-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Today You will be with Me in Paradise.
- Thread starter Ben W
- Start date
Peculiar person
New Member
Rkbo,
Jesus "descended" into the tomb and was dead until the third day when he was resurrected by the father. His "spirit," the spark or breath of life returned to the Father as do all the sparks, and was returned to Him on the third day.
Helen,
I believe I made my point about paradise on the other column and don't feel the need to repeat it.
I will speak to the "souls under the altar," and "Samuel's ghost" as soon as I have 30 minutes to spare.
Phillip,
I'm sorry, brother, are we boring you?
PP
Jesus "descended" into the tomb and was dead until the third day when he was resurrected by the father. His "spirit," the spark or breath of life returned to the Father as do all the sparks, and was returned to Him on the third day.
Helen,
I believe I made my point about paradise on the other column and don't feel the need to repeat it.
I will speak to the "souls under the altar," and "Samuel's ghost" as soon as I have 30 minutes to spare.
Phillip,
I'm sorry, brother, are we boring you?
PP
This is a good discussion and I hope I can keep on track cuse a have a tenency to wander. Lets look at.
1 Pet 3:18-20
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
(KJV)
I guess we have to know where the spirits in prison were. Some would say this is the spirits in Paradise or "Abraham Bosom" The Old Testament saints. The thief on the cross was with Jesus that day and he set them free to enter Heaven.
As for who or what power raised Jesus fromt the dead.
John 10:17-18
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
(KJV)
1 Pet 3:18-20
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
(KJV)
I guess we have to know where the spirits in prison were. Some would say this is the spirits in Paradise or "Abraham Bosom" The Old Testament saints. The thief on the cross was with Jesus that day and he set them free to enter Heaven.
As for who or what power raised Jesus fromt the dead.
John 10:17-18
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
(KJV)
I have heard the explantion that Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration was a vision. I don't know where anyone can come up with this. We know for sure that Elijah was carried to Paradise in a whirlwind. Enoch was taken also. Yet we also know there is more than one Heaven.
Bible scholars have taught that there are 3 Heavens. Paul alluded to the fact that he had saw the third heaven. This is where the Throne of God is. The second Heaven is what was called
Sheol the place of shadows where the righteous under the Old Covenant went. This is the place where the beggar Lazarus was carried to by the angels.
Luke did not write a parable when he spoke of Jesus speaking of the Rich man and Lazarus. Jesus was talking about a real person named Lazarus. It was the only story Jesus told that he used a man's name. He could have said the rich man and a beggar but he did not. He gave the beggar a name. Jesus being God was telling a story that was true. THis was a story not a parable. Jesus himself said he told parables so people would be blinded to the truth but you know the meaning of this story exactly. JEsus said the angels carried Lazarus to Abraham's bosom.
What people don't understand is that when a lost person dies he is judged then and cast into Hell. This was made plain by Jesus himself in telling this story.
I have heard the explanation also that it wasn't Samuel but a demon who appeared to Saul but that does not make sense. When does a demon tell the truth. Why would God use a demon to tell Saul that he was fixing to die. No, God allowed Samuel to return because Saul would not listen to any other person or prophet.
The Jews believed when a person died they went to the land of the shades or Sheol. Why were they called Shades? These are the souls of men, women and children.
I have heard where this talk of soul sleep turns to next. Most who believe soul sleep begin to believe in perfectionism. That you have to be perfected to ever receive a resurrection. If you die unperfected then you will just languish in the grave forever.
Usually those who believe in soul sleep believe in annihilation. The lost won't go to Hell. They just die and that is all there is.
Bible scholars have taught that there are 3 Heavens. Paul alluded to the fact that he had saw the third heaven. This is where the Throne of God is. The second Heaven is what was called
Sheol the place of shadows where the righteous under the Old Covenant went. This is the place where the beggar Lazarus was carried to by the angels.
Luke did not write a parable when he spoke of Jesus speaking of the Rich man and Lazarus. Jesus was talking about a real person named Lazarus. It was the only story Jesus told that he used a man's name. He could have said the rich man and a beggar but he did not. He gave the beggar a name. Jesus being God was telling a story that was true. THis was a story not a parable. Jesus himself said he told parables so people would be blinded to the truth but you know the meaning of this story exactly. JEsus said the angels carried Lazarus to Abraham's bosom.
What people don't understand is that when a lost person dies he is judged then and cast into Hell. This was made plain by Jesus himself in telling this story.
I have heard the explanation also that it wasn't Samuel but a demon who appeared to Saul but that does not make sense. When does a demon tell the truth. Why would God use a demon to tell Saul that he was fixing to die. No, God allowed Samuel to return because Saul would not listen to any other person or prophet.
The Jews believed when a person died they went to the land of the shades or Sheol. Why were they called Shades? These are the souls of men, women and children.
I have heard where this talk of soul sleep turns to next. Most who believe soul sleep begin to believe in perfectionism. That you have to be perfected to ever receive a resurrection. If you die unperfected then you will just languish in the grave forever.
Usually those who believe in soul sleep believe in annihilation. The lost won't go to Hell. They just die and that is all there is.
Daniel Dunivan
New Member
It seems that the major point of difficulty concerns the nature of human Being. Does the human consist of two distinct parts or are we a unity? Can I exist without a body? Truly, the OT's anthropological understanding of the human being is unity, as JIMNSC pointed out (the word translated "soul" in the KJV is better translated as "living thing"). However, the NT has places that can be interpreted otherwise. Scripture seems to vary its understanding on this issue. This question is not only debate in biblical studies but in modern philosophy. Some Christian philosophers (I think especially William James) think that the mind is the seat of human being and is closely related to immortality. The question would then be, "Can the mind exist without a brain?"
Grace and Peace,
Danny
Grace and Peace,
Danny
Does it matter if this is a parable or a literal story? The teaching is the same. Parables always have a basis in reality.
Luke 16:23
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
86 hades { hah’-dace}
from 1 (as negative particle) and 1492; TDNT - 1:146,22; n pr loc
AV - hell 10, grave 1; 11
GK - 87 { a{/dh" }
1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions
2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead
3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell
In Biblical Greek it is associated with Orcus, the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place in the very depths of the earth, the common receptacle of disembodied spirits. Usually Hades is just the abode of the wicked, Lu. 16:23, Rev. 20:13,14; a very uncomfortable place. TDNT.
