Talking to the DEAD

[Eric B]

You sir are indeed fooled on this point.

We do NOT quote Catholics to find the REAL teaching of JW's sir.

If the Caltholics started torturing and murdering JW's we STILL should NOT go to Catholics to find the REAL teaching of JW's. you do not go to the criminal to get a CORRECT view of the VICTIM!!

Why is this concept so difficult for some??

In Christ,

Bob

I never quoted Catholics, period. I gave several different non-RCC sources, and in fact, I even referred to The Story of the Waldenses, by J.A Wylie, Published by the SDA based Pilgrims Books (Vance Ferrell). So did that book lie in portraying the Waldenses as Catholics and not as SDA's, JW's or or Baptists, then? (Why would the RCC even mischaracterize the Waldenses as Catholics, while mischaracterizing the other groups as gnostic?)

ERIC B!

You haven't read the History written by the Born again Believer - EH Broadbent who personally investigated all the literatures available for the various groups.

If you cannot trust the Born-Again believers, there is no remedy for that as Jesus said this:
Luke 16:
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

If you would not hear the Born-again believers and their history, you would not believe even the history which may be delieverd by the Martyrs who died in the past history and may be resurrected and go to you.

This is the method of preaching taught by Jesus.
I am sure that you would not believe what the Albigenes and Cathari would say if they come again today and tell the truth according to the Bible truth.

Oh, so I'm the one the Lazarus story was referring to, who would not believe even though one rose from the dead? Does that mean I'm unsaved-- all because I don't believe the Waldenses and Albigenses were Baptists or Brethren?
Is this one person whose book you keep pitching (who I've never even heard of) the only born again believer? Is he the only one who has not followed the RCC and covered up the true history of the Catharii and Albigenses as Baptists? Again; I gave several different sources; including SDA. So what is all this stuff about not believing if one rose from the dead? What does that even have to do with any of this?
Again, every group that broke away from the RCC was not a true "Baptist" church! Now, if you can't bring me some Catharii and Albigenses from the dead, or at least produce some of their actual writings (not this one historian who happens to agree with your view), then stop accusing me of being deceived RCC lies!

Why did you come to Baptist Board while you don't trust them? Did you come here to civilize them ?

I would give you up!

Just like you, Bob and many others of us, especially here in "Other Denominations" do not agree with the Baptists on everything; I do not believe in the Baptist history anymore, but I can still come here and discuss this stuff. I don't even think all Baptists believe in that theory. It is mostly the more fundamentalistic ones (KJV/separatists and Primitives), because they have to justify their claims that NO RCC's can be saved by saying that there was an underground Baptist church all the years when most Christianity was defined as the RCC/EOC; else there would be nobody saved in all the world for the 1500 years dominated by the RCC. And the JW's/COC/sabbatarians and others do the same)

 

[Eric B]

However, now, in you guys' favor:

There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible that Jews believed in this very unorthodox doctrine of very recent origin called soul sleep.

Actually, Athenagoras, in 177AD, while believing dead saints were spiritually "alive" said that the state was more like a sleep, rather than "the continuance of immortals" (which is basically the popular view). Since the body is the receptacle of senses, and it is the spirit that is alive, then it would make sense that the soul's perception after the death of the body would be more like a sleep. Yet to the person dying, it seems instantaneous.
We refer to death as "going into eternity" (a state beyond our time and space), yet still insist that the dead then continue to perceive the same earth years, days, etc. as we do. (e.g.--if the apostle John died around A.D. 100 , he counts exactly 1900 years in the presence of God). And thus, the first death becomes the same as our eternal existence, and is treated as such. The resurrection thus becomes completely unnecessary, and is often even left out of discussions/teaching on life after the grave.

It is also true that "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" is a rewriting of the verses, though a very subtle one; and thus does not follow. I can desire to be absent from work and present with my wife and home. And while I am present with my wife, I would be absent from work. But it would not follow that to be absent from work is to be present with my wife.
Also, the Corinthians 2 passage shows that "absent from the body" is actually another term for the resurrection; v.2:"we are CLOTHED with our HABITATION [margin: "dwelling"] which is from Heaven", when this earthly "house" (dwelling), or "tent", is destroyed. This is of course, the resurrection body. Paul further says that the hope is "not ...to be [SIZE=-1]UN[/SIZE]clothed (disembodied), but to be FURTHER clothed, (restored body) so that mortality (death) may be swallowed up by life". (v.4) Further proof, in v.10, he talks about the Judgment seat of Christ, where we receive the rewards for what we have done "in the body". Rather than proving that this is what the disembodied souls will be doing while "waiting" for their new bodies, it is shown in Matthew 16:27 that this judgment is after the return of Christ, (when the righteous are raised). It will be the same body, but being incorruptible, will be different. So Paul can describe it in these scriptures as being "out of the [present, corruptible] body".

The Jews also did not have a complete revelation of life after death, so that is why the OT and the Jewish belief seem to go both ways on this issue. Looming behind all of that was the universal question for that dispensation: "If a man dies, shall he live again?" (Job 14:14). God's answer came in the New Testament, with the resurrection!

As for Samuel, he complains of being "disturbed", not brought down from bliss. In the cases of both him and the transfiguration, there is nothingto preclude the possibility that God can awake spirits (temporarily) before the resurrection for His purposes.

Also, what Bob is pointing out is that Abraham is being used to represent God the Father. This is because the Jews called him their "Father". So the Lazarus imagery is picturing acceptance of gentiles and rejection of unbelieving Israelites by the true Father, who is the one who either receives or bars people from Heaven, not Abraham. Plus, since when is someone barred from Heaven just for being rich while another is poor? That obviously is all symbolic, of the heritage of the Jews vs. the salvation of gentiles.

http://members.aol.com/etb700/1stdeath.html

 

[Eliyahu]

Oh, so I'm the one the Lazarus story was referring to, who would not believe even though one rose from the dead? Does that mean I'm unsaved-- all because I don't believe the Waldenses and Albigenses were Baptists or Brethren?

