The thief on the cross !?

[Stranger]

That means your taking Abraham Bosom symbolically, not literally. So are you taking some parts literally and other parts symbolically?

It means I am saying this is not a parable.

Is being in Christ symbolic? Or is it literal?

You do not understand literal interpretation of Scripture. Literal interpretation allows for all the figures of speech to be used. It just doesn't believe everything in the Scripture is interpreted symbolically.

Thus in every type of interpretation, you will see some things interpreted literally and some symbolically.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Luke 23:43 should have the comma after the word "today" like this: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Oh yes, adding a comma would change the meaning. And you could add a few words in there to do the same. 'every jot and title'

Stranger

 

[brakelite]

You folk, as much as I love you, are somewhat lacking in your Bible exegesis. So we know that Jesus promised the thief he would be in paradise. The 'when', is the question. The original Greek doesn't have punctuation as has been noted, so the place of the comma was supplied by the KJV translators. So with the place of the comma at the very least in doubt, other information is required to ascertain whether the thief made an appearance in paradise that very day. A question arises, did Jesus go to paradise that day? Well, we know He went to the grave, why? Because He was dead. Thus if He went anywhere in death, we need some very very good citation to prove that. So far, no-one has produced any, apart from the circular argument that because the thief went there, then so must have Jesus.
So where is paradise? What other information does scripture provide that gives us an idea of its location? Revelation 2:7 tells us that the tree of life is in paradise, and Revelation 22:14 tells us that in order for anyone to eat of the tree of life, they must enter into the city, that city being the New Jerusalem, which we all know is in heaven. Also in the New Jerusalem is the throne of God, because the river that flows under the tree of life flows from the throne.
So, next question. Did Jesus, and by implication the thief, enter the paradise of God that very day where the river of life, the tree of life, and the throne of God resides, and therefore God Himself?
Jesus tells us Himself 2 days later when He met Mary in the garden. "Touch Me not for I have not yet ascended to MY Father".

 

[Stranger]

Luke 16:24
[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 tormented in this flame.

How could Father Abraham “have mercy” on the rich man by sending one(Lazarus) to his five brethren?

Lazarus is a given name and surname. It is derived from the Hebrew אלעזר, Elʿāzār (Eleazar) meaning "God has helped".[1]

Gender Male
Word/name Hebrew
Meaning God has helped
Derived Eleazar
Related names Lazar

who is Eleazar?

John 1:18
[18] No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The mercy was toward the act of getting a drop of water. In the act of sending Lazarus to his brothers, he didn't base it on mercy. (16:27-28)

I don't see Lazarus being the Son here. I don't see why it would need to be.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

You folk, as much as I love you, are somewhat lacking in your Bible exegesis. So we know that Jesus promised the thief he would be in paradise. The 'when', is the question. The original Greek doesn't have punctuation as has been noted, so the place of the comma was supplied by the KJV translators. So with the place of the comma at the very least in doubt, other information is required to ascertain whether the thief made an appearance in paradise that very day. A question arises, did Jesus go to paradise that day? Well, we know He went to the grave, why? Because He was dead. Thus if He went anywhere in death, we need some very very good citation to prove that. So far, no-one has produced any, apart from the circular argument that because the thief went there, then so must have Jesus.
So where is paradise? What other information does scripture provide that gives us an idea of its location? Revelation 2:7 tells us that the tree of life is in paradise, and Revelation 22:14 tells us that in order for anyone to eat of the tree of life, they must enter into the city, that city being the New Jerusalem, which we all know is in heaven. Also in the New Jerusalem is the throne of God, because the river that flows under the tree of life flows from the throne.
So, next question. Did Jesus, and by implication the thief, enter the paradise of God that very day where the river of life, the tree of life, and the throne of God resides, and therefore God Himself?
Jesus tells us Himself 2 days later when He met Mary in the garden. "Touch Me not for I have not yet ascended to MY Father".

The when is not in question. Jesus said 'today'. Not only do you remove the comma, but you add a question mark.

