21 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonshipI dont think that even you believe that Jaywill. Christ was in the 'heart of the earth', for three days, dead, unless of course you are willing to contend that he wasn't dead, which makes a mockery of his resurrection from the dead.
The Paradise to which Jesus took the believing thief was [b]"in the heart of the earth" where Jesus went for those three days. This is also discribed as "the lower parts of the earth".
He did not ascend with him to heaven.
He took him to somewhere under the earth.
This may seem hard to believe in this modern day of science. But on the o ...[text shortened]... ] should mean to be with Jesus wherever He was in His immaterial being during those days.[/b]
21 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipmy point is that to translate Matthew 23:43 in such a way as to give the impression that its anything other than an earthly paradise is inconsistent with what Christ understood paradise to have meant. Isaiah paints a picture of people building, doing meaningful work, animals and humans living in harmony, of a different perspective of time, mere boys living to hundreds of years etc etc.you must ask yourself the question, what did Jesus and the Israelites understand as constituting a paradise and if you read Isaiah chapter 65, you will get the answer.
What is your real point here ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Apr 13
Where was Jesus for three days immediately after His death on the cross?
"For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." (Matt. 12:40)
Robbie, from where did the soul of the prophet Samual, roused from his rest, comfortable, ascend when God permitted king Saul to consult his spirit ?
21 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI dont know where Samuels soul went Jay, but i know that Christ was dead for three days as is figuratively prefigured by the drama of Jonah.
Where was Jesus for three days immediately after His death on the cross?
[b]"For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." (Matt. 12:40)
Robbie, from where did the soul of the prophet Samual, roused from his rest, comfortable, ascend when God permitted king Saul to consult his spirit ?[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my point is that to translate Matthew 23:43 in such a way as to give the impression that its anything other than an earthly paradise is inconsistent with what Christ understood paradise to have meant.
my point is that to translate Matthew 23:43 in such a way as to give the impression that its anything other than an earthly paradise is inconsistent with what Christ understood paradise to have meant.
Well, you must have a mistaken reference. I see only 39 verses in chapter 23.
Jesus did not take anyone to a paradise earthen Eden like place on the day He died.
The thief requested that Jesus would remember him FUTURE wise, when you come into your kingdom. Jesus responded with TODAY ... you shall be with Me.
Jesus did not say (though it may be true) "When I come into My kingdom you will be with Me."
Jesus responded with imediacy - "Today" ... "This day".
Jesus went to the heart of the earth for that day and for the three days.
21 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipsorry Luke 23:43,my point is that to translate Matthew 23:43 in such a way as to give the impression that its anything other than an earthly paradise is inconsistent with what Christ understood paradise to have meant.
Well, you must have a mistaken reference. I see only 39 verses in chapter 23.
Jesus did not take anyone to a paradise earthen Ede day".
Jesus went to the heart of the earth for that day and for the three days.[/b]
yes, no one is saying that Jesus took the thief to paradise on that day, clearly the restoration of the paradise is future, but it remains earthly, for Gods original purpose has not changed, the earth will become a paradise again, which the meek, will inherit. Its promised, nothing can thwart it. Its going to be awesome.
Do you profess that Christ died (was literally dead) and was raised from the dead?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Apr 13
1 edit
I dont know where Samuels soul went Jay, but i know that Christ was dead for three days as is figuratively prefigured by the drama of Jonah.
Robbie, many times you JWs give the impression that you put the 27 New Testament books first in your Bible and then have the 39 Old Testament books as the conclusion.
Now you LOVE to refer to the Old Testament. You should be consistent here. Samuel's immaterial being was comforterble and at rest. God in His sovereignty allowed the desperate king Saul to consult a medium.
God allowed the miracle to take place in this case. Samuel's spirit came UP from the earth. Why is it hard then to believe that some Paradise for believers is under the earth ?
21 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipActually Jaywill we hold that the entire Biblical canon is inspired, there is no old or new, there is simply different covenants (agreements).I dont know where Samuels soul went Jay, but i know that Christ was dead for three days as is figuratively prefigured by the drama of Jonah.
Robbie, many times you JWs give the impression that you put the 27 New Testament books first in your Bible and then have the 39 Old Testament books as the conclusion.
Now you LOVE to refer to t he earth. Why is it hard then to believe that some Paradise for believers is under the earth ?
Why would God allow Saul to consult a medium, i thought sorcery was strictly condemned?