Was there a problem with my wirting or with your comprehension?
1) I remember, I have got the good impression from the other threads that you were saved.

2) As the story of Lazarus said, if the dead who can witness about the past history arise and witness about the past history, many people like you would not believe them. Not about your salvation, but the matter of History, could you understand?

You apply the argument about the history to the issue of Salvation,
Isn't this a problem with you comprehension?

Check my previous post!

Is this one person whose book you keep pitching (who I've never even heard of) the only born again believer? Is he the only one who has not followed the RCC and covered up the true history of the Catharii and Albigenses as Baptists? Again; I gave several different sources; including SDA. So what is all this stuff about not believing if one rose from the dead? What does that even have to do with any of this?

YOu just mentioned Wikipedia, I think they are not trustworthy at all because anyone can input without the prime resources. I already mentioned about Bazaar Heraclides and Key of Truth. EH Broadbent was the person who investigated the history in person, though he is not Baptist, and therefore Baptist history is supported by other source than Baptist themselves.
The reason why I repeated to mention his site was because I gave you the site. Read the following excerpts.

They often received, both before and after the time of Constantine, the name of Cathars, or Puritans, though it does not appear that they took this name themselves.
The name Novatians was also given to them, though Novatian was not their founder, but one who, in his day, was a leader among them. On the question which so much agitated the churches during times of persecution, as to whether or not persons should be received who had "lapsed", that is, had offered to idols since their baptism, Novatian took the stricter view. A martyred bishop in Rome named Fabian, who in his lifetime had ordained Novatian, was followed by one Cornelius, who was willing to receive the lapsed. A minority, objecting to this, chose Novatian as bishop and he accepted their choice, but he and his friends were excommunicated (251) by a synod at Rome. Novatian himself was martyred later, but his sympathisers, whether called Cathars, Novatians, or by other names, continued to spread widely.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-015.HTM

Again, every group that broke away from the RCC was not a true "Baptist" church! Now, if you can't bring me some Catharii and Albigenses from the dead, or at least produce some of their actual writings (not this one historian who happens to agree with your view), then stop accusing me of being deceived RCC lies!

This is exactly what I told you. Even if I bring the witness from the dead, you wouldn't believe him. Do you know why 16-17century people called the believers " Puritans" ? Puritan came from Cathari, and they were also connected with Paulicians. What do you know about Paulicians? have you ever compared your Info with Key of Truth discovered in 1895?

I already told you Bazaar Heraclides discovered 100 years ago tells us that Nestorius was quite different from what RCC has accused him of so far.

Your understanding that Cathari was dualists seems to be misunderstanding about the Manichaeans. Many people are so much confused with Manichaeans and Gnostists because RCC often accused the True believers of such accusations. What was the difference between Manichaeans and Cathari? Could you briefly state the doctrines of Cathari? Can you accuse any people with a few lines of information? What do you know about Cathari?

Do you know about Montanists? Do you trust Tertullian? He was a Montanist, right?

Just like you, Bob and many others of us, especially here in "Other Denominations" do not agree with the Baptists on everything; I do not believe in the Baptist history anymore, but I can still come here and discuss this stuff. I don't even think all Baptists believe in that theory. It is mostly the more fundamentalistic ones (KJV/separatists and Primitives), because they have to justify their claims that NO RCC's can be saved by saying that there was an underground Baptist church all the years when most Christianity was defined as the RCC/EOC; else there would be nobody saved in all the world for the 1500 years dominated by the RCC. And the JW's/COC/sabbatarians and others do the same)

Sorry, I must tell you this. I mostly agree with Baptists, especially Independent Fundamental Baptists, except the pastoral system which is somehow understandable in this era. Plymouth Brethren are not different from Baptist, but they are a part of them or another face of the same group sharing the same history.

Where is the group of people whom you share the same opinion with? Why don't you enjoy the felllowship with them? Are they not true believers for you to have good fellowship with?

During the Dark Age, there were true Christians all the time who didn't belong to RCC, and eventually they emerged as Baptists today.

Unfortunately, as far as History is concerned, in many cases we can hardly prove who is correct. However, if we see how their teachings are, how they practice their faith, then we can understand whose historical records are correct. Even the discovery of Bazaar Heraclides or Key of Truth, and the future discovery if any will prove the true history.

 

[DHK]

However, now, in you guys' favor:

Actually, Athenagoras, in 177AD, while believing dead saints were spiritually "alive" said that the state was more like a sleep, rather than "the continuance of immortals" (which is basically the popular view). Since the body is the receptacle of senses, and it is the spirit that is alive, then it would make sense that the soul's perception after the death of the body would be more like a sleep. Yet to the person dying, it seems instantaneous.

I wasn't referring to modern day, or post-Christ Judaism. The Jews rejected Christ as their Messiah and so remain in a state of unbelief to this day. In fact they have branched off into different sects, some more modernistic than others. It doesn't matter to me what Jew you quote. An unsaved Jew is unsaved; just as unsaved as an unsaved Muslim or Hindu. Lost is lost. One needs to trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ to be saved. In order to show that the Jews believed in soul sleep, you must do so from the Bible. That is the historical record that we have of the Jews before Christ. There is no evidence in the OT that the Jews believed in soul sleep.

We refer to death as "going into eternity" (a state beyond our time and space), yet still insist that the dead then continue to perceive the same earth years, days, etc. as we do.

(e.g.--if the apostle John died around A.D. 100 , he counts exactly 1900 years in the presence of God). And thus, the first death becomes the same as our eternal existence, and is treated as such. The resurrection thus becomes completely unnecessary, and is often even left out of discussions/teaching on life after the grave.

Our minds are finite. God is infinite. How can a finite mind understand an infinite God? It can't. It is true that there is no time in eternity. That is something that the human mind cannot fathom, especially when God gave us a time line of events to go by as long as we live on this earth. To try and place ourselves outside of that timeline becomes needless speculation, and vain philosophy.

