WHEN WE ALL GET TO HEAVEN, WHAT A DAY OF REJOICING THAT WILL BE?

[StanJ]

Stan,

When you understand the meaning of a red herring logical fallacy and how you use it, then you'll know how you use it on this forum. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html.

Bye, Oz

Not the issue and I wish you would stop using this deflection everytime you fail to be able to answer a question.

 

[OzSpen]

Very cute.
I'm asking you right out loud, here in an open forum, Oz.
Do you have a problem with me?
If you do, then I'm asking you to state it...right here on an open forum.

The Barrd,

I've given you my reply in a PM and that content has not changed.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Very cute.
I'm asking you right out loud, here in an open forum, Oz.
Do you have a problem with me?
If you do, then I'm asking you to state it...right here on an open forum.

That is against the rules Barrd. I'm pretty sure you know that, or are you trying to get Oz infracted?

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

When you understand the meaning of a red herring logical fallacy and how you use it, then you'll know how you use it on this forum. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html.

Bye, Oz

And when you know what they are, and learn to identify them AS such, not just assert they are, then we'll get along just fine. Until then all you are doing is being disruptive and uncooperative.

 

[Barrd]

That is against the rules Barrd. I'm pretty sure you know that, or are you trying to get Oz infracted?

No, Stan, I'm not.
I'm making him "Biblically accountable" for his accusations, as he puts it when he climbs someone else's tree about our behavior in the forum.

I do not say anything in private that I would be ashamed to reveal in public...

 

[Barrd]

Where, exactly, is "Paradise"?

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Evidently, it is where God lives.

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

And doesn't it sound like a beautiful place...

 

[StanJ]

No, Stan, I'm not.
I'm making him "Biblically accountable" for his accusations, as he puts it when he climbs someone else's tree about our behavior in the forum.
I do not say anything in private that I would be ashamed to reveal in public...

Not the issue Barrd. Staying ON TOPIC and not airing personal dirty laundry is the issue. You can put him on ignore, but apparently that is not something you stick with as is evidenced by your recent replies to mjr?
The point also is that some things should be in PMs and NOT in public.

 

[StanJ]

Where, exactly, is "Paradise"?

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Evidently, it is where God lives.Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

And doesn't it sound like a beautiful place...

Why are you reposting this when I answered it already in #22?

 

[Barrd]

Why are you reposting this when I answered it already in #22?

I must have missed your reply.

 

[StanJ]

I must have missed your reply.

That is apparent....I'll look for your response.

 

[Angelina]

and just exactly WHERE is THERE. ;)

Not here. People, please stick to the O/P or this thread will be closed. Thank you all.

 

[heretoeternity]

Revelation 22 (14) "blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates of the city" 22 (15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolators, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie".

 

[OzSpen]

We have an interesting OT verse that speaks of what happens at death: Ecclesiastes 12:7 (ESV), "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it". Other translations are: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (KJV); "and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (NIV).

Some who support annihilation for the unbeliever at death want to translate 'spirit' as 'breath'. None of these translations uses "breath" instead of "spirit". Why? Because that is not what the word means in context. See the support for "spirit" translated as "breath" HERE.

How do we know that "spirit" in Eccl. 12:7 does not mean "breath"?

If we look at the context in Eccl. 12:5, it states what is happening at death, "Man is going to his eternal home, and the mourners go about the streets" (ESV). What happens at death as breath ceases is not what is stated in Eccl. 12. It is referring to human beings going to their "eternal home", which means at death, "The dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (ESV). How do we know?

Eccl. 3:21 asks, "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" (KJV). The implication is that the spirit of beasts perishes with the body (goeth downward to the earth), but the human spirit survives death (as in Eccl. 12:5-7). It is inaccurate contextually to say that "the breath of man goeth upward". Why? Because at death, the breath ceases but the person lives on.

Psalm 104:29 also emphasises that the breath ceases at death: "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust" (KJV). Cf. Gen. 3:19; Job 10:9; Ps. 90:3; 103:14; and Eccl. 3:20.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

We have an interesting OT verse that speaks of what happens at death: Ecclesiastes 12:7 (ESV), "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it". Other translations are: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (KJV); "and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (NIV).

Some who support annihilation for the unbeliever at death want to translate 'spirit' as 'breath'. None of these translations uses "breath" instead of "spirit". Why? Because that is not what the word means in context. See the support for "spirit" translated as "breath" HERE.