Jesus's response of 'today' was due to the theif's statement of faith that Jesus was the Messiah as he had claimed to be. Something the other theif denied. And what a statement of faith it was as the repentant thief was watching the Messiah being crucified, yet recognized His Lordship and Kingdom that He had promised.

Thus the repentant thief's statement looked to a future day. A day when Jesus would set up His kingdom, the one promised to Israel. And he asked Jesus to remember him when that day comes. But Jesus said, in response to such faith, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" Not in a future day but today the thief would be with Jesus in paradise.

That Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father doesn't mean He wasn't with the thief in paradise.

Stranger

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Well, you used the Jerusalem Bible to support your statements. Which support is questionable, as the Jerusalem Bible contains the apocrypha also.

Stranger

That doesn't mean very thing in that Bible is wrong. There are some things in KJV Bible that are translated wrong and even has additional scriptures that are not scriptures but I don't discount the Whole Bible because of that.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

It means I am saying this is not a parable.

Is being in Christ symbolic? Or is it literal?

You do not understand literal interpretation of Scripture. Literal interpretation allows for all the figures of speech to be used. It just doesn't believe everything in the Scripture is interpreted symbolically.

Thus in every type of interpretation, you will see some things interpreted literally and some symbolically.

Stranger

I understand literal and symbolic interpretation. I just don't agree with your definition of it.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Oh yes, adding a comma would change the meaning. And you could add a few words in there to do the same. 'every jot and title'

Stranger

You honestly think that commas and periods etc were in the original inspired scriptures? They were added.

 

[Stranger]

That doesn't mean very thing in that Bible is wrong. There are some things in KJV Bible that are translated wrong and even has additional scriptures that are not scriptures but I don't discount the Whole Bible because of that.

A Bible that included the apocrypha as Scripture would not be trustworthy in their notes.

I understand literal and symbolic interpretation. I just don't agree with your definition of it.

So, is being in Christ symbolic or not?

What do you disagree with my definition of literal interpretation. Because that is the definition of literal interpretation.

You honestly think that commas and periods etc were in the original inspired scriptures? They were added.

The punctuation is part of translation also. I believe the translators in translating placed the punctuations in the appropriate places. Whether the originals had punctuation marks neither you or I know. But what the originals were saying is reproduced in the translation of the copies that we have.

Once you feel free to begin moving commas and adding question marks at your discretion, you are on dangerous ground. You then begin changing the Scriptures.

Stranger

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

A Bible that included the apocrypha as Scripture would not be trustworthy in their notes.

You're also on dangerous ground when originally the translater put the comma where it is because of a translaters belief than what the scriptures are actually saying.

So, is being in Christ symbolic or not

Being in Christ is a symbolic way of saying something, because your not literally inside his body when you say "being in Christ"

What do you disagree with my definition of literal interpretation. Because that is the definition of literal interpretation.



The punctuation is part of translation also. I believe the translators in translating placed the punctuations in the appropriate places. Whether the originals had punctuation marks neither you or I know. But what the originals were saying is reproduced in the translation of the copies that we have.

Once you feel free to begin moving commas and adding question marks at your discretion, you are on dangerous ground. You then begin changing the Scriptures.

Stranger

 

[Truth7t7]

I've already texted several times that Jesus spoke to most of the crowds in parables. Mythology and parables not the same thing. I don't understand why you can't accept this answer.

Barney this is the "First Response" that you state Jesus wasn't using "Mythology" I will post your previous response for verification.

Thanks for the direct response and answer to my question on the "Third Try" of running around the bush.

No need to respond, you have answered my question.

Reference Below:

BARNEY BRIGHT said: ↑
I did answer that question by saying that the scriptures when Jesus is speaking concerning the rich man and Lazarus, that it is a parable, I said nothing about it being a myth or that Jesus used mythology in explaning spiritual matters.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

The mercy was toward the act of getting a drop of water. In the act of sending Lazarus to his brothers, he didn't base it on mercy. (16:27-28)

I don't see Lazarus being the Son here. I don't see why it would need to be.