Romans 11:33-34 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

It is also true that "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" is a rewriting of the verses, though a very subtle one; and thus does not follow. I can desire to be absent from work and present with my wife and home. And while I am present with my wife, I would be absent from work. But it would not follow that to be absent from work is to be present with my wife.
Also, the Corinthians 2 passage shows that "absent from the body" is actually another term for the resurrection; v.2:"we are CLOTHED with our HABITATION [margin: "dwelling"] which is from Heaven", when this earthly "house" (dwelling), or "tent", is destroyed. This is of course, the resurrection body. Paul further says that the hope is "not ...to be [SIZE=-1]UN[/SIZE]clothed (disembodied), but to be FURTHER clothed, (restored body) so that mortality (death) may be swallowed up by life". (v.4) Further proof, in v.10, he talks about the Judgment seat of Christ, where we receive the rewards for what we have done "in the body". Rather than proving that this is what the disembodied souls will be doing while "waiting" for their new bodies, it is shown in Matthew 16:27 that this judgment is after the return of Christ, (when the righteous are raised). It will be the same body, but being incorruptible, will be different. So Paul can describe it in these scriptures as being "out of the [present, corruptible] body".

So none of this is in agreement with soul sleep. A disembodied spirit is simply that--a spirit without a body, but a spirit nevertheless. And those spirits, as you suggest, wait for their resurrection bodies in heaven, or in hell as the case may be. Concerning 2Cor.5:8, here is what Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown say about it:

8. willing--literally, "well content." Translate also, "To go (literally, migrate) from our home in the body, and to come to our home with the Lord." We should prefer to be found alive at the Lord's coming, and to be clothed upon with our heavenly body (2Co 5:2-4). But feeling, as we do, the sojourn in the body to be a separation from our true home "with the Lord," we prefer even dissolution by death, so that in the intermediate disembodied state we may go to be "with the Lord" (Php 1:23). "To be with Christ" (the disembodied state) is distinguished from Christ's coming to take us to be with Him in soul and body (1Th 4:14-17, "with the Lord"). Perhaps the disembodied spirits of believers have fulness of communion with Christ unseen; but not the mutual recognition of one another, until clothed with their visible bodies at the resurrection (compare 1Th 4:13-17), when they shall with joy recognize Christ's image in each other perfect.
8. willing--literally, "well content." Translate also, "To go (literally, migrate) from our home in the body, and to come to our home with the Lord." We should prefer to be found alive at the Lord's coming, and to be clothed upon with our heavenly body (2Co 5:2-4). But feeling, as we do, the sojourn in the body to be a separation from our true home "with the Lord," we prefer even dissolution by death, so that in the intermediate disembodied state we may go to be "with the Lord" (Php 1:23). "To be with Christ" (the disembodied state) is distinguished from Christ's coming to take us to be with Him in soul and body (1Th 4:14-17, "with the Lord"). Perhaps the disembodied spirits of believers have fulness of communion with Christ unseen; but not the mutual recognition of one another, until clothed with their visible bodies at the resurrection (compare 1Th 4:13-17), when they shall with joy recognize Christ's image in each other perfect.

The Jews also did not have a complete revelation of life after death, so that is why the OT and the Jewish belief seem to go both ways on this issue. Looming behind all of that was the universal question for that dispensation: "If a man dies, shall he live again?" (Job 14:14). God's answer came in the New Testament, with the resurrection!

As for Samuel, he complains of being "disturbed", not brought down from bliss. In the cases of both him and the transfiguration, there is nothingto preclude the possibility that God can awake spirits (temporarily) before the resurrection for His purposes.

The OT saints believed in Sheol, a two compartamental place of the departed spirits--one hell and the other paradise, as Jesus described it in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Here is what Vine says on the word "Sheol"

Greek scholar W.E.Vine sums up the use of sheol, hades and gehenna, in the Scriptures, as follows: Hades ...the region of departed spirits and the lost (but including the blessed dead in periods preceding the Ascension of Christ) …It corresponds to 'Sheol' in the O [ld] T [estament]. In the A [uthorised] V [ersion] of the O [ld] T [estament] and N [ew] T [estament], it has been unhappily rendered 'Hell,' ...or 'the grave,' ...or 'the pit' ... It never denotes the grave, nor is it the permanent region of the lost; in point of time it is for such, intermediate between decease and the doom of Gehenna. - Vine's Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol.2, pp.187/8.
Hell ...Geenna represents the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom (the valley of Tophet) ...'the eternal fire' is mentioned as the doom, the character of the region standing for the region itself. - Vine's Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol.2, p.212.

http://www.reachouttrust.org/indexlinks/answers/answer16.htm


In Vine's view, there is no reason why Sheol cannot be translated "the region of departed spirits and the lost" all the time. There is another word in the Hebrew, "keber" that means grave.

Also, what Bob is pointing out is that Abraham is being used to represent God the Father. This is because the Jews called him their "Father". So the Lazarus imagery is picturing acceptance of gentiles and rejection of unbelieving Israelites by the true Father, who is the one who either receives or bars people from Heaven, not Abraham. Plus, since when is someone barred from Heaven just for being rich while another is poor? That obviously is all symbolic, of the heritage of the Jews vs. the salvation of gentiles.

So Bob is making the story walk on all fours, as he denies.
The message is simple. The lost perish (eternally in hell). The saved go to be with Christ. It has nothing to do with who is an Israelite. Lazarus was also an Israelite. It has to do with trusting God (Christ). It has to do with a person's future destiny--it is eternal--eternal fire or eternal life; eternal torment or eternal bliss. Which choice is one going to make.

 

[Eric B]

Was there a problem with my wirting or with your comprehension?
1) I remember, I have got the good impression from the other threads that you were saved.

2) As the story of Lazarus said, if the dead who can witness about the past history arise and witness about the past history, many people like you would not believe them. Not about your salvation, but the matter of History, could you understand?

You apply the argument about the history to the issue of Salvation,
Isn't this a problem with you comprehension?

Check my previous post!