Why is it hard to believe, because there is no concept of it in the Bible, Eden was not underground.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Apr 13
3 edits
sorry Luke 23:43,
Okay.
yes, no one is saying that Jesus took the thief to paradise on that day,
Jesus is saying in the way of promise - " ... Truly, I say to you, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
If you believe this you believe this.
If you don't want to take it then you just don't.
I believe the verse in its simplicity.
Didn't you before seek to adjust me about simplicity ?
Today the thief will be with Jesus in Paradise. (On that day, I mean).
clearly the restoration of the paradise is future, but it remains earthly,
Taking the thief to Paradise under the earth for me does not mean the millenial kingdom is not on earth.
The two matters do not make some dichotomy denying the restoration of the earth.
Maybe from some teachers you got this impression. I don't teach that way.
I don't have to deny Luke 23:43 in order to bulster up a Edenic condition of the earth after the second coming of Christ.
for Gods original purpose has not changed, the earth will become a paradise again, which the meek, will inherit. Its promised, nothing can thwart it.
I do not have to deny Luke 23:43 in order to strengthen the idea of the meek inheriting the earth.
It seems that in your JW zeal to teach the meek inherit the earth you have need to negate other passages.
Do you profess that Christ died (was literally dead) and was raised from the dead?
Of course I profess this.
21 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipCan i ask you as a matter of interest, why you reject the translation,sorry Luke 23:43,
Okay.
yes, no one is saying that Jesus took the thief to paradise on that day,
Jesus is saying in the way of promise - [b]" ... Truly, I say to you, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
If you believe this you believe this.
If you don't want to take it then you just don't.
I as literally dead) and was raised from the dead? [/quote]
Of course I profess this.[/b]
Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise,
and accept the translation,
Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.
On what textual basis have you for accepting the latter rather than the former?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Apr 13
Actually Jaywill we hold that the entire Biblical canon is inspired, there is no old or new, there is simply different covenants (agreements).
Of course the entire Bible is the inspired word of God.
But the revelation is progressive in some matters. Otherwise Paul would not say that certain aspects of the New Testament were not made known to the sons of men as they have now been revealed to the apostles and prophets of the new covenant.
With the matter of Samuel's immaterial part being at rest and at peace under the earth is consistent with Paradise being under the earth where Jesus went when He died.
And that is not the only verse which could enlighten the Bible reader to this.
Why would God allow Saul to consult a medium, i thought sorcery was strictly condemned?
Sorcery was condemned as well as consulting the dead.
Sometimes God allowed the disobedient to take their own stubburn way. But He would control the outcome.
Do you recall the prophet Balaam who wanted to be paid to curse Israel? God said NO the first time. Then Balak raised the amount of compensation. And Balaam went back and asked God again "Are you sure?" as if it would make any difference.
Then God said - Go ahead and do what Balak asks but only speak what I command you.
On the way an angel almost killed Balaam. The donkey, the dumb ass, was more in the know that Balaam was. The lesson is that Balaam was worthy of being killed for what he was doing. God was permitting him to go his way. But it was under God's allowance and God's sovereignty. God's way is the way of divine providence. Balaam's way is the way of death.
In similar principle God permitted the medium to call up Samuel in Saul's stubburn disobedience.
The story is ironic for even the witch ends up comforting Saul ' Hey, its not that bad." For God had said Saul's stubburness was as the sin of witchcraft.
I can share no more at the moment.
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonshipCan i ask you to provide a summation of the Bibles message from Genesis to Revelation as I did in the opening post, i would be interested to read it even if i dont agree with it.Actually Jaywill we hold that the entire Biblical canon is inspired, there is no old or new, there is simply different covenants (agreements).
Of course the entire Bible is the inspired word of God.
But the revelation is progressive in some matters. Otherwise Paul would not say that certain aspects of the New Testament were not mad ...[text shortened]... ul's stubburness was as the sin of witchcraft.
I can share no more at the moment.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere was some true things in your own summary.
Can i ask you to provide a summation of the Bibles message from Genesis to Revelation as I did in the opening post, i would be interested to read it even if i dont agree with it.
But if you wish for me to follow with a summary:
God became man so that man might become God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead, for His expression and man's enjoyment.
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonshipThis is the summation of the Biblical message from Genesis to Revelation??
There was some true things in your own summary.
But if you wish for me to follow with a summary:
God became man so that man might become God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead, for His expression and man's enjoyment.