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.
I don't believe in soul sleep, but...
Matthew 5:48
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Perfection is required, but it is not too
difficult to achieve if you know the right source.
Hebrews 10:14
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Romans 3:21-26
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Peculiar person
New Member
Tfisher,
(quote)
1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions
2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead
3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell
Do you know what you are quoting, brother? I don’t care whose “lexicon” you are using, these things are straight out of ancient Greek mythology and legends. They have no place in Christianity. Even the Greek word “Hades” is from myth.
“ Orcus, the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place in the very depths of the earth, the common receptacle of disembodied spirits. Usually Hades is just the abode of the wicked…”
Levels in hell? Someone said compartments in hell? Greek mythology and Jewish fables we are instructed to avoid.
“Sheol” in the O.T. and “Hades” in the N.T. both mean the same thing…”the place of the dead,” or (as in your quote”…the grave.”
What we continually fail to consider is that in 1611 (and before) the word “hell” did not mean the same as it does now. In 1611, “hell” meant “to cover or hide from sight.” (ex. - Putting a roof on a house was called “helling” the house.) Therefore, it is entirely consistent of the translators to render “sheol” 31 times as “hell” and 31 times as “grave.” To them it meant basically the same thing.
Look, I’m not picking on anyone, ok? I KNOW how hard it is to break the conditioning we receive from the time we begin to understand English. In Sunday School, from the pulpit, in hymns; even from the secular world, in movies, on TV, in books, songs, even in cartoons, we are taught . “You get to go to heaven when you die.” With the incredible volume of such conditioning being poured into our minds every single day, it amazes me that there are really atheists and others out there who DON’T believe it.
So when someone comes along and says, “Oh no, the Bible teaches we ‘sleep’ until the resurrection,” the conditioned response is immediate (sometimes even shrill): “He’s twisting the Scriptures, he’s a Jehovah’s Witness, he’s (fill in your own favorite put-down).
Ease up folks! I believed the exact same thing for years! Don’t you think I would like to believe that my parents, grandparents, some very good friends got to go to heaven when they died?? The pull is there every day with every memory!! But after much study and comparing Scriptures, I am satisfied that all my relatives and friends (and all yours ,too) are given the unshakeable, unbreakable promise from Jesus Himself of a resurrection from the dead, a new immortal body to replace this old, diseased, worn-out one, and a place in the kingdom. I know they as well as I will not mind waiting a bit for THAT reward, which Jesus is bringing with Him (Rev. 22:12).
Yeah, yeah, I hear the chorus, “So ol’ PP is right and everybody else is wrong, eh?” Well now, I’m not exactly alone over here. Just so you don’t think that I am making this up as I go along, here are a few MORE witnesses:
Paul to the Corinthians, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” - I Cor. 15:55
The word “grave” in this passage is translated from the Greek word…”Hades.”
Here is an interesting quote from history: “We should learn to view our death in the right light, so that we need not become alarmed on account of it, as unbelief does; because in Christ it is indeed not death, but a fine, sweet and brief sleep, which brings us release from this vale of tears, from sin and from fear and extremity of real death and from all the misfortunes of this life, and we shall be secure and without care, rest sweetly and gently for a brief moment, as on a sofa, until the time when He shall call and awaken us together with all His dear children to His eternal glory and joy…”
“For since we call it a sleep, we know that we shall not remain in it, but be again awakened and live, and that the time during which we sleep, shall seem no longer than if we had just fallen asleep. Hence, we shall censure ourselves that we were surprised or alarmed at such a sleep in the hour of death, and suddenly come alive out of the grave and from decomposition, and entirely well, fresh, with a pure, clear, glorified life, meet our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the clouds…”
“Scripture everywhere affords such consolation, which speaks of the death of the saints, as if they fell asleep and were gathered to their fathers, that is, has overcome death through this faith and comfort in Christ, and awaited the resurrection, together with the saints who preceded them in death.” - Martin Luther- from “ A Compend Of Luther’s Theology.”
I suppose there are reasons why we can discount Luther’s theology. After all, he WAS a Roman Catholic monk, although it seems to me that he would come down on the side of “going to heaven when you die.” Or maybe, he actually studied to show himself approved unto God.
Here’s another: “And ye, in putting the departed souls in heaven, hell, and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherein Christ and Paul prove the resurrection…And again, if the souls be in heaven…then what cause is there of the resurrection?”
“The true faith setteth forth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The HEATHEN PHILOSOPHERS, denying that, did set forth that the souls did ever live. And the Pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together; THINGS SO CONTRARY THAT THEY CANNOT AGREE, no more than the spirit and the flesh do in a Christian man. AND BECAUSE THE FLESHHLY-MINDED POPE CONSENTETH UNTO HEATHEN DOCTRINE, THEREFORE HE CORRUPTETH THE SCRIPTURE TO STABLISH IT.” William Tyndale, “An Answer To Sir Thomas More’s Dialog.”
You want to argue with someone, argue with Brother Tyndale. He didn’t need the “versions” and “translations” that 99.5% of us must use today. If he wanted to know what the Bible said on any subject, he could pick up his Greek or Hebrew manuscript and READ what it said. History records that Wm. Tyndale could speak, read, and write 7 different languages, and in such a manner as to appear to be a native in either one.
Someone made fun of the idea that we should learn Greek and Hebrew to really understand the Bible. Why do you think I use literal translations like Rotherham’s or Concordant for clarity? I can’t read those languages either. The man who COULD read them said that “you go to heaven when you die,” came from Roman Catholicism and heathen philosophers. Anybody here think they have a better grasp of Scripture than Mr. Tyndale, because I’M SURE I DON’T. Do we know more, are we somehow smarter with our “versions” than our Christian ancestors? Have we discovered hidden truths that they failed to uncover??
Or have we just become arrogant and self-satisfied…conditioned?
Uh oh, here comes that fellah insisting again I must not be a Baptist because HE never heard a Baptist preacher talk that way. Small wonder. For him, here is another quote from Christians in the 16th Century. As one article of faith, they held “…that the soul, between death and the resurrection at the last day, has neither pleasure or pain, but is in a STATE OF INSENSIBILITY [asleep, right?].” - Institute of Ecclesiastical History.
This denomination was spread all over the provinces of England in large numbers and was known as…General Baptists.