The Lazarus story was about one lost person pleading for other lost people. If they didn't believe even though one was raised from the dead, then they would remain lost. If you're not saying I'm not saved; don't use that passage on me not believing the Catharii were not Baptists, because it doesn't apply.

YOu just mentioned Wikipedia, I think they are not trustworthy at all because anyone can input without the prime resources.

And anyone who knows better will see and correct it. Plus, verifiable sources will be demanded, with special tags placed at the top of the page saying that they are needed.

I already mentioned about Bazaar Heraclides and Key of Truth. EH Broadbent was the person who investigated the history in person, though he is not Baptist, and therefore Baptist history is supported by other source than Baptist themselves.
The reason why I repeated to mention his site was because I gave you the site. Read the following excerpts.

They often received, both before and after the time of Constantine, the name of Cathars, or Puritans, though it does not appear that they took this name themselves.
The name Novatians was also given to them, though Novatian was not their founder, but one who, in his day, was a leader among them. On the question which so much agitated the churches during times of persecution, as to whether or not persons should be received who had "lapsed", that is, had offered to idols since their baptism, Novatian took the stricter view. A martyred bishop in Rome named Fabian, who in his lifetime had ordained Novatian, was followed by one Cornelius, who was willing to receive the lapsed. A minority, objecting to this, chose Novatian as bishop and he accepted their choice, but he and his friends were excommunicated (251) by a synod at Rome. Novatian himself was martyred later, but his sympathisers, whether called Cathars, Novatians, or by other names, continued to spread widely.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-015.HTM

Do you know why 16-17century people called the believers " Puritans" ? Puritan came from Cathari, and they were also connected with Paulicians. What do you know about Paulicians? have you ever compared your Info with Key of Truth discovered in 1895?

I already told you Bazaar Heraclides discovered 100 years ago tells us that Nestorius was quite different from what RCC has accused him of so far.

During the Dark Age, there were true Christians all the time who didn't belong to RCC, and eventually they emerged as Baptists today.

Unfortunately, as far as History is concerned, in many cases we can hardly prove who is correct. However, if we see how their teachings are, how they practice their faith, then we can understand whose historical records are correct. Even the discovery of Bazaar Heraclides or Key of Truth, and the future discovery if any will prove the true history.

I'm sorry, but these just sound like another person with their own theories; again, the assumption that every small group that disagreed with the RCC was the ancient underground predecessor to one's own group.
This "key of Truth" I'll have to find and read when I get a chance.

This is exactly what I told you. Even if I bring the witness from the dead, you wouldn't believe him.

Why are you saying this? Why do you think I wouldn't believe them? All I have seen so far, is you, other groups with the same theory, and some obscure writers and writings you cite. That is a far cry from raising the Catharii from the dead, so you can't even compare it. Again, the scripture does not apply, and if you're not saying I'm one of the Christ-rejecting Israelites of the allegory, don't use it.

Your understanding that Cathari was dualists seems to be misunderstanding about the Manichaeans. Many people are so much confused with Manichaeans and Gnostists because RCC often accused the True believers of such accusations. What was the difference between Manichaeans and Cathari? Could you briefly state the doctrines of Cathari? Can you accuse any people with a few lines of information? What do you know about Cathari?

Do you know about Montanists? Do you trust Tertullian? He was a Montanist, right?

I know that most sources you find on them say they were gnostic. A few mostly obscure theorists claim otherwise, because they are trying to prove that their modern denomination traces all the way back to the NT, so any group that opposed the RCC and was persecuted by them is taken as representing the true group. I do not at this point see why I should believe them over everyone else, and again, they do not equate to raising up those groups from the dead; like I just don't want to believe, like the Christ-rejecting Israelites of Christ's parables.

Where is the group of people whom you share the same opinion with? Why don't you enjoy the felllowship with them? Are they not true believers for you to have good fellowship with?

I'm basically non-denominational, modern evangelical. Though I still don't agree with everything a lot of them teach. Still, that doesn't mean that I can't come to this board or fellowship anywhere.

 

[Eric B]

I wasn't referring to modern day, or post-Christ Judaism. The Jews rejected Christ as their Messiah and so remain in a state of unbelief to this day. In fact they have branched off into different sects, some more modernistic than others. It doesn't matter to me what Jew you quote. An unsaved Jew is unsaved; just as unsaved as an unsaved Muslim or Hindu. Lost is lost. One needs to trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ to be saved. In order to show that the Jews believed in soul sleep, you must do so from the Bible. That is the historical record that we have of the Jews before Christ. There is no evidence in the OT that the Jews believed in soul sleep.

You're saying Athenagoras was a non-Christian Jew? He was a [most likely] gentile Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenagoras_of_Athens

Our minds are finite. God is infinite. How can a finite mind understand an infinite God? It can't. It is true that there is no time in eternity. That is something that the human mind cannot fathom, especially when God gave us a time line of events to go by as long as we live on this earth. To try and place ourselves outside of that timeline becomes needless speculation, and vain philosophy.

Romans 11:33-34 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

That's what I'm saying. So why would we argue as if the dead saints count time like we do, which is the insinuation of saying that their souls/spirits go to Heaven, are "up there" "now", and then the body is joined back to it sometime in both their and our future at the resurrection?

So none of this is in agreement with soul sleep. A disembodied spirit is simply that--a spirit without a body, but a spirit nevertheless. And those spirits, as you suggest, wait for their resurrection bodies in heaven, or in hell as the case may be. Concerning 2Cor.5:8, here is what Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown say about it:

They sound like they're speculating beyond what scripture actually says. I have noticed this before; where we insist that the dead saints are all up there in communion with one another and God, but then we say, no, maybe not with each other; maybe they can't see one another, just God, until the resurrection (obviously, to try to maintain some benefit of a bodily resurrection that would not be needed otherwise). We really don't know, do we. Yet we keep reading this stuff into the scriptures.

