solomon, one of the wickedest men who ever lived, said it. Even if Solomon believed it, which is questionable, because he might have been recounting his religious philosophy during the times of his apostasy, —
Keith,Solomon was indeed recounting his religious philosophy in the days of his apostasy from God. But in the end he got it right.
Jack
True JackJust because a passage is “truly scripture” does not mean the statement is “True”.
WJ
Jack
Watch for all the character assassination attempts and the blatant accusations rather than a true scriptural rebuttal.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2010,05:27) Jack Watch for all the character assassination attempts and the blatant accusations rather than a true scriptural rebuttal.
WJ
Keith,The character assassinations just make me bolder. It boosts my confidence level when our arguments shut their mouths scripturally and all they have left is to speak false witness.
Jack
Keith,
They think that by their annihilationist doctrine they will escape judgment. The fear of judgment is the unconscious reason for their saying that souls cease to exist. They are unconsciously saying, “God can't judge me personally because I will cease forever. So God will transfer my memory into a newly created spirit that will take my place in the judgment.”
Nope! Judgment will come to those who actually performed unrighteous acts. Therefore, they must remain for judgment.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,18:56) Mike and JA's annihilationist view is exactly what the Sadducees believed. If the spirit does not live on after it leaves the body then it cannot be resurrected. The Sadducees knew this. But JA and Mike are trying to have it both ways. They cannot have it both ways. If the spirit is destroyed after it leaves the body, then there can be no resurrection.
Thanks for the apology about the half truth and not doing my homework, by the way.
You might have to go back and paste the post where I said anything like this. I believe the spirit goes back to Him who gave it, and that's what I said. I even posted the scripture.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