Ok, now let’s hear how there’s a difference between “Baptists” and “Baptists”; or that they were not “Southern Baptists” or “Independent Baptists,” or “Freewill Baptists.” Come on, folks!
Here is a quote from an early church father, circa 150AD: “If you meet some who say they are Christians and say that their souls are received into heaven upon death, take care that you do NOT regard these as Christians.” - Justin Martyr
Kinda blunt, isn’t he? Judgmental? Isn’t it a crying shame that all these Christians didn’t have our “versions” so they could get it right?
One more and I’ll let y’all go back to sleep. From Dr. Emil Brunner - born 1889, Professor of Theology, University of Zurich, Guest Professor at Princeton, and International Christian University, Tokyo: According to PLATONISM: The body is mortal, the soul immortal. The mortal husk conceals this eternal essence which in death is freed from its outer shell…But this solution to the problem of death stands in irreconcilable opposition to Christian thought!”
“For the history of Western thought, the Platonic teaching of the immortality of the soul became of special significance. It penetrated so deeply into the thought of Western man because, although with certain modifications, IT WAS ASSIMILATED BY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND CHURCH TEACHING…”
You know what I find immensely interesting? All these great Christian men teaching that death is a “sleep” which continues until the Resurrection, and not a Seventh Day Adventist or Russelite among them!!
Friends, I could offer another dozen or hundred quotes from well-known Christian men, but if these several don’t mean anything to you, what good would another hundred do, even from men like, George Wishart, John Firth, R. Overton, John Milton, Henry Layton, Joseph Scott, etc, etc. Not near as lonely over here as some may have previously thought.
I offer one last quote that I try very hard to keep in mind for myself: “There are more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in your (yes, and my) theology.” - paraphrased
I really do love you all, and I would NEVER say that you aren’t a Christian if you believe that we go to heaven at death (like Justin Martyr). Know what? I hope you all are right and I am wrong. I don’t think so, but I genuinely hope you are right. Goodness, won’t I be surprised.
Or maybe there is the smallest possibility...YOU"LL be surprised????
PP
(quote)
1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions
2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead
3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell
Do you know what you are quoting, brother? I don’t care whose “lexicon” you are using, these things are straight out of ancient Greek mythology and legends. They have no place in Christianity. Even the Greek word “Hades” is from myth.
“ Orcus, the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place in the very depths of the earth, the common receptacle of disembodied spirits. Usually Hades is just the abode of the wicked…”
Levels in hell? Someone said compartments in hell? Greek mythology and Jewish fables we are instructed to avoid.
“Sheol” in the O.T. and “Hades” in the N.T. both mean the same thing…”the place of the dead,” or (as in your quote”…the grave.”
What we continually fail to consider is that in 1611 (and before) the word “hell” did not mean the same as it does now. In 1611, “hell” meant “to cover or hide from sight.” (ex. - Putting a roof on a house was called “helling” the house.) Therefore, it is entirely consistent of the translators to render “sheol” 31 times as “hell” and 31 times as “grave.” To them it meant basically the same thing.
Look, I’m not picking on anyone, ok? I KNOW how hard it is to break the conditioning we receive from the time we begin to understand English. In Sunday School, from the pulpit, in hymns; even from the secular world, in movies, on TV, in books, songs, even in cartoons, we are taught . “You get to go to heaven when you die.” With the incredible volume of such conditioning being poured into our minds every single day, it amazes me that there are really atheists and others out there who DON’T believe it.
So when someone comes along and says, “Oh no, the Bible teaches we ‘sleep’ until the resurrection,” the conditioned response is immediate (sometimes even shrill): “He’s twisting the Scriptures, he’s a Jehovah’s Witness, he’s (fill in your own favorite put-down).
Ease up folks! I believed the exact same thing for years! Don’t you think I would like to believe that my parents, grandparents, some very good friends got to go to heaven when they died?? The pull is there every day with every memory!! But after much study and comparing Scriptures, I am satisfied that all my relatives and friends (and all yours ,too) are given the unshakeable, unbreakable promise from Jesus Himself of a resurrection from the dead, a new immortal body to replace this old, diseased, worn-out one, and a place in the kingdom. I know they as well as I will not mind waiting a bit for THAT reward, which Jesus is bringing with Him (Rev. 22:12).
Yeah, yeah, I hear the chorus, “So ol’ PP is right and everybody else is wrong, eh?” Well now, I’m not exactly alone over here. Just so you don’t think that I am making this up as I go along, here are a few MORE witnesses:
Paul to the Corinthians, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” - I Cor. 15:55
The word “grave” in this passage is translated from the Greek word…”Hades.”
Here is an interesting quote from history: “We should learn to view our death in the right light, so that we need not become alarmed on account of it, as unbelief does; because in Christ it is indeed not death, but a fine, sweet and brief sleep, which brings us release from this vale of tears, from sin and from fear and extremity of real death and from all the misfortunes of this life, and we shall be secure and without care, rest sweetly and gently for a brief moment, as on a sofa, until the time when He shall call and awaken us together with all His dear children to His eternal glory and joy…”
“For since we call it a sleep, we know that we shall not remain in it, but be again awakened and live, and that the time during which we sleep, shall seem no longer than if we had just fallen asleep. Hence, we shall censure ourselves that we were surprised or alarmed at such a sleep in the hour of death, and suddenly come alive out of the grave and from decomposition, and entirely well, fresh, with a pure, clear, glorified life, meet our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the clouds…”
“Scripture everywhere affords such consolation, which speaks of the death of the saints, as if they fell asleep and were gathered to their fathers, that is, has overcome death through this faith and comfort in Christ, and awaited the resurrection, together with the saints who preceded them in death.” - Martin Luther- from “ A Compend Of Luther’s Theology.”
I suppose there are reasons why we can discount Luther’s theology. After all, he WAS a Roman Catholic monk, although it seems to me that he would come down on the side of “going to heaven when you die.” Or maybe, he actually studied to show himself approved unto God.
Here’s another: “And ye, in putting the departed souls in heaven, hell, and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherein Christ and Paul prove the resurrection…And again, if the souls be in heaven…then what cause is there of the resurrection?”