The OT saints believed in Sheol, a two compartamental place of the departed spirits--one hell and the other paradise, as Jesus described it in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Here is what Vine says on the word "Sheol"

http://www.reachouttrust.org/indexlinks/answers/answer16.htm


In Vine's view, there is no reason why Sheol cannot be translated "the region of departed spirits and the lost" all the time. There is another word in the Hebrew, "keber" that means grave.

To repeat: they did not have a complete revelation of life after death, but looming behind all of the pictures of Sheol was the universal question for that dispensation: "If a man dies, shall he live again?" (Job 14:14). God's answer came in the New Testament, with the resurrection!

So Bob is making the story walk on all fours, as he denies.
The message is simple. The lost perish (eternally in hell). The saved go to be with Christ. It has nothing to do with who is an Israelite. Lazarus was also an Israelite. It has to do with trusting God (Christ). It has to do with a person's future destiny--it is eternal--eternal fire or eternal life; eternal torment or eternal bliss. Which choice is one going to make.

But it is specifically aimed at the Jews. Only they saw Abraham as their father. Only they were represented as the prodigal son's rich brother.

 

[BobRyan]

However, now, in you guys' favor:

Actually, Athenagoras, in 177AD, while believing dead saints were spiritually "alive" said that the state was more like a sleep, rather than "the continuance of immortals" (which is basically the popular view).

Well said.

Since the body is the receptacle of senses, and it is the spirit that is alive, then it would make sense that the soul's perception after the death of the body would be more like a sleep. Yet to the person dying, it seems instantaneous.

There is only "one person" here not 2 or 3.

We refer to death as "going into eternity" (a state beyond our time and space), yet still insist that the dead then continue to perceive the same earth years, days, etc. as we do. (e.g.--if the apostle John died around A.D. 100 , he counts exactly 1900 years in the presence of God). And thus, the first death becomes the same as our eternal existence, and is treated as such. The resurrection thus becomes completely unnecessary, and is often even left out of discussions/teaching on life after the grave.

Yes that is the popular view.

Christ's explanation of the process in Matt 22 completely debunks that view as he insists regarding the PRE-resurrection state of the dead "God is NOT the God of the dead" - His argument is that the ONLY way to "consider" that God still has some relationship to those that have died - is to view that relationship in terms of the future resurrection of the dead.

Paul says he seeks to "ATTAIN to the RESURRECTION".

In 1cor 5 he makes it the entire focus of the NT church.

As does Peter in 1Peter 1.

But your point is well taken that IF INSTEAD of the Bible view - we take the populist view of immoratl souls -- then in fact the Bible emphasis on resurrection is completely unnecessary!

It is also true that "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" is a rewriting of the verses, though a very subtle one; and thus does not follow.

Again - well said sir.

Eric said

I can desire to be absent from work and present with my wife and home. And while I am present with my wife, I would be absent from work. But it would not follow that to be absent from work is to be present with my wife.

True. In 2 Cor 5 we have THREE states identified.

1. PRESENT in this life and clothed with this decaying "tent".
2. Unclothed
3. Clothed with our eternal body made in the heavens.

Paul argues that he wants to be rid of this tent and to go on beyond that unclothed state - to get his ETERNAL BODY made in heaven. Gaining that eternal body is equated to the resurrection in BOTH 2Cor 5 AND in 1Cor 15.

But merely being "absent from the body" is death. It is not "CLOTHED with the ETERNAL body" - rather it is merely ABSENT from the body.

Also, what Bob is pointing out is that Abraham is being used to represent God the Father. This is because the Jews called him their "Father".

That is not my point. I know of no text where God the Father is called "Abraham" in scripture OR where Abraham is called "God". But I do agree that in places like Rom 4 he is called "Father of the Faithful" even by Christians - just not God the Father. NOR someone that we would pray to.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The OT saints believed in Sheol, a two compartamental place of the departed spirits--one hell and the other paradise, as Jesus described it in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Here is what Vine says on the word "Sheol"

This is totally without Bible merit at all!

There IS NO text that assigne "paradise to Sheol".

there is NO text that assigns "Sheol to Paradise"

NO NOT IN ALL of scripture.

Why not make a Bible based argument instead?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Eric said
That's what I'm saying. So why would we argue as if the dead saints count time like we do, which is the insinuation of saying that their souls/spirits go to Heaven, are "up there" "now", and then the body is joined back to it sometime in both their and our future at the resurrection?

Excellent observation sir!

Please add this one detail. In 2Cor 5 we have a HEAVENLY ETERNAL body made in the heavens for us. As you have rightly noted we RECEIVE our body at the resurrection -- however the "popular myths" going around today WANT to take the 2Cor 5 ETERNAL body and hand it to you BEFORE the resurrection!!

So now - what use is the resurrection in that confused jumbled up theology that insists on "IGNORING" the unclothed state of 2Cor 5? As you have rightly pointed out the BIBLE doctrine is that the soul/spirit is united with the body at the RESURRECTION not at death!

So by admitting to the THREE states in 2Cor 5 the problem is solved. The eternal body is RECEIVED at the resurrection JUST as 1Cor 15 also states!

Eric said -

They sound like they're speculating beyond what scripture actually says. I have noticed this before; where we insist that the dead saints are all up there in communion with one another and God, but then we say, no, maybe not with each other; maybe they can't see one another, just God, until the resurrection (obviously, to try to maintain some benefit of a bodily resurrection that would not be needed otherwise). We really don't know, do we. Yet we keep reading this stuff into the scriptures.

What a joy to see that light dawning!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Time and eternity.

All - without TIME there is no SEQUENCE.
Withtout SEQUENCE there is no EVENT.
Without sequence and event there is LEARNING for finite non-god beings.

ONLY GOD can exist without time - and even that is up to debate.

Rather it is more correct to say "Without God there is no time".

You can not "go to heaven and then LATER get resurrected" if there is no time because that requires both sequence and EVENTs.

The soul goes to a dormant state in death as scripture points out. But that is not because time does not exist - it is because the soul can not function apart from the body.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 22:23-34 Christ insists that God is not the God of the dead.