Stranger

It doesn’t have to be the Son. I am wrong. Barney Bright gave a good interpretation that makes sense. I’ve always saw the great gulf as sin(a breach) Exodus 32:30 [30] And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Lord ; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.

I never considered the gulf as Judgement. Since the Son came as a servant. I saw Him in Lazarus place(the lowly) placed without the gate. Galatians 4:9 [9] But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Still say there is a connection in the parable: the rich man asking for Lazarus to be sent to his brethren, and then Jesus raises Lazarus.

John 12:9-11
[9] Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. [10] But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; [11] Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

 

[quietthinker]

Matthew 10:28KJV
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

To define our terms, Immortality means not subject to death.
The above text is out of context re the issue discussed.

Something to consider….. The tree of life in Eden as I understand it was for the purpose of perpetuating life. After their rebellion Adam and Eve no longer had access to it and the process of diminishment began. Death was inevitable. They would surely die just as God said would happen if they partook of the forbidden fruit. Death of the whole created person not half of the person. Immortality was never a given.
To clarify the process of mans creation, Genesis tells us that God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (or the spirit of life) and man became a living soul.
Man became a soul, he didn't receive a soul he became one. The combination of dust and the breath of God resulted in a Soul. At death the reverse occurs, the body goes back to the dust and the breath of life back to God just as the scripture says. The soul goes nowhere, it simply ceases to be. We are not told that this breath or life force has a consciousness independent of the body. In fact the scripture says their is no consciousness in death. We cease to exist as a conscious entity. We cannot be communicated with and we do not go anywhere, either to heaven of hell or limbo or some other place. We simply cease to exist.

To illustrate; I have some nails and planks of wood. I put the nails into the planks and create a box. I now have a box. Where did the box come from? It came from nowhere but resulted from the combination of the planks and the nails. If I now remove the nails from the wood so that I now have planks and nails as from the outset. Where did the box go? It didn't go anywhere it simply ceased to exist. So it is with breath and dust that God formed.

When the word soul is used in scripture it refers to people and not to disembodied spirits.
The concept of disembodied spirits has come to us from paganism. It has come to us from the lie.

Your quoted text above does not separate soul from body but rather reinforces the concept of the whole person being destroyed. The word destroy implies finality.

I understand this raises questions for those who hold to the position of the immortality of the soul. Questions of heaven and hell and the return of Jesus and the resurrection as well as others. Let them be asked and they will be addressed as they are asked.

What matters is that the tail is not stuck anywhere on the donkey except where it is meant to be.
Context here comes into its own. It fills out a consistent and rounded picture.

As a side consideration, the offer that Jesus extends of eternal life to those who believe is unique beyond description. He is offering what he himself is. Paul uses language which we can barely comprehend the full implications of when he uses the term 'in him' but this is the topic of another discussion.

 

[Truth7t7]

In fact the scripture says their is no consciousness in death. We cease to exist as a conscious entity. We cannot be communicated with and we do not go anywhere, either to heaven of hell or limbo or some other place. We simply cease to exist.

It appears you follow the false teaching in the Jehovah's witnesses or 7th Day Adventist, they also deny a conscious literal hell, and believe the person "Cease To Exist" as seen below "Annihilationism"

Hell is a literal reality, as God clearly explains below.

Questions?

1. Are you 7th Day Adventist?
2. Are you Jehovah's Witness?
3. "DO YOU BELIEVE IN HELL"?

Isaiah 14:9KJV
Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

Luke 16:22-24KJV
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
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 tormented in this flame.

Wikipedia: Annihilationism (also known as extinctionism or destructionism[1]) is a belief that after the final judgment some human beings and all fallen angels (all of the damned) will be totally destroyed so as to not exist, or that their consciousness will be extinguished,[2] rather than suffer everlasting torment in hell (often synonymized with the lake of fire).