“The true faith setteth forth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The HEATHEN PHILOSOPHERS, denying that, did set forth that the souls did ever live. And the Pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together; THINGS SO CONTRARY THAT THEY CANNOT AGREE, no more than the spirit and the flesh do in a Christian man. AND BECAUSE THE FLESHHLY-MINDED POPE CONSENTETH UNTO HEATHEN DOCTRINE, THEREFORE HE CORRUPTETH THE SCRIPTURE TO STABLISH IT.” William Tyndale, “An Answer To Sir Thomas More’s Dialog.”
You want to argue with someone, argue with Brother Tyndale. He didn’t need the “versions” and “translations” that 99.5% of us must use today. If he wanted to know what the Bible said on any subject, he could pick up his Greek or Hebrew manuscript and READ what it said. History records that Wm. Tyndale could speak, read, and write 7 different languages, and in such a manner as to appear to be a native in either one.
Someone made fun of the idea that we should learn Greek and Hebrew to really understand the Bible. Why do you think I use literal translations like Rotherham’s or Concordant for clarity? I can’t read those languages either. The man who COULD read them said that “you go to heaven when you die,” came from Roman Catholicism and heathen philosophers. Anybody here think they have a better grasp of Scripture than Mr. Tyndale, because I’M SURE I DON’T. Do we know more, are we somehow smarter with our “versions” than our Christian ancestors? Have we discovered hidden truths that they failed to uncover??
Or have we just become arrogant and self-satisfied…conditioned?
Uh oh, here comes that fellah insisting again I must not be a Baptist because HE never heard a Baptist preacher talk that way. Small wonder. For him, here is another quote from Christians in the 16th Century. As one article of faith, they held “…that the soul, between death and the resurrection at the last day, has neither pleasure or pain, but is in a STATE OF INSENSIBILITY [asleep, right?].” - Institute of Ecclesiastical History.
This denomination was spread all over the provinces of England in large numbers and was known as…General Baptists.
Ok, now let’s hear how there’s a difference between “Baptists” and “Baptists”; or that they were not “Southern Baptists” or “Independent Baptists,” or “Freewill Baptists.” Come on, folks!
Here is a quote from an early church father, circa 150AD: “If you meet some who say they are Christians and say that their souls are received into heaven upon death, take care that you do NOT regard these as Christians.” - Justin Martyr
Kinda blunt, isn’t he? Judgmental? Isn’t it a crying shame that all these Christians didn’t have our “versions” so they could get it right?
One more and I’ll let y’all go back to sleep. From Dr. Emil Brunner - born 1889, Professor of Theology, University of Zurich, Guest Professor at Princeton, and International Christian University, Tokyo: According to PLATONISM: The body is mortal, the soul immortal. The mortal husk conceals this eternal essence which in death is freed from its outer shell…But this solution to the problem of death stands in irreconcilable opposition to Christian thought!”
“For the history of Western thought, the Platonic teaching of the immortality of the soul became of special significance. It penetrated so deeply into the thought of Western man because, although with certain modifications, IT WAS ASSIMILATED BY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND CHURCH TEACHING…”
You know what I find immensely interesting? All these great Christian men teaching that death is a “sleep” which continues until the Resurrection, and not a Seventh Day Adventist or Russelite among them!!
Friends, I could offer another dozen or hundred quotes from well-known Christian men, but if these several don’t mean anything to you, what good would another hundred do, even from men like, George Wishart, John Firth, R. Overton, John Milton, Henry Layton, Joseph Scott, etc, etc. Not near as lonely over here as some may have previously thought.
I offer one last quote that I try very hard to keep in mind for myself: “There are more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in your (yes, and my) theology.” - paraphrased
I really do love you all, and I would NEVER say that you aren’t a Christian if you believe that we go to heaven at death (like Justin Martyr). Know what? I hope you all are right and I am wrong. I don’t think so, but I genuinely hope you are right. Goodness, won’t I be surprised.
Or maybe there is the smallest possibility...YOU"LL be surprised????
PP
PP- You certainly won't be adding a well-known name to your post, but please add mine to the side you have chosen to take. Too many times Jesus said, "..and I will raise him up on the last day."
Here is what Martha, sister of Lazarus, told Jesus after He said to her, "Thy brother shall rise again." John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Now, if one of Jesus' personal friends believed her brother was dead until the resurrection, why would I believe differently? It is likely most of what Martha believed was taught to her by Jesus himself!
Like PP, I would prefer (and feel best) to believe you went immediately to heaven when you died, but if I won't even be aware of the passage of time, it will seem as though I was in heaven immediately.
Jim
Here is what Martha, sister of Lazarus, told Jesus after He said to her, "Thy brother shall rise again." John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Now, if one of Jesus' personal friends believed her brother was dead until the resurrection, why would I believe differently? It is likely most of what Martha believed was taught to her by Jesus himself!
Like PP, I would prefer (and feel best) to believe you went immediately to heaven when you died, but if I won't even be aware of the passage of time, it will seem as though I was in heaven immediately.
Jim
Peculiar person
New Member
hrhema,
Quote:
"I have heard the explantion that Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration was a vision. I don't know where anyone can come up with this."
Uh..."anyone" can come up with this at Matt. 17:9 - "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the VISION to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead."
Quote:
"Sheol the place of shadows where the righteous under the Old Covenant went."
Jewish fable!
"Sheol" is the grave where "the dead know not any thing," and sleep until resurrection.
Quote:
"Luke did not write a parable when he spoke of Jesus speaking of the Rich man and Lazarus. Jesus was talking about a real person named Lazarus. It was the only story Jesus told that he used a man's name. He could have said the rich man and a beggar but he did not. He gave the beggar a name. Jesus being God was telling a story that was true. This was a story not a parable."
This most certainly IS a parable, written given in the exact same manner as many of the other parables of Jesus. It is not acceptable that this is a literal story simply because Jesus used a proper name. The name "Lazarus" HAS meaning and symbolizes a group of people who were put in a beggarly condition. The "rich man" with "five brothers" symbolizes another group of people. "Purple and fine linen, sores, dogs, Abraham's bosom, etc.", all have symbolic significance which whizzes over the heads of those who try to make this just a little story about one man going to heaven and one man going to "hell."
The actual teaching of the parable is explained in Luke 16:31, where Jesus explains that if the people represented by the rich man and his five brothers do not "hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be pursuaded, though one rose from the dead." And the teaching is true, because even today, these people still do not "hear" even though Jesus rose from the dead.