Praise to God - ceases at death
Ps 115:17 the dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence;
18 [b]but as for us, we will bless[/b] the lord from this time forth and forever. Praise the lord!
Ps30:9 yet clearly when the living worship we "worship in spirit" John 4:24 -

No thanks or praise to God given by those that are dead.
Is 38:18 “for sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hopefor your faithfulness.
19 “it is the living who give thanks to you, as I do today;

No memory of God
Ps 6:5for there is no mention of you in death; in sheol who will give you thanks?

No thought activity

Ps 146:2 I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.
3 do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 how blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Ecclesiasties 9:5-6 they have no activity

Ps 143
3Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.

Isaiah 38
18"For Sheol cannot thank You,
Death cannot praise You;
Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness.
19"It is the living who give thanks to You, as I do today;
A father tells his sons about Your faithfulness.

By ignoring these texts we are open to the arguments in favor of praying to the Dead that Agnus-Dei has presented.

By paying attention to EACH of the "inconvenient details" listed above we are protected from the errors of praying to the DEAD.

2 Peter 1 –

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

 

[Eliyahu]

Matt 22:23-34 Christ insists that God is not the God of the dead.

Praise to God - ceases at death
Ps 115:17 the dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence;
18 [b]but as for us, we will bless[/b] the lord from this time forth and forever. Praise the lord!
Ps30:9 yet clearly when the living worship we "worship in spirit" John 4:24 -

No thanks or praise to God given by those that are dead.
Is 38:18 “for sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hopefor your faithfulness.
19 “it is the living who give thanks to you, as I do today;

No memory of God
Ps 6:5for there is no mention of you in death; in sheol who will give you thanks?

No thought activity

Ps 146:2 I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.
3 do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
5 how blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Ecclesiasties 9:5-6 they have no activity

Ps 143===146
3Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.

Isaiah 38
18"For Sheol cannot thank You,
Death cannot praise You;
Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness.
19"It is the living who give thanks to You, as I do today;
A father tells his sons about Your faithfulness.

By ignoring these texts we are open to the arguments in favor of praying to the Dead that Agnus-Dei has presented.

By paying attention to EACH of the "inconvenient details" listed above we are protected from the errors of praying to the DEAD.

2 Peter 1 –

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

You brought the very useful verses. Psalm 115 and 146 are very useful on this discussion. But please correct 143 to psalm 146 in the second passage.

Matt 22, God of the living versus, not God of the Dead, means God is the God of the Born-Again believers, and it doesn't mean that God doesn't know about the people going to the Hell, or it doesn't mean that everybody is still alive after the death.

God of Abraham, God of Issac, God of Jacob means that God is the God of the Born-Again believers who have the eternal life, and God helps those people. Developing another theology from that statement that every Dead is alive is absurd.

Jesus had to find the proof for the resurrection only among the Tora because Saduccees never admitted other than Pentateuch, for the doctrines. It doesn't teach that the Dead can pray and praise God, or that the Dead are still active helping the people alll around the world, throughout the ages, unless we have to believe all the dead become gods.

 

[Eric B]

That is not my point. I know of no text where God the Father is called "Abraham" in scripture OR where Abraham is called "God". But I do agree that in places like Rom 4 he is called "Father of the Faithful" even by Christians - just not God the Father. NOR someone that we would pray to.

In Christ,

Bob

Still, the scripture doesn't call Abraham the Father, but the Jews looked at him as their "Father"; the one who basically a person was "in" or "out of", so Jesus was using him to represent God, as being a child of God is what makes a person spiritually a child of Abraham, and granted eternal life. That's why the rich man is apparently "praying to" Abraham, and Abraham is essentially the one denying him entry to the Kingdom, which we know is really only God's role. I thought that was what you understood and were trying to communicate.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that Abraham was viewed as the Father of the Jews. Also in Luke 16 Christ has just completed an entire string of parables starting around chapter 13. At the end the Jews complain that they are not satisified with any of them.

It is THEN that Christ tells this "Abraham is in charge of all dead saints" parable -- which as you point out - is something that the Jews WILL accept! However He uses this imagry to lead them from where their bias and prejudice has left them - to HIS point about accepting/rejecting scripture and how doing that would lead to accepting/rejecting the Messiah predicted by the scriptures.

I also agree that the Jews preferred to see Abaraham in an almost-god-like role. And I agree that the parable presents Abraham in a role that only God could fulfill - (not that we have any NT or OT Bible author doing that) yet Christ uses a parable with Abraham in the very role that the Jews would prefer to see him in as a way to get them engaged in the parable's illustration. As in the case of the OT "trees meeting to elect a king" it is simply a fictional illustration meant to convey a truth in real life.

So he gets them going on a point where they would all be "inclined" to listen even if it is just a parable - then He slams home a point that confronts their scripture-denying stance at the start of Luke 16.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A number of Bible scholars that prefer to believe in the immortal soul idea - have also admitted to the obvious fact that Luke 16 pretty much has to be a parable.

Burton Coffman

http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

Verse 24
And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.
Father Abraham ...
Here is found the absolute necessity for seeing this as a parable; for Abraham himself, like all the saints in death, is in the place here called "Abraham's bosom." Abraham is therefore a type of God who presides over both Paradise and the place of the wicked in Hades. This, of course, negates any support that might be supposed in this connection for praying to departed saints. Besides that, as Wesley said:
It cannot be denied but here in Scripture is the precedent of praying to departed saints. But who is it that prays, and with what success? Will anyone who considers this be found copying after him?

Obviously MY point is that when EVEN the scholars in the living-dead camp admit that Luke 16 is a parable - we have a level of "objective proof" being given here that TRANSCENDS both sides of the argument!! That level of objective reasoning has never been shown from the other side of this debate!

 

[BobRyan]

Again - I would point out that many Bible scholars that DO embrace the idea of the dead being in a conscious state (though it has no support from scripture) STILL firmly admit that the details of the parable of Luke 16 SHOW it to BE a parable.

