A Belief in the Divinity of Christ is Essential for Salvation

[Freak]

A debate for the ages!

Is it necessary to believe in the Deity of Christ to be saved?

I'm amazed to hear believers tell me that it's not necessary.

The Holy Scriptures are quite clear:

(Jesus speaking) "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

Who did Jesus claim to be? Well, later in the chapter (John 8) He declares:

The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

.....that He is God!

So, for one to be saved one has to believe Jesus is God, a denial will keep one from attaining salvation.

Any thoughts?

[AVmetro]

You go Freak..;)

[dizzle]

I agree with you Freak. I am going to try and dig out something I had written in a exchange with a friendly unitarian on this subject (and edit out all prior names for privacy)... if I can find it I will post it here.

[dizzle]

Here is an excerpt from that discussion (all personal information and references edited)

You asked for a definition of the Trinity, and that is fair. It is:

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally, three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Now to move further to the Incarnation, we believe that Jesus has took on an additional nature, that of man.

You said, "I am familiar with the statements which preclude his being God by virtue of the relationship he has with God. With the plain statements that he is man."

That is a classic non sequiter, and that is the basic flaw in your thinking.

I don't deny Christ's human nature, and any plain statement to His humanity are just that... speaking of His human nature. Within the doctrine of the Trinity those don't preclude His being deity. You are assuming what you need to prove. You have decided that if He is a man, than He cannot also be Deity. However, Scripture clearly teaches both (which if we do continue in conversation, I will show you some of them). To deny His deity requires even more explaining away than the clear near time references in Scripture.


I said, "..and some [meaning texts that testify to His deity] that are very plain once we get into the idiom and culture of the time, which is why I often say that the case for preterism is very like the case for Trinitarianism... one has to ask the question, plain to whom? To us, or to the original audience?

And you said, "To us, of course. After all, we're the ones who need to know Christ. Getting into fuzzy thinking under the pretense of understanding the mind of the original audience would be, well, fuzzy."

…..that is so wrong it is hard to know where to begin. First, you again assume something you need to prove. You cannot just state that something is "fuzzy thinking" making it wrong by definition, you must demonstrate that, and that would be an impossible task. Ironically, you are practicing cognitive dissidence here, since you are becoming convinced of preterism, the backbone of which teaches that the apocolyptic texts were clear to the first century audience, and that's how we need to understand these passages, not in terms of Cobra helicopters and nuclear bombs.


Times and cultures change. Idioms change, languages change. If you ever read a copy of the original King James Bible, though it was in "English" you wouldn't be able to read it. Jesus and Paul and the other inspired words recorded in the Bible were written in THAT culture, first to THAT audience... Our culture and even ways of thinking are different today. No socialologist and anthropologist doubts that. If the Bible were written to our culture and way of thinking, it would not have been fully understandable to the original audience, and since they would not have the benefit of resources explaining our culture and way of thinking etc, since we did not exist yet, they would be clueless. We have the rest of the Bible and extra-Biblical literature from that time to help us understand the culture of the day. The Bible did not drop out of the sky in the 21st century, and we cannot interpret it that way.


You say we are the ones who need to know Christ, true, but so were the original audience who were to begin the initial spread throughout the whole world. God has given us ample material and background in just the Old Testament alone and through the many gifted scholars that He has provided to the Church that we are without excuse for not seeking diligently to find out within context (which includes the historical social context) what was being communicated.

My best friend was complaining to me about the idiom of the stars falling and the moon and sun not giving their light in Matthew 24, and asking how in the world could God expect us to understand that today as meaning the judgment upon a nation? Well first I explained that the OT very clearly uses these symbols. She then said but how would just the average person know to connect these two things... and I replied that God was faithful and would provide the education to those who sought it, and did she ever consider that this may be a reason why she and I were even having that conversation. Possibly God was using me to give her the information.

You cannot consistently hold to preterism and then insist that the words of the Bible must be interpreted according to a "modern" understanding. I don't think you can be consistently anything and really believe that.

The problem if find in discussions with people over disputed topics is that their theology is not a coherent whole. For example, they use one tactic to defeat an argument on subject matter, not realizing (or not caring) that if their proposition is true, it would disprove their theology on another matter. For example, I am a young-earth creationist. Young earth creationists look at Genesis one and see that God very clearly is communicating 6 24-hour days not that long ago. That is what the Biblical text clearly says. However, these same young earth creationists are also futurists. Ironically they don't realize that the very same arguments they use to promote the clear understanding of the time statement in Genesis 1, if taken consistently through the Bible, would destroy their futurism. They believe two contradictory ideas at the same time, and don't even seem to be aware of it.

Now on point to our conversation, if you really believe that we don't need to understand the Bible within the culture in which it was written, you will never be able to defend your faith and the Bible against charges of internal inconsistency and contradiction. Most claims of such are really just a misunderstanding of the culture and distinctly Jewish way of thinking and clear up once these factors are considered.