Annihilationism is directly related to the doctrine of conditional immortality, the idea that a human soul is not immortal unless it is given eternal life. Annihilationism asserts that God will eventually destroy the wicked, leaving only the righteous to live on in immortality. Some annihilationists (e.g. Seventh-day Adventists) believe God's love is scripturally described as an all-consuming fire[3] and that sinful creatures cannot exist in God's presence. Thus those who elect to reject salvation through their free will are eternally destroyed because of the inherent incompatibility of sin with God's holy character. Seventh-day Adventists posit that living in eternal hell is a false doctrine of pagan origin, as the Wicked will perish (as the Bible says) in the Lake of fire.[4][5][6][7]Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that there can be no punishment after death because the dead cease to exist.[8]

 

[quietthinker]

Questions?

1. Are you 7th Day Adventist?
2. Are you Jehovah's Witness?
3. "DO YOU BELIEVE IN HELL"?

I see you want to categorise. To set up a me and them mentality. I have no interest in categorisation.
It holds no attraction.

 

[Truth7t7]

I see you want to categorise. To set up a me and them mentality. I have no interest in categorisation.
It holds no attraction.

quietthinker said: ↑
In fact the scripture says their is no consciousness in death. We cease to exist as a conscious entity. We cannot be communicated with and we do not go anywhere, either to heaven of hell or limbo or some other place. We simply cease to exist.

It makes all the difference in the world on your background of belief.

Why do you hide the truth?

Questions?

1. Are you 7th Day Adventist?
2. Are you Jehovah's Witness?
3. "DO YOU BELIEVE IN HELL"?

Wikipedia: Annihilationism (also known as extinctionism or destructionism[1]) is a belief that after the final judgment some human beings and all fallen angels (all of the damned) will be totally destroyed so as to not exist, or that their consciousness will be extinguished,[2] rather than suffer everlasting torment in hell (often synonymized with the lake of fire).

Annihilationism is directly related to the doctrine of conditional immortality, the idea that a human soul is not immortal unless it is given eternal life. Annihilationism asserts that God will eventually destroy the wicked, leaving only the righteous to live on in immortality. Some annihilationists (e.g. Seventh-day Adventists) believe God's love is scripturally described as an all-consuming fire[3] and that sinful creatures cannot exist in God's presence. Thus those who elect to reject salvation through their free will are eternally destroyed because of the inherent incompatibility of sin with God's holy character. Seventh-day Adventists posit that living in eternal hell is a false doctrine of pagan origin, as the Wicked will perish (as the Bible says) in the Lake of fire.[4][5][6][7]Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that there can be no punishment after death because the dead cease to exist.[8]

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Thanks for the direct response and answer to my question on the "Third Try" of running around the bush.

I had already answered this question before the third try, maybe not in the direct response as you wanted it but it was answered. You can answer a question without being direct about it.

 

[Harvest 1874]

No it does not. The righteous dead were in Sheol/Hades until the resurrection of Christ. Ever since they are in Heaven (along with that thief who was saved). They are called "the spirits of just men made perfect".

As we had stated in our previous reply we agree, “the spirits of just men made perfect” does indeed refer to the Old Testament saints (the ancient worthies), however they have not yet received their reward of being “made perfect”, as is attested to by the scripture you quoted from Heb 1:39, 40.

"God having provided some better thing (a better resurrection, the first resurrection) for us (the Church), that they without us should not be made perfect (received their reward of being made perfect, an instantaneous resurrection to human perfection.

It could hardly be said that the Church receives “some better thing,” if the Old Testament saints were to receive the same thing.

“The “better thing” reserved “for us” that are called of God during this Gospel Age is joint-heirship with Christ, Jehovah’s Only-Begotten Son and Heir of all things, the partaking with Him in all His future work for the blessings of the world. Therefore it is, as the Apostle states that the reward of the Ancient Worthies tarries until first the overcoming Gospel Church has been completed AND exalted to the throne with Christ in the dawn of the New Dispensation, now so close at hand.