Matthew Henry on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16
“As the parable of the prodigal son set before us the grace of the gospel, which is encouraging to us all, so this sets before us the wrath to come, and is designed for our awakening; and very fast asleep those are in sin that will not be awakened by it. The Pharisees made a jest of Christ's sermon against worldliness; now this parable was intended to make those mockers serious.”
…
Parables must not be forced beyond their primary intention, and therefore we must not hence infer that any one can befriend us if we lie under the displeasure of our Lord, but that, in the general, we must so lay out what we have in works of piety and charity as that we may meet it again with comfort on the other side death and the grave.
…
This parable is not like Christ's other parables, in which spiritual things are represented by similitudes borrowed from worldly things, as those of the sower and the seed (except that of the sheep and goats), the prodigal son, and indeed all the rest but this. But here the spiritual things themselves are represented in a narrative or description of the different state of good and bad in this world and the other. Yet we need not call it a history of a particular occurrence, but it is matter of fact that is true every day, that poor godly people, whom men neglect and trample upon, die away out of their miseries
http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

 

[Eliyahu]

Bob,
You are very much correct on this issue.
Are those 2 sites run by SDA?

I thought Waldensians and Anabaptists were condemned as believing in Soul Sleep. Such claim could naturally come as a result of their objection to the Prayer to the Dead, prayer to Mary, the dead woman believer.

Now I wonder if the Soul Sleep is not the over-all belief of Baptists or only DHK objects to it.
DHK, would you clarify on this?

 

[Eliyahu]

The Lazarus story was about one lost person pleading for other lost people. If they didn't believe even though one was raised from the dead, then they would remain lost. If you're not saying I'm not saved; don't use that passage on me not believing the Catharii were not Baptists, because it doesn't apply.
And anyone who knows better will see and correct it. Plus, verifiable sources will be demanded, with special tags placed at the top of the page saying that they are needed.

Again, I never raised the question about your salvation. I do remember your confession in other thread. That was not the point. But I simplified my reasoning and logic quite a lot in that statement. My point is this:

1) Salvation is difficult to be accepted by many people.
2) The teachings for the life after the Salvation need another effort for the acceptance as we read Gal 4:19
19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
This means that the life after the salvation need another effort with the assistance of Holy Spirit.
3) Understanding the past history requires another effort with the assistance of Holy Spirit again.

In other words, I do understand that many people would not accept the true history of the church of God so easily, but it takes almost the same degree of difficulty as the acceptance of the salvation though the salvation means the start of all good reasoning.

However, we must remember the great principle.

Did God desert His church during the Dark Age?

Was RCC the True church of God during the Dark Age?

Was there any era or time when there was no True Church of God, especially during the Dark Age?


Then you have to read beyond the statements written by the historians, in addition to their literal statements. Otherwise we can hardly grasp the whole picture of them.

As for Wikipedia, it is the common people's popular history. If there is a debate on a certain issues, they decide by voting. There are so many factors which have to rely on the human reasoning between the proven facts and proven data. Let's think about Theotokos. Throughout the world, RCC 1.3 billion, Greek and Russian Orthodox 0.6 billion, COE more than 0.1 billion, other orthodox etc calling Mary as Mother of God more than 0.1` billion again. If you read about Theotokos, the mother of God or about Nestorius who refused Theotokos, from Wikipedia, can you expect the True Observation on it as God knows about them?
Throughout the world, the people who object to calling Mary as Mother of God is much less than 10% of so-called Christendom, may be even less than 1%. The true believers don't have much time to work for the correction of each word stated in the statements on Wiki, but the worldly people bring very much superficial information without the spiritual understanding. As for Waldensians, Wiki says they started from 12 c by Peter Waldo ( they may change this stance some time later), while Baptists and I believe that they can be traced back to 3 c AD, or even to the Early Church in the Bible. One thing very clear is that Waldense is from German word, as Wald means Forest, and the German plural is to add "en"
Waldensian could have meant " the people living in the Forest" avoiding RCC. Then their start has nothing to do with Peter Waldo. King James Version reflected the several translations such as: Tyndale Bible, Geneva Bible by Olivetan, Luther Bible etc. They were all greatly influenced by Waldensians,and the Waldensians shared the same Bible with Devauis ( Albigene) people. Albigenes were translating and preserving the Bible while RCC was burning the Bible and killing the people who read it. Could the Heretics be eager for the Words of God that much?

Even Key of Truth can be interpreted in far different ways as it is written in Armenian language. One of the Paulician leaders was converted from a Manichaean, then RCC and their followers condemned Paulicians as Manichaeans, and RCC accused them of the same teachings which Paulicians never believed. Why did RCc destroy all the documents without leaving any proof? Is the Bible teaching them to torture, kill, and eradicate all the proofs? Can we trust Murderers? Can we trust Idol worshippers? Does Bible teach so? Does Bible teach us to trust fake Christians? or does it ask us to check it in person ?

So, the True history needs another effort as we devoted ourselves to the salvation and to the truth of church gathering.

I would not comment on the others.

 

[DHK]

Bob,
You are very much correct on this issue.
Are those 2 sites run by SDA?

I thought Waldensians and Anabaptists were condemned as believing in Soul Sleep. Such claim could naturally come as a result of their objection to the Prayer to the Dead, prayer to Mary, the dead woman believer.

Now I wonder if the Soul Sleep is not the over-all belief of Baptists or only DHK objects to it.
DHK, would you clarify on this?