Quote:
"What people don't understand is that when a lost person dies he is judged then and cast into Hell. This was made plain by Jesus himself in telling this story."
What people don't understand is that when ANY person dies, he is not judged at death, but at his resurrection, whether to everlasting life (Rev. 22:12), or everlasting death (Rev. 20:15). This is made plain by understanding that Lazarus and the rich man is a parable, and not just a story!!!
Quote:
"The Jews believed when a person died they went to the land of the shades or Sheol."
What did I say??? Titus 1:14 - "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, THAT TURN FROM THE TRUTH."
Why do you give credence to fables, my friend?
Quote:
"I have heard where this talk of soul sleep turns to next. Most who believe soul sleep begin to believe in perfectionism. That you have to be perfected to ever receive a resurrection. If you die unperfected then you will just languish in the grave forever.
Usually those who believe in soul sleep believe in annihilation. The lost won't go to Hell. They just die and that is all there is."
That is all very interesting, but I have never mentioned "perfectionism" anywhere at any time. I do not even know what that idea is, or where it comes from.
All I have ever tried to get across is that traditional historic Christianity (and many even today) believed and taught that the body, the "soul", whatever is involved in making up a person, goes to sleep at death and remains asleep until his resurrection, at which time he receives his reward or punishment. Why is that so hard to accept??
Someone commented that it was easy to "twist" the Scriptures, but have you ever considered that I just might be bending them back into their original shape??
PP
Quote:
"I have heard the explantion that Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration was a vision. I don't know where anyone can come up with this."
Uh..."anyone" can come up with this at Matt. 17:9 - "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the VISION to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead."
Quote:
"Sheol the place of shadows where the righteous under the Old Covenant went."
Jewish fable!
"Sheol" is the grave where "the dead know not any thing," and sleep until resurrection.
Quote:
"Luke did not write a parable when he spoke of Jesus speaking of the Rich man and Lazarus. Jesus was talking about a real person named Lazarus. It was the only story Jesus told that he used a man's name. He could have said the rich man and a beggar but he did not. He gave the beggar a name. Jesus being God was telling a story that was true. This was a story not a parable."
This most certainly IS a parable, written given in the exact same manner as many of the other parables of Jesus. It is not acceptable that this is a literal story simply because Jesus used a proper name. The name "Lazarus" HAS meaning and symbolizes a group of people who were put in a beggarly condition. The "rich man" with "five brothers" symbolizes another group of people. "Purple and fine linen, sores, dogs, Abraham's bosom, etc.", all have symbolic significance which whizzes over the heads of those who try to make this just a little story about one man going to heaven and one man going to "hell."
The actual teaching of the parable is explained in Luke 16:31, where Jesus explains that if the people represented by the rich man and his five brothers do not "hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be pursuaded, though one rose from the dead." And the teaching is true, because even today, these people still do not "hear" even though Jesus rose from the dead.
Quote:
"What people don't understand is that when a lost person dies he is judged then and cast into Hell. This was made plain by Jesus himself in telling this story."
What people don't understand is that when ANY person dies, he is not judged at death, but at his resurrection, whether to everlasting life (Rev. 22:12), or everlasting death (Rev. 20:15). This is made plain by understanding that Lazarus and the rich man is a parable, and not just a story!!!
Quote:
"The Jews believed when a person died they went to the land of the shades or Sheol."
What did I say??? Titus 1:14 - "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, THAT TURN FROM THE TRUTH."
Why do you give credence to fables, my friend?
Quote:
"I have heard where this talk of soul sleep turns to next. Most who believe soul sleep begin to believe in perfectionism. That you have to be perfected to ever receive a resurrection. If you die unperfected then you will just languish in the grave forever.
Usually those who believe in soul sleep believe in annihilation. The lost won't go to Hell. They just die and that is all there is."
That is all very interesting, but I have never mentioned "perfectionism" anywhere at any time. I do not even know what that idea is, or where it comes from.
All I have ever tried to get across is that traditional historic Christianity (and many even today) believed and taught that the body, the "soul", whatever is involved in making up a person, goes to sleep at death and remains asleep until his resurrection, at which time he receives his reward or punishment. Why is that so hard to accept??
Someone commented that it was easy to "twist" the Scriptures, but have you ever considered that I just might be bending them back into their original shape??
PP
Peculiar Person,
I disagree with your understanding of virtually every text you have put forward for your position, and I would be more than happy to defend the traditional view of the Intermediate State. However, I am a slow typer and have time contraints, so I would prefer to take things slowly. Perhaps we can discuss one passage at a time? If you are interested in such an approach, let me know.
Perhaps a discussion of one of the key texts mentioned thus far would be a good place to begin? Maybe 2Cor.5:1-9? Or Phil.1:19-26? I am open to beginning anywhere you wish.
Pastork
I disagree with your understanding of virtually every text you have put forward for your position, and I would be more than happy to defend the traditional view of the Intermediate State. However, I am a slow typer and have time contraints, so I would prefer to take things slowly. Perhaps we can discuss one passage at a time? If you are interested in such an approach, let me know.
Perhaps a discussion of one of the key texts mentioned thus far would be a good place to begin? Maybe 2Cor.5:1-9? Or Phil.1:19-26? I am open to beginning anywhere you wish.
Pastork
Peculiar person
New Member
Pastork,
The "traditional" view, as you put it, is explained above in the quotes of Luther, Tyndale, etc. Apparently, you wish to explain the opposite view of those men, which is, as I have pointed out, the view of the Roman Catholic Church which took it form heathen philosophers. If you want to defend that "doctrine", why go right ahead.
You will find the exegesis of II Cor. 5:1-9 back on column one of this same thread. Try one of the excellent literal translations for more clarity on this and other Scriptures.
As to Phil. 1:21,23...If one dies and sleeps in the grave until resurrected as the Bible teaches, how much time seems to pass for the one who is dead? NONE!! For us, to die is gain, because when we open our eyes seemingly an instant later, we will be rising in our new immortal bodies to meet Jesus. Therefore, I too, feel that our departure is not the sad, grieving thing that we feel a funerals, because in the next instant for us, no matter how long we lay in the grave, we will be with Christ. Since most people would like that day to come sooner than later, it is hard to want to continue to strive in this sorry, sinful life when we know that we could spend the rest of the time remaining between us and the resurrection in sleep, and no time would pass for us. No wonder Paul and the rest of us are "in a strait."
