@Sammo
Forum Replies Created
Quote (Adam Pastor @ Aug. 03 2006,11:40)
A corpse is a dead person/soul.
A dead person is a dead soul.
Right now within tombs & coffins are dead souls.
What one buries or cremates is a dead person/soulJews in the OT were not allowed to touch dead souls … (subtly translated dead body)
So a person according to the Hebrew Bible, dead or alive, is a soul/nepheshAgain, in the Bible, 'person=soul'
To touch or see or speak to a living person, is to touch, see & speak to a living soul.
To touch a dead person is to touch a dead soul.It was Greek philosophy & Platonism that taught that a soul is some ethereal, immortal, incorporeal part of man.
The Scriptures teach no such thing.See for yourself …
(Lev 21:11) Neither shall he go in to any dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul], nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;
(Num 9:6-7) And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day: 7 And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of YAHWEH in his appointed season among the children of Israel?
(Num 9:10) Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul], or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto YAHWEH.
(Num 19:11) He that toucheth the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of any man shall be unclean seven days.
(Num 19:13) Whosoever toucheth the dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of YAHWEH; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.
(Num 19:16) And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul], or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
(Hag 2:13) Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body [Heb. nephesh=soul] touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
Hi everyoneI think this post of Adam's could use some emphasis. The footnote to Genesis 2:23 in the NET Bible agrees:
“The Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “being”) is often translated “soul,” but the word usually refers to the whole person. The phrase נֶפֶשׁ חַיַּה (nefesh khayyah, “living being”) is used of both animals and human beings (see 1:20, 24, 30; 2:19).”
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
So 'nephesh' just means 'person' – easy, it's not rocket science.
———————————————————
There are also a whole bunch of verses that very plainly teach that people are completely unconcious when they die – sheol and hades both just mean the grave, and dead actually means dead, contrary to the beliefs of most Christians.
For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? (Psalms 6:5)
While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being (Psalms 146:2)
The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence (Psalms 115:17)
For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth (Isaiah 38:18-19)
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His spirit goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish (Psalms 146:3-4)
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one spirit; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest (Ecclesiastes 9:10)
Really, is there anything tricky about any of that?
God be with you all
Sam
Quote (malcolm ferris @ June 06 2006,03:34) Quote The Christadelphians (and others) understand it as well, that's why they deny pre-existence altogether. True some people cannot see Jesus beyond a normal man, like us in exactly every way including (in some cases) the nature of his birth.
Whoa, steady on! Jesus was the only begotten son of God, which makes him pretty unique in my books
Have just read through the last couple of pages – fascinating reading. It's very interesting seeing the two sides of the argument here – I've read a bit about the Arian Controversy recently, and nothing much has changed at all. The Arians found the concept of the 'mystery' impossible to accept (how could God die etc), whereas people who believe that Jesus is God (no such thing as 'Trinitiarians' until well after Nicea) called the Arians poly-theists. And this is exactly what's happening in this thread! Nothing new under the sun
No, I don't think Jesus did exist before his birth.
(ps – I like numbered question and answer approach, gets to the point)
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 29 2006,04:44) He he. Might take 20 minutes to demonstrate the scriptural basis for this belief, but a life time to defend it though. The prooftexts used to argue for pre-existence are very difficult to explain away IMHO.
Well, let's see what Nick comes up withHi Is 1:18, hope you're well.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 29 2006,02:06) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 28 2006,19:41) Hi Is 1 18,
Your work ethic is undenied.
But if it takes twnty hours to answer questions does that not ask a few questions of it's own? If the answrers you give are directly from scripture then twenty minutes with a concordance will give you all those answers already written for you. And those answers are the only ones we are interested in.
Some questions do take 20 minutes to answer, others much longer. For example if I asked you:1. I've searched the entire Bible and can't find any evidence attesting to a pr-incarnation begettal. Can you please tell me exactly how you reached your conclusion that The logos had a beginning 'in the beginning'?
Sound reasoning, both of you!
(I don't believe that Jesus existed at all before his birth in the gospels.)