As soon as the spiritual phase of the Kingdom is established in power the setting up of the human phase will begin. In humble recognition, therefore, of the Divine purpose and order in the superior exaltation of the Gospel Church, we repeat the Apostle’s statement that “they (those noble, loyal, righteous, faithful Ancient Worthies) without us shall not be made perfect.” (Harvest Gleanings Three, Page 18)

“The Church of the First-born” is to be perfected first, and on the spirit plane, “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). In due time those Ancient Worthies will come forth from the tomb to receive the blessing which God declares shall be the reward of their loyalty. As the Church will have the “better resurrection” on the spirit plane, so those Ancient Worthies will have the “better resurrection” on the earthly plane. They will come forth from the tomb actually perfect, while the remainder of mankind will be obliged to attain perfection gradually by the slow process of faith, works, obedience, during the thousand years of the Kingdom.

Moreover, those Ancient Worthies, while not members of the Kingdom, per se, which will be spiritual, will be members of that Kingdom in its earthly phase. They will be the Kingdom’s earthly representatives, princes or rulers, in all the earth, as the Scriptures declare (Psa. 45:16). We remember the words of Jesus to this effect:

“Ye shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the Prophets in the Kingdom,” but note He said not a word about Himself or His disciples being seen; properly so, because they, as spirit beings, will be invisible to men.” (Harvest Gleanings Three, Page 25)

The Lord here in this last was speaking to the religious rulers of his day (the Scribes and Pharisees), they believed in the earthly phase of the kingdom and as such envisioned that as the leaders of the people then they would likewise make up the nucleus of the government in the kingdom to come, but alas the Lord had already appointed that position to the faithful worthies of the past.

It is admitted by none less than our Lord himself (Matt 11:11) that John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets of the past (the Old Testament saints) and yet our Lord stated that the least in the kingdom of heaven (the spiritual phase of the kingdom) would be greater than he, why do you suppose he said this?

Why is the least in the Kingdom greater than John? Simply from the fact that the greatest of the Old Testament worthies were merely servants and friends, and the least in the Kingdom are sons, and no servant or friend holds as high a place in the estimation of a father as a son; so the least in the kingdom (the heavenly phase) being a son, is greater than the greatest of the servants (of the earthly phase).

One must be begotten of the spirit, begotten of a new nature, a spirit nature in order to enter the heavenly phase of the kingdom and this opportunity was not given to any until following the sacrifice of our Lord and then only after Pentecost. The worthies of the past including John all lived and died prior to the opening of the high calling, and so they cannot share in the heavenly kingdom.

So then in answer to your question: When did the OT saints go to Heaven?

They haven’t.

 

[Harvest 1874]

It makes all the difference in the world on your background of belief.

Why do you hide the truth?

Questions?

1. Are you 7th Day Adventist?
2. Are you Jehovah's Witness?
3. "DO YOU BELIEVE IN HELL"?

Wikipedia: Annihilationism (also known as extinctionism or destructionism[1]) is a belief that after the final judgment some human beings and all fallen angels (all of the damned) will be totally destroyed so as to not exist, or that their consciousness will be extinguished,[2] rather than suffer everlasting torment in hell (often synonymized with the lake of fire).

Annihilationism is directly related to the doctrine of conditional immortality, the idea that a human soul is not immortal unless it is given eternal life. Annihilationism asserts that God will eventually destroy the wicked, leaving only the righteous to live on in immortality. Some annihilationists (e.g. Seventh-day Adventists) believe God's love is scripturally described as an all-consuming fire[3] and that sinful creatures cannot exist in God's presence. Thus those who elect to reject salvation through their free will are eternally destroyed because of the inherent incompatibility of sin with God's holy character. Seventh-day Adventists posit that living in eternal hell is a false doctrine of pagan origin, as the Wicked will perish (as the Bible says) in the Lake of fire.[4][5][6][7]Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that there can be no punishment after death because the dead cease to exist.[8]

You do understand that these comments you get from Wikipedia are only the opinions of the contributing editors upon the subject and in no way represent the beliefs of everyone.

 

[Enoch111]

So then in answer to your question: When did the OT saints go to Heaven?

They haven’t.

So you say. But the Bible says otherwise. They are in the New Jerusalem right now.