As I mentioned before, we are conditioned almost from birth to believe, "You get to go to heaven when you die." It takes almost no effort at all to mis-read Scripture in support of this idea, because it is already branded into the deepest levels of our minds. It does, however, take a strong conscious effort to overcome the conditioning and believe what the Scriptures actually say.
Make the effort - it's worth it!
PP
The "traditional" view, as you put it, is explained above in the quotes of Luther, Tyndale, etc. Apparently, you wish to explain the opposite view of those men, which is, as I have pointed out, the view of the Roman Catholic Church which took it form heathen philosophers. If you want to defend that "doctrine", why go right ahead.
You will find the exegesis of II Cor. 5:1-9 back on column one of this same thread. Try one of the excellent literal translations for more clarity on this and other Scriptures.
As to Phil. 1:21,23...If one dies and sleeps in the grave until resurrected as the Bible teaches, how much time seems to pass for the one who is dead? NONE!! For us, to die is gain, because when we open our eyes seemingly an instant later, we will be rising in our new immortal bodies to meet Jesus. Therefore, I too, feel that our departure is not the sad, grieving thing that we feel a funerals, because in the next instant for us, no matter how long we lay in the grave, we will be with Christ. Since most people would like that day to come sooner than later, it is hard to want to continue to strive in this sorry, sinful life when we know that we could spend the rest of the time remaining between us and the resurrection in sleep, and no time would pass for us. No wonder Paul and the rest of us are "in a strait."
As I mentioned before, we are conditioned almost from birth to believe, "You get to go to heaven when you die." It takes almost no effort at all to mis-read Scripture in support of this idea, because it is already branded into the deepest levels of our minds. It does, however, take a strong conscious effort to overcome the conditioning and believe what the Scriptures actually say.
Make the effort - it's worth it!
PP
Peculiar Person,
1. I will leave aside any dispute over what one should or should not consider the "traditional" view, since I doubt seriously we will reach any agreement on that point, and since we are both most interested in what the Scriptures teach anyway. I would only observe that there were many orthodox Christians before the existence of the Roman Catholic church as we know it who held to an intermediate state, as well as many outside the Roman church since the Reformation who have held this belief.
2. As for your reading of 2Cor.5:8, I would observe that you have missed the importance of the parallelism between verse 6 and verse 8. Verse 6 states that "while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord". Paul clearly has in mind here the earthly body in which we now dwell as well as the thought that in some sense to dwell in this earthly body is to be "absent from the Lord". He must have in mind an experience of God's presence which is possible only when we are not "in the [earthly] body". I doubt you will disagree with this point. However, Paul's statement in verse 8 is a use of parallelism which contrasts with the assertion of verse 6. Thus, when Paul says that we are "well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord", he means the opposite of the earlier statement in verse 6. Paul thus envisions the possibilty that one may experience more fully the presence of the Lord when he is absent from this body. But he does not say that this requires that we already have a new body. And nothing he has said in the earlier verses requires that he thinks so, only that for him the ultimate goal is that we receive our new bodies. If Paul had meant to stress with these verses that "absent from the body" really means "present in a new body", he could easily have said so. Not only does he not say this, he even goes on to stress the simple idea of being either present or absent from the body in verse 9, when he says, "Therefore, we make it our aim, whether present or absent [from the body, which is what the context requires that he must mean] to be well pleasing to him". Again, if Paul has in mind only the two possibilities that your position requires -- to be present either in this body or in the resurrection body-- why does he not say this? Why does he, in fact, focus only on the issue of either being present in this body or being absent from it? And why does he think that we can be "well pleasing to Him" while absent from the body if he does not think we are conscious when so absent? In my view the text makes more sense if Paul is seen to refer to an intermediate state. This reading of the passage does not require any "heathen philosophy" on my part. It is a defensible reading of the text which does not require any reading into the text at all.
3. As for Phil.1, I would note a similar focus in Paul's statements. He clearly contrasts to "live on in the flesh"(vs.22) and to "remain in the flesh"(vs.24-25) with "to depart and be with Christ, which is far better"(vs.23). Again,if Paul had meant to contrast being in the flesh of this body with being in our new resurrection bodies, then why doesn't he say this? Instead he seems to be referring merely to either remaining in the flesh of this body or to departing this body. And if he does not see this departing from the body (and thus being absent from it as in 2Cor.5) as a concsious experience, why does he describe it as 'being with Christ, which is far better'? I know you do not disagree that Paul is referring to a concsious state in these verses. I am simply stressing the point to show that Paul pictures this state as one outside of this earthly body without any mention of existence in another body (a concept he doesn't discuss until chapter three and then only with reference to the Return of Christ, an event he doesn't make any allusion to in the discussion of chapter one).
Pastork
P.S. Although you may disagree with many of your Baptist brothers in Christ on this issue, I see no reason at all to imply that we are really just succumbing to Roman Catholicism or heathen philosophy. If you want to get anywhere with guys like me, I would advise losing these kind of straw man arguments.
[ November 15, 2002, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]
1. I will leave aside any dispute over what one should or should not consider the "traditional" view, since I doubt seriously we will reach any agreement on that point, and since we are both most interested in what the Scriptures teach anyway. I would only observe that there were many orthodox Christians before the existence of the Roman Catholic church as we know it who held to an intermediate state, as well as many outside the Roman church since the Reformation who have held this belief.
2. As for your reading of 2Cor.5:8, I would observe that you have missed the importance of the parallelism between verse 6 and verse 8. Verse 6 states that "while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord". Paul clearly has in mind here the earthly body in which we now dwell as well as the thought that in some sense to dwell in this earthly body is to be "absent from the Lord". He must have in mind an experience of God's presence which is possible only when we are not "in the [earthly] body". I doubt you will disagree with this point. However, Paul's statement in verse 8 is a use of parallelism which contrasts with the assertion of verse 6. Thus, when Paul says that we are "well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord", he means the opposite of the earlier statement in verse 6. Paul thus envisions the possibilty that one may experience more fully the presence of the Lord when he is absent from this body. But he does not say that this requires that we already have a new body. And nothing he has said in the earlier verses requires that he thinks so, only that for him the ultimate goal is that we receive our new bodies. If Paul had meant to stress with these verses that "absent from the body" really means "present in a new body", he could easily have said so. Not only does he not say this, he even goes on to stress the simple idea of being either present or absent from the body in verse 9, when he says, "Therefore, we make it our aim, whether present or absent [from the body, which is what the context requires that he must mean] to be well pleasing to him". Again, if Paul has in mind only the two possibilities that your position requires -- to be present either in this body or in the resurrection body-- why does he not say this? Why does he, in fact, focus only on the issue of either being present in this body or being absent from it? And why does he think that we can be "well pleasing to Him" while absent from the body if he does not think we are conscious when so absent? In my view the text makes more sense if Paul is seen to refer to an intermediate state. This reading of the passage does not require any "heathen philosophy" on my part. It is a defensible reading of the text which does not require any reading into the text at all.