Quote (t8 @ May 27 2006,01:31) Quote (Sammo @ May 27 2006,17:11) What we do have is a statement of faith – this is what binds us together.
Exactly. Your faith is spelled out before the Spirit and free thought has a chance to lead you into all truth.It's like saying you are free to be led by the Spirt, so long as your conclusions include, “non-existence of Satan (being), and whatever else defines your denomination.
That is as silly as saying you can use this website for free so long as you pay $5.00.
Again – you can't get over your prejudice that all demoninations are by definition wrong. I didn't have to accept the faith that was 'spelled out' to me. But after a lot of Bible study and prayer, I decided to. Therefore I'm in the wrong because I believe something that someone else believed first?————
You and Nick also portray members of demoninations as insincere, and only wanting to please other men, and not God. This is a reasonably offensive and very false accusation.
————
You say that your beliefs are guided by the Spirit. You probably would have whilst you were a trinitiarian too. So do those who believe entirely different things to you. So saying that your beliefs are guided by the spirits counts for absolutely nothing, yet you keep doing it, as if it's some kind of gold standard. It's not.
————
You don't seem to be able to get over the fact that it's possible for a man to say something, based on God's word, that is true. (Unless you're prepared to concede that every word that comes out of your mouth, as a man, is necessarily wrong.) But if that man decides to make up a name and start a church, watch out! Every word he speaks is a lie!
Paul was a preacher. Boy-oh-boy, I hope no one listened to him. Imagine if they listened to a man, instead of waiting to be guided by the Spirit? In fact, I'm a bit upset about the articles and answers to questions that you've written on the main home page. After all, there's a chance that someone could read something a man had written, that could influence their faith, instead of waiting for the Spirit to guide them in a vacuum! Oh no!
Is it really wrong to listen to what someone says, just because they're human? Even if they can demonstrate that what they're saying is based on the Bible? In which case, whether or not one attaches a label to themselves (and a becomes a denomination
), all that matters is whether or not he/she can prove that their beliefs are from God's word. Whether or not you belong to a denomination is completely insignificant.————
This entire discussion about denominations is actually ridiculous, and I'm going to leave it here. Sorry that some of this post was a little sarcastic, but it helps me make my point.
Quote (Artizan007 @ May 26 2006,13:58) Does anyone know of any writings where the Apostles and the Jews during this time actually debated a Trinity, the Incarnation of the God Man, eternal Son taking on human from or even the Virgin Birth etc and actually spoke of it in this manner. I can see it begins to surface later on in Church history along with many other thoughts and adaptions into Greek thinking, human ideologies and both Roman and Greek mythology… but some may know of other sources I do not know to show that this is not so.
Very good point (virigin birth is legit though)Quote (Artizan007 @ May 26 2006,13:58) There seems to be nothing NEW in Christianity in its early conception apart from the addition of the Messiah and his message. ie: Phillip went about preaching the gospel of the Kingdom and the Name of the Lord. Acts 8, Peters address does not mention any difference in religion, apart from calling the Jews accept Jesus as their Messiah. God was still God, Jesus the Man appointed by God, at his ressurection became Lord and Christ but was never God. Acts 2
Yup, it was the exact same gospel that had been preached to Abraham (Gal 3:8); everything traces back to the promises to Abraham.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 23 2006,20:27) Your approach to biblical study is interesting. You took one verse from Luke.
You took from that one verse that angels cannot die.
You then, working backwards, decided this proved that proved angels cannot sin.
1. “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection”.Does this somehow not say that angels don't die? Where am I going wrong?
—————
2. “Bless the LORD, you His angels, Mighty in strength, who perform His word, Obeying the voice of His word! Bless the LORD, all you His hosts, You who serve Him, doing His will.” (Psalm 103:19-20)
According to David, angels are uniformly good.
—————
3. “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10)
According to Jesus, God's will is done in heaven – this is irreconcilable with a host of sinful angels warring in heaven (Rev 12) or coming into God's presence to try to usurp God (Job1-3) etc. If that is really what heaven is like, then in effect we're told to pray for war and rebellion to take place on earth – just like it does in heaven. No, in the kingdom, God is going to fill the earth with his glory, just like all of heaven is filled with God's glory now, where everyone does his will.