I have never known of a Baptist to believe in soul sleep or the annihilation of the wicked. Both doctrines are heretical, as far as orthodox Christianity is concerned. Here is what David Cloud (IFB) says:

That Adventist leaders have hatred of the Bible doctrine of conscious existence after death is well illustrated in the following quote from Ellen White:
"And how utterly revolting is the belief that as soon as the breath leaves the body the soul of the impenitent is consigned to the flames of hell! ... the doctrine of natural immortality first borrowed from pagan philosophy, and in the darkness of the great apostasy incorporated into the Christian faith, has supplanted the truth" (The Great Controversy, pp. 478, 483).
Following are the specific planks which the Adventist denomination uses to build the soul sleep heresy. SDA doctrine is contrasted with the Bible’s teaching.
WHAT ADVENTISM TEACHES: The natural man does not have eternal existence. The foundation stone for the Adventist doctrine that death is a total cessation of conscious existence is found in their teaching that fallen man does not possess eternal existence.
"Immortality, promised to man on condition of obedience, had been forfeited by transgression. Adam could not transmit to this posterity that which he did not possess; and there could have been no life for the fallen race had not God, by the sacrifice of His Son, brought immortality within their reach ... the only one who promised Adam life in disobedience was the great deceiver" (The Great Controversy, pp. 467-468, 481).
That there is much truth in the above statement, cannot be denied. Man lost much in Adam’s sin. There is a very real Bible sense in which immortality only comes through Christ to true believers. But to say that because of Adam’s fall man no longer has conscious existence after death is strictly contrary to plain Bible teaching.
WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES: Immortality is used in different senses in Scripture. In one sense, only God has immortality. In another sense, only those who are saved will have immortality. In yet another sense, every man has an immortal soul.
There are two Greek words translated "immortal." Athanasia means deathlessness and is translated immortal in 1 Co. 15:53,54 and 1 Ti. 6:16. Aphthartos is translated "immortal" in Ro. 2:7; 1 Ti. 1:17; and 2 Ti. 1:10. The same word is translated "incorrupt" and is used to describe the resurrection body (1 Co. 15:42,50,52,53,54), God (Ro. 1:23), the Christian’s reward (1 Co. 9:25), the Christian’s inheritance (1 Pe. 1:4), the Word of God (1 Pe. 1:23), and the inner man (1 Pe. 3:4). The root meaning of aphthartos is "undecaying in essence" (Strong).
1. The immorality of eternal life. The term "immortality" is sometimes used synonymously with eternal life in Jesus Christ (Ro. 2:7; 2 Ti. 1:10). This immortality is the gift of God through Christ and is possessed only by the saved. Immortality in this sense refers to the blessed state of being passed from spiritual death into life, of being forever united to Christ Jesus in positional justification. This immortality will be enjoyed in its fullest sense when the saved are given their immortal glorified bodies.
2. The immortality of God. There is another sense in which only God is said to possess immortality. "...the Lord of lords; who only hath immortality..." (1 Ti. 6:15-16). As the sole source and giver of life, only the eternal God naturally possesses immortality.
3. The immortal soul. The term "immortal" in the sense of deathlessness, as it is sometimes used in Scripture, can apply to the condition of even the unsaved. This is simply in the sense of everlasting consciousness, which the Bible plainly teaches the lost must suffer (Re. 20:10-15; 14:10-11; Mt. 25:46; Mk. 9:43- 48). Man possesses an immaterial conscious soul, or spirit, which is distinct from the body. This soul continues to have conscious existence after death and throughout eternity whether it is saved or lost. We will demonstrate this from Scripture under the next point.
WHAT ADVENTISM TEACHES: The body and soul are not separate entities that can be parted at death. Seventh-day Adventism denies that man possesses a soul or spirit which is distinct from the body and which has existence apart from the body after death.
"...the soul of man nowhere is represented as a separate, conscious part of man existing as such when the body sleeps in death..." (When A Man Dies, pp. 32- 33).
"...the soul of man in the Word of God is everywhere represented as mortal and transitory, sharing the fortunes and destiny of the body. It comes with the breath; it goes with the breath. It is imprisoned with the body, killed and poured out in the blood. It has no function or power of manifestation or of action, no existence, apart from the body..." (When A Man Dies, p. 32).
Adventist leaders find their main support for this idea in the book of Genesis: "Now listen. ‘And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.’ Nowhere are we told in Scripture that God gave man a living soul. Man became a living soul as the result of the union of the body with the breath of life" (Planet in Rebellion, p. 321).
WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES: The word soul has different meanings in Scripture. Sometimes it does refer to the whole man. Often, though, it refers to a conscious, immaterial part of man that exists apart from the body beyond death. Words in the Bible must be defined by the context in which they are found, since almost all Bible words have various usages and definitions in different contexts. This is true with words in normal language usage in or out of the Bible.
Old Testament examples of the soul as an immaterial, conscious part of the man are seen in Genesis 35:18 and 1 Kings 17:21-22. In Genesis 35 the death of Rachel is recorded, and we learn that her soul departed when she died. "...as her soul was in departing, (for she died)..." In 1 Kings 17 it is recorded that a young boy died and was raised again through Elijah’s ministry. The Bible plainly says his soul departed and returned to him: "...O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived." Obviously the prophet Elijah did not have the same idea about the soul and death as the Adventists do.
In the New Testament, the word "soul" is also used to describe a spiritual part of man distinct from his body. "...I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Th. 5:23). Here we are told that man has three parts. Paul did not say man IS a soul; he says man HAS a soul.
The cults use the faulty "key method" of Bible interpretation. This means they develop a definition of a certain word or phrase from selected passages, then force that definition upon every passage, regardless of the context. They interpret all passages by this preconceived meaning or "key." This is faulty and dangerous. Bible words and phrases must always be defined in light of the particular context in which they are located and never according to some preconceived "key." This is true of the words "soul," "death," "spirit," even "immortality." Let the Bible student beware of developing definitions of Bible words that do not give the Bible freedom to define its words differently in various contexts.

file:///C:/FundamentalBaptistLibrary2000/WWW/Ency/ency0068.htm#0068_13FA

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,
You are very much correct on this issue.
Are those 2 sites run by SDA?

#1. Matthew Henry is not SDA. The quote I gave from his work is not SDA nor is his the only non-SDA Bible commentary that readily admits to the obvious fact of the parable in Luke 16 -- his commentaries are available from a number of sites.

#2. I don't know who pays for studylight. My main interest was just to find a place for commentaries that all can easily reference and to use non-SDA well known, well respected authors to avoid the emtpy ranting of the form "SDAs are the only ones that notice that Luke 16 is a parable"


In Christ,

Bob