3. As for Phil.1, I would note a similar focus in Paul's statements. He clearly contrasts to "live on in the flesh"(vs.22) and to "remain in the flesh"(vs.24-25) with "to depart and be with Christ, which is far better"(vs.23). Again,if Paul had meant to contrast being in the flesh of this body with being in our new resurrection bodies, then why doesn't he say this? Instead he seems to be referring merely to either remaining in the flesh of this body or to departing this body. And if he does not see this departing from the body (and thus being absent from it as in 2Cor.5) as a concsious experience, why does he describe it as 'being with Christ, which is far better'? I know you do not disagree that Paul is referring to a concsious state in these verses. I am simply stressing the point to show that Paul pictures this state as one outside of this earthly body without any mention of existence in another body (a concept he doesn't discuss until chapter three and then only with reference to the Return of Christ, an event he doesn't make any allusion to in the discussion of chapter one).
Pastork
P.S. Although you may disagree with many of your Baptist brothers in Christ on this issue, I see no reason at all to imply that we are really just succumbing to Roman Catholicism or heathen philosophy. If you want to get anywhere with guys like me, I would advise losing these kind of straw man arguments.
[ November 15, 2002, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]
Peculiar Person,
Since I am up late and can't sleep, I thought I would respond to your treatment of Luke 23:43. You asserted the following:
"However, a study of the original Greek text tells a different story> The following is the Greek with a literal English translation:
lego...'to you I am saying'
semeron...'today'
met emou...'with me'
ese...'you will be'
en to pardaiso...'in the paradise'"
"To you I am saying TODAY with me you will be in the paradise."
"You will notice that it reads 'saying today,' rather than 'you will be today in the paradise.'"
Having quoted your basic arguments, I will now list some observations in reaction:
1. After telling us that you will lead us in a study of the "original Greek text" and give us "a literal Greek translation", you begin by misunderstanding the Greek. Lego cannot be translated as "to you I am saying". It means "I am saying". You have missed the fact that it is preceded by the Greek pronoun soi which is translated "to you".
2.When Jesus uses the construction He uses here, amen soi lego ('truly I say to you') or equivalent expressions in the Greek text, He is in the habit of beginning what He has to say immediately following these words of introduction. For example, note the following instances in Luke:
4:24 "And He said, 'Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in His hometown.'"
18:17 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."
21:32 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place."
Observe that in each case Jesus uses the introductory formula "truly I say to you" and immediately follows this formla with a statement of what it is He has to say. Given this pattern (which may be found in all the Gospels), it is unlikely that He would do otherwise in Luke 23:43. But this is what your reading of this verse would require. Instead of immediately stating what He has to say after His typical use of the "Truly I say to you" formula, your view has Him adding an emphasis upon the fact that He is truly saying it "today", a point I should think would have been rather obvious to the thief anyway. However, if we see Jesus as speaking in His usual way, then we will punctuate the verse the way the better translations do, thus reading "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise".
3. If Jesus had meant to stress the fact that He was saying what He was saying today , He would most likey have placed the Greek word semeron at a point earlier in the sentence, which is the way such emphasis is normally made in Greek. So, instead of the Greek text reading Amen soi lego semeron ,it would probably have read something like Semeron amen soi lego or Amen semeron soi lego .
4. Then there is the fact that Jesus is responding to a request that has a time element in it. The thief said to Jesus "Lord, remember me when ( otan ,italics mine) you come into your kingdom." The thief is clearly concerned with being remembered by Jesus at a particular point in time, namely when He comes into his kingdom. The thief's lack of knowledge about what he was really asking aside, is it really unreasonable to understand Jesus as assuring him that he will not have to wait for some unknown time to be with Him, but that he would in fact be with Him today ? I noted above that it would have been obvious to the thief that Jesus was speaking "today", but what would not have been obvious is the time when he would be with Jesus. It is the thief's concern about this to which Jesus says "today you will be with me in paradise".
These are some of the points that lead me to understand the text the way I do, and I would again note that it has not required any Roman Catholic influence or heathen philosphical thought to arrive at that understanding. I have established my arguments upon a basic knowledge of the way Jesus usually speaks, along with some basic Greek and attention to the context.
Pastork
[ November 17, 2002, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Pastork ]
Since I am up late and can't sleep, I thought I would respond to your treatment of Luke 23:43. You asserted the following:
"However, a study of the original Greek text tells a different story> The following is the Greek with a literal English translation:
lego...'to you I am saying'
semeron...'today'
met emou...'with me'
ese...'you will be'
en to pardaiso...'in the paradise'"
"To you I am saying TODAY with me you will be in the paradise."
"You will notice that it reads 'saying today,' rather than 'you will be today in the paradise.'"
Having quoted your basic arguments, I will now list some observations in reaction:
1. After telling us that you will lead us in a study of the "original Greek text" and give us "a literal Greek translation", you begin by misunderstanding the Greek. Lego cannot be translated as "to you I am saying". It means "I am saying". You have missed the fact that it is preceded by the Greek pronoun soi which is translated "to you".
2.When Jesus uses the construction He uses here, amen soi lego ('truly I say to you') or equivalent expressions in the Greek text, He is in the habit of beginning what He has to say immediately following these words of introduction. For example, note the following instances in Luke:
4:24 "And He said, 'Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in His hometown.'"
18:17 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."
21:32 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place."