—————
4. “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?” (Heb 1:14)
According to Paul, all angels are ministering spirits.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 23 2006,20:27) Thus you denied multiple scriptures saying they can sin, but, undeterred you declared your doctrine.
Are you happy with the quality of this effort?
I guess the main passages you're thinking of are 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6? It really bewilders me that people use these verses, because they directly contradict the beliefs that they're supposed to prove.“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;” (2 Peter 2:4)
But that's not what you believe is it? If the supposed fallen angels are in chains in hell until the day of judgement, then what's the problem? How can they do anyone any harm?
—————
“And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,” (Jude 6)
But that's not what you believe is it? If the supposed fallen angels are in eternal bonds in darkness until the day of judgement, then what's the problem? How can they do anyone any harm?
What am I missing here?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 25 2006,21:45) Quote (Sammo @ May 25 2006,11:46) Quote (t8 @ May 25 2006,09:14) To me it doesn't matter how many scriptures you show these people because if the scripture doesn't match up with the doctrines of their denomination, they will reject the scripture.
How many of your major beliefs have you changed lately, t8? Do you honestly think you're any different to me, or David, or Is 1:18, or anyone else?Quote (t8 @ May 25 2006,09:14) Why? Because they do things in the name of their denomination. That is who they serve and that is where their reward lies. The greatest reward they can hope for is respect from those within their denomination. Some reward that is. If it is not in the name of Jesus, it is pointless.
That's simply false, and it's not very nice either. I'm sure that is true of some people, but you can't go round making generalisations like that.
Hi sammo,
Your posts all advertise the church you serve. If you were here to learn, as most are, you would not be proudly stating your human foundation.“Would a grouping system that represented a persons denomination be a good idea? E.g., JWs, Christadelphians, Catholic, no denomination, etc. At the moment all are in the members group, apart from admins, and a couple of other exceptions.
One advantage of this would be that a person would be able to recognise where the others are coming from. I would also assume that a person who belongs to a denomination would be OK and not ashamed to be in that group.
A disadvantage could be that it turns into some kind of competition. But I think that this exists already to some degree.
Currently I think that new members can be confused and think that this BBS is run by the JWs or Christadelphians which it most certainly is not.
I know that it is not good for believers to say I follow Paul, and I follow Apollos, but the reality is that most believers do this very thing. So rather than trying to hide it, would it be better to put it out in the open and represent it the way it is?”
Ahem
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 23 2006,02:34) Hi Sammo, hope life is good for you atm.
I think NH has actually raised a valid point in pointing out that, although Revelation is a coded book (400 verses and 800 allusions to the OT I have been led to believe!), some symbols are actually explained in the book itself. And the star/angels idiom is one of those (Rev 1:20, 9:1). I think the fact Yahshua actually assigns this associated meaning in Revelation 1:20, and the fact that a star is personified in Rev 9:1 is weighty evidence that the stars in Re 12:4 should be taken to mean literal angels. And Job 38:7, Daniel 8:10 and Isaiah 14:12 adds credence to this explanation IMHO. Although these passages have allegories in them too! But just because a passage is symbolic (as Rev 12:1-4 manifestly is) doesn't mean the individual symbols are undecipherable. Right? I think it's okay to be disagree with someones interpretation, as long as you can supply an equally or more plausable explanation yourself. What do you think the stars in Rev 12:4 represent?
In Rev 12:9 Satan is said to decieve the whole world and as a consequence are thrown down to earth with his angels. So the language in Rev 12 appears to switch from figurative 'stars' to literal 'angels'. And this of course raises the question; if Satan isn't a real pesonage why are “angels” being thrown down to earth with “him”? This makes no sense unless you attribute personhood to both entities.
Blessings friend.
Hi Is 1:18What you say about angels sounds plausible on the surface, but stars have several different uses in scripture – in Joseph's dream they represent his brothers, for instance. I'd need to give that a bit more thought.