How do we know that "spirit" in Eccl. 12:7 does not mean "breath"?

If we look at the context in Eccl. 12:5, it states what is happening at death, "Man is going to his eternal home, and the mourners go about the streets" (ESV). What happens at death as breath ceases is not what is stated in Eccl. 12. It is referring to human beings going to their "eternal home", which means at death, "The dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (ESV). How do we know?

Eccl. 3:21 asks, "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" (KJV). The implication is that the spirit of beasts perishes with the body (goeth downward to the earth), but the human spirit survives death (as in Eccl. 12:5-7). It is inaccurate contextually to say that "the breath of man goeth upward". Why? Because at death, the breath ceases but the person lives on.

Psalm 104:29 also emphasises that the breath ceases at death: "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust" (KJV). Cf. Gen. 3:19; Job 10:9; Ps. 90:3; 103:14; and Eccl. 3:20.

Oz

I think it's important to keep Ecclesiastes in context Oz, it was written by Solomon as an old man in a depressed, back slidden state. His perceptions were not those of the wisest man in the world, but of a man who had lost hope. It is one of a very negative and lonely King who no longer believed in the God he knew in his glory days. His wisdom had turned to fatalism. NOT an accurate depiction of the reality of ETERNAL LIFE, as Jesus promised us.

 

[justaname]

If Scripture does not fit our pet doctrines it is best to question the validity of it. Or perhaps we should question the validity of our doctrine? I think the latter.

 

[OzSpen]

I think it's important to keep Ecclesiastes in context Oz, it was written by Solomon as an old man in a depressed, back slidden state. His perceptions were not those of the wisest man in the world, but of a man who had lost hope. It is one of a very negative and lonely King who no longer believed in the God he knew in his glory days. His wisdom had turned to fatalism. NOT an accurate depiction of the reality of ETERNAL LIFE, as Jesus promised us.

From where did you gain that information? You did not refer to the content of what I wrote.

The fact that this book of Ecclesiastes is contained in the OT indicates that it is God-breathed Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17). Even though it is a view from 'under the sun' (Eccl. 1:3), it comes with the stamp of God's authority on it.

The fact remains that this is what happens at death: 'the dust returns to the earth as it was [the human body], and the spirit returns to God' (Eccl 12:7). This is confirmed by Paul, 'away from the body and at home with the Lord' (2 Cor 5:8 ESV). To the Philippians he wrote: 'My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better' (Phil 1:23 ESV).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

If Scripture does not fit our pet doctrines it is best to question the validity of it. Or perhaps we should question the validity of our doctrine? I think the latter.

justaname,

Why don't you back quote so we know the content to which you are referring? I assumed it was to StanJ's post. Was that so?

There is enough evidence that at death the body returns to dust (whether in the grave or cremated) and the spirit returns to God. I'm indeed pleased about that as I get older and move towards the time of my elevation to Paradise, heaven, Abraham's bosom, my Father's house - whatever one wants to call it. All of these words are in Scripture and they apply to where believers went at death,

Blessings,
Oz

 

[justaname]

justaname,

Why don't you back quote so we know the content to which you are referring? I assumed it was to StanJ's post. Was that so?

There is enough evidence that at death the body returns to dust (whether in the grave or cremated) and the spirit returns to God. I'm indeed pleased about that as I get older and move towards the time of my elevation to Paradise, heaven, Abraham's bosom, my Father's house - whatever one wants to call it. All of these words are in Scripture and they apply to where believers went at death,

Blessings,
Oz

If I desired a response I would have. Questioning OT inspiration seems to be trending recently, so it was more of a general statement. Yet the comment directly above mine by StanJ was the reference.

 

[OzSpen]

If I desired a response I would have. Questioning OT inspiration seems to be trending recently, so it was more of a general statement. Yet the comment directly above mine by StanJ was the reference.

justaname,

This questioning of the authority or denigration of the OT seems to me to be associated with a low view of the attributes of God, especially his truthfulness. If God's words are not true, he will be treated as a liar or person who can't be trusted with instructions in the OT.

I consider that one's view of Scripture revolves around one's view of God.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

If Scripture does not fit our pet doctrines it is best to question the validity of it. Or perhaps we should question the validity of our doctrine? I think the latter.

I agree, as long as we are properly seeing what the scripture does say.