Observe that in each case Jesus uses the introductory formula "truly I say to you" and immediately follows this formla with a statement of what it is He has to say. Given this pattern (which may be found in all the Gospels), it is unlikely that He would do otherwise in Luke 23:43. But this is what your reading of this verse would require. Instead of immediately stating what He has to say after His typical use of the "Truly I say to you" formula, your view has Him adding an emphasis upon the fact that He is truly saying it "today", a point I should think would have been rather obvious to the thief anyway. However, if we see Jesus as speaking in His usual way, then we will punctuate the verse the way the better translations do, thus reading "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise".
3. If Jesus had meant to stress the fact that He was saying what He was saying today , He would most likey have placed the Greek word semeron at a point earlier in the sentence, which is the way such emphasis is normally made in Greek. So, instead of the Greek text reading Amen soi lego semeron ,it would probably have read something like Semeron amen soi lego or Amen semeron soi lego .
4. Then there is the fact that Jesus is responding to a request that has a time element in it. The thief said to Jesus "Lord, remember me when ( otan ,italics mine) you come into your kingdom." The thief is clearly concerned with being remembered by Jesus at a particular point in time, namely when He comes into his kingdom. The thief's lack of knowledge about what he was really asking aside, is it really unreasonable to understand Jesus as assuring him that he will not have to wait for some unknown time to be with Him, but that he would in fact be with Him today ? I noted above that it would have been obvious to the thief that Jesus was speaking "today", but what would not have been obvious is the time when he would be with Jesus. It is the thief's concern about this to which Jesus says "today you will be with me in paradise".
These are some of the points that lead me to understand the text the way I do, and I would again note that it has not required any Roman Catholic influence or heathen philosphical thought to arrive at that understanding. I have established my arguments upon a basic knowledge of the way Jesus usually speaks, along with some basic Greek and attention to the context.
Pastork
[ November 17, 2002, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Pastork ]
Peculiar person
New Member
Pastor K,
Since I probably type much slower than even you, this is all I will have time for.
Quote:
"P.S. Although you may disagree with many of your Baptist brothers in Christ on this issue, I see no reason at all to imply that we are really just succumbing to Roman Catholicism or heathen philosophy. If you want to get anywhere with guys like me, I would advise losing these kind of straw man arguments."
You are absolutely right. The "succumbing" took place centuries ago. As I mentioned before, most of us are responding to conditioning which we received from others before us who are also conditioned, who in turn, etc, etc.
It is saddening to see you think that what was believed by the greatest men of the Reformation is nothing more than "straw man" arguments. It is unfortunate that Wm Tyndale is not here to discuss this with you, and I can only repeat what he said in my own words. I am sorry you feel I've somehow cast aspersions on you or someone else.
I have to go immediately, or I would take the hours necessary to trace this "heathen doctrine"[Tyndale's words] all the way back to Baal worship, and even before that. (No, I did not call you a Baal worshiper!)
And whether or not I "get anywhere with guys like you" has never been an issue with me. I didn't expect to. I am simply offering information and I know all about spitting into the wind!
PP
Since I probably type much slower than even you, this is all I will have time for.
Quote:
"P.S. Although you may disagree with many of your Baptist brothers in Christ on this issue, I see no reason at all to imply that we are really just succumbing to Roman Catholicism or heathen philosophy. If you want to get anywhere with guys like me, I would advise losing these kind of straw man arguments."
You are absolutely right. The "succumbing" took place centuries ago. As I mentioned before, most of us are responding to conditioning which we received from others before us who are also conditioned, who in turn, etc, etc.
It is saddening to see you think that what was believed by the greatest men of the Reformation is nothing more than "straw man" arguments. It is unfortunate that Wm Tyndale is not here to discuss this with you, and I can only repeat what he said in my own words. I am sorry you feel I've somehow cast aspersions on you or someone else.
I have to go immediately, or I would take the hours necessary to trace this "heathen doctrine"[Tyndale's words] all the way back to Baal worship, and even before that. (No, I did not call you a Baal worshiper!)
And whether or not I "get anywhere with guys like you" has never been an issue with me. I didn't expect to. I am simply offering information and I know all about spitting into the wind!
PP
Peculiar Person,
I never said that "what was believed by the greatest men of the Reformation is nothing more than 'straw man' arguments". My point was that your implication that the only real reason we hold to the doctrine of the intermediate state is that we have been "conditioned" to do so because we are a part of a huge number of Christians who have simply been perpetuating Roman Catholic or heathen philosophical thinking is a straw man argument. I have given you arguments from Scripture.
As far as your take on the history of the idea of an intermediate state is concerned, I would only reassert that I would prefer to stick to the discussion of Scripture on the subject. This is the most important issue.
In response to your theory that we have all just been "conditioned" to think as we do, I would not deny that people may be so "conditioned" to believe certain things they have always been taught. I would only point out that it is just as possible that the reason that generation after generation of Christians might believe something is that it is true. I would also note that what appears to be a breaking out of such "conditioning" can be in reality the introduction of heresy. I would also observe that those who accuse others of this sort of unthinking entrapment to "conditioning" are often oblivious to the possibility that it may be they who are so "conditioned". At any rate, I think such an approach by you toward the rest of us comes off as condescending.
Why don't we just stick to the interpretation of the Scriptures and drop the rest of this pointless discussion?
Pastork
[ November 17, 2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Pastork ]
I never said that "what was believed by the greatest men of the Reformation is nothing more than 'straw man' arguments". My point was that your implication that the only real reason we hold to the doctrine of the intermediate state is that we have been "conditioned" to do so because we are a part of a huge number of Christians who have simply been perpetuating Roman Catholic or heathen philosophical thinking is a straw man argument. I have given you arguments from Scripture.
As far as your take on the history of the idea of an intermediate state is concerned, I would only reassert that I would prefer to stick to the discussion of Scripture on the subject. This is the most important issue.
In response to your theory that we have all just been "conditioned" to think as we do, I would not deny that people may be so "conditioned" to believe certain things they have always been taught. I would only point out that it is just as possible that the reason that generation after generation of Christians might believe something is that it is true. I would also note that what appears to be a breaking out of such "conditioning" can be in reality the introduction of heresy. I would also observe that those who accuse others of this sort of unthinking entrapment to "conditioning" are often oblivious to the possibility that it may be they who are so "conditioned". At any rate, I think such an approach by you toward the rest of us comes off as condescending.
Why don't we just stick to the interpretation of the Scriptures and drop the rest of this pointless discussion?
Pastork
[ November 17, 2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Pastork ]