The key to understanding Revelation 12 begins in Daniel 7. Because of this link I see the dragon as referring to pagan Rome – it has nothing at all to do with a fallen angel. Since it's hard to fit pagan Rome with having angels, I'd have difficulty seeing the stars that way.
Did you know that that was the accepted interpretation (by basically everyone) of Rev 12 for well over a thousand years? There's a page on this that I'd love to point you to, but seems to be down at the moment – but this is good too:
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=6817
God bless
SamQuote (david @ May 25 2006,04:19) Quote You make it sound like (the fallen angel I don't believe exists that you call) Satan engineered the whole thing – but it was God that mentioned Job to Satan (1:8), not the other way around! In the garden of eden, the original serpent, the one called devil and satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth (rev 12:9) decieved eve into following him, instead of God. Satan wants rulership. He wants what is rightfully Gods. More than that, he claims that given the opportunity, no human will remain loyal to God. He charges that humans follow God because of what they get from it.
Do you believe that the serpent in Genesis 3 was literally Satan? Have you thought about the futility of the curse?“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:” (Gen 3:14)
Quote (david @ May 25 2006,04:19) JOB 4:7
“Remember, please: Who that is innocent has ever perished? And where have the upright ever been effaced?”
(Yet, we know Job was innocent, blameless and upright according to Jehovah. These are FALSE COMFORTORS.)JOB 8:5-6
“If you yourself will look for God, And [if] of the Almighty you will implore favor, If you are pure and upright, By now he would awake for you And he would certainly restore your righteous abiding place.”
(they were saying he wasn't pure and upright. they were wrong.)JOB 11:13-15
“If you yourself will really prepare your heart And actually spread out your palms to him, If what is hurtful is in your hand, put it far away, And let no unrighteousness dwell in your tents. For then you will raise your face without defect And you will certainly become established, and you will not fear.”
(they were wrong)NOTICE JEHOVAH'S WORDS:
JOB 42:7-8
“And it came about after Jehovah had spoken these words to Job, that Jehovah proceeded to say to Eĺiphaz the Témanite: “My anger has grown hot against you and your two companions, for YOU men have not spoken concerning me what is truthful as has my servant Job. And now take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job, and YOU men must offer up a burnt sacrifice in YOUR own behalf; and Job my servant will himself pray for YOU. His face only I shall accept so as not to commit disgraceful folly with YOU, for YOU have not spoken concerning me what is truthful, as has my servant Job.””
(THEY HAD NOT SPOKEN WHAT WAS TRUTHFUL, AT ALL.)
Well, so what? I already said that I wasn't basing this on what the false comforters say. I'm still notQuote (david @ May 25 2006,04:19) Quote Job says:
“But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.” (Job 2:10)
JOB WAS INCORRECT IN THIS BELIEF. He made a retraction, later. He finally realized what was actually happening. (42:6)
But David, read what it says: “In all this Job did not sin with his lips”. It was OK for Job to attribute his suffering to God, that's the simple bottom line.That wasn't the lesson Job had to learn – the lesson was whether or not it was just for God to cause that suffering.
Quote (david @ May 25 2006,04:19) Quote Yet in Job 2:10, he says in the plainest possible language that God has caused his suffering, and in the very next sentence it says that “in all this Job did not sin with his lips”. What? I'm saying that Job retracted his belief that God was causing the suffering. A belief pushed by the false comfortors which brought on God's anger. He did not sin with his lips. His wife wanted him to:
JOB 2:9
“Finally his wife said to him: “Are you yet holding fast your integrity? Curse God and die!””
He held fast to his integrity.I'm certain that when God (who is in ultimate control of everything) as you believe, allows something to happen, in the Bible, sometimes it is spoken of as him doing it. He is allowing it. I'll search for examples. I'm certain I'll find them.
Job says that God has caused his suffering (Job 2:10).
Job did not sin by saying that God caused his suffering (Job 2:10).
It's not that tricky!If the message of Job was to show that Satan causes suffering, and not God, do you really think that we would read in the very closing verses:
“Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.”
God bless
Sam