For example, how long was Jesus in the tomb. Most Christians believe that the Bible is pretty clear that Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday. But He said that He would be in the tomb three days and three nights? There is no way that you can get three literal days and three literal nights without doing severe violence to the text. Holding explains:

This is actually an instance in which we need to understand Jewish idiom, which understood "a day and a night"; to include even the smallest part of a day and night. AJewish source from after the time of the New Testament puts it this way: "A day and a night are an Onah ['a portion of time'] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it"; [J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim4a] Other examples of this kind of usage can be found throughout the Bible (Gen. 42:16, 1Kings 20:29, Esth. 4:16, Matt. 27:63). Jesus was in the tomb for only a small part of Friday and Sunday, but that counts according to Jewish idiom for the entire "day and night" for each of those days.

If you have ever used that explanation yourself, then you cannot possibly say that is "clear" to us moderns, but was something unique to that culture and that day. The examples could be multiplied a thousand-fold.

Holding further says in answering sceptics who cry foul when the Bible is explained in terms of its cultural context: “Let’s put it plainly: The Semites were here before we were, and the message was first imputed to THEM. It was critical for them, as the initial recipients, to get the message clearly,and our own arrogant presumption did not require God to wait several hundred years for Western civilization to pop up so that His message could be imputed in more clear terms. We have only ourselves to blame if we find the message of the Bible unclear. It is we who made our language less colorful and less idiomatic than Hebrew. It is we who choose to look down on other cultures and pronounce them inferior, rather than trying to understand them.

The Bible often uses anthropomorphiclanguage to describe God, and such language is read figuratively. Why not hyper-literally as our modern understanding would have?

Now on to whether this is a salvational issue. With all due respect, I don't think you have thought about this too deeply or logically, and it requires that we get into the philosphy of language. I used this same argument with others, and I don't think you really stepped back and tried to understand the point.

Words by themselves mean nothing. The only reason this sentence means something to you is because that we, as a people, have agreed that in English that certain letters form certain words which have certain meanings. If I were to make a statement such as the following:

The moon is made up entirely of carbonite rock......

I would mean something very definite about the composition of the moon. But let's just say that you read that and although you read the same words, and agreed with me, yes the moon is made up entirely of carbonite rock, but you poured the meaning "green cheese" into "carbonite rock" we would not be speaking of the same thing. In fact the "moon" that I believed existed would not be the same "moon" that you believed existed. My moon is really made up entirely of carbonite rock. Your moon is made entirely of green cheese, because to you, carbonite rock means green cheese. By no stretch of the imagination can our positions be reconciled, and although we apparently "agree" since we use the same "words," it is actually the meaning that we pour into the words, not the words themselves which are determinative. You cannot possibly disagree with this.

It is no different with the Bible, and when we come to Romans 10:9-10.

,,,,that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

You claim that since both Unitarians and Trinitarians confess "Jesus" that both are saved. That is simply and sheerly illogical and just like the green cheese example above. A Jesus that is fully man and fully Deity is completely different from a Jesus that is soley man. The two cannot be reconciled, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered the same Being. Sure we both use the word "Jesus," but the word itself has no magic, it is the meaning that we pour into that Word, and the meaning that Paul intended us to pour into that Word. You (and me) just cannot arbitrarily confess "Jesus" and expect to be saved, if your Jesus (or my Jesus) is not the Jesus of the Bible.
I used the example of a lawn maintenance man Jesus Gonzalez. Yep, his name is Jesus, but if he is who I believed God raised from the dead, and who I placed my religious faith in, I am lost. You may feel the example is ridiculous. It is actually very appropriate because the distance between Deity and "just a man" is infinite..... and if you can see the denigration by reducing an only human Jesus to a lawn maintenance man, then maybe you can possibly imagine the denigration of reducing the God who made you into being just solely a man.

This holds true for the other doctrines mentioned in Romans 10:9-10 as well. The Word "God" is mentioned there as well, but if you pour a different meaning into that word, such as the pagan god Zeus, you also have no salvation. You are an idolator even if you believe that your idols really did raise Jesus from the dead.

[dizzle]

There is more as we continued of course.. but I wanted to submit that portion for consideration and discussion and will post the rest at some other point....

[$cirisme]

I agree, Freak. :thumb:

BTW, good work. :thumb: ;)

[Lizard]

Yea Freak two :thumb: :thumb: thumbs up

[Bishop Potts]

:yipee: Amen! And well put!

[ACFaith.Com]

Salvation is not dependent upon accepting problematic statements as factually true.

First, see this paper on the sayings material in the gospel of John that I wrote:
http://www.acfaith.com/gjohn.html

And then this wider-hope theory:
http://www.acfaith.com/widerhope.html

And see these comments from the 'first stop here' page of my site:

Being a follower of God has very little to do with believing forty-nine impossible things before breakfast. Unfortunately for many of us, this is exactly what today's popular religions seem to require from us. Faith today is largely preoccupied with the dynamic of believing or not believing. For many people, believing “iffy” claims to be true has become the central meaning of their faith. As protested by Marcus Borg, "It is an odd notion—as if what God most wants from us is believing highly problematic statements to be factually true."1 It is an odd notion, indeed!

This gravitation towards "believing" in many of today's religions places entirely too much emphasis on the head and not enough on the heart. I do not wish to caricature how many conservative believers see their own views but to many of us on the outside it looks like, "Believe in the factuality of X, Y, and Z and you'll be saved. Believe it not and you will consciously suffer for all eternity in this most unimaginably horrendous place created by this most unimaginably loving God." It presents quite a paradox that many of us are unwilling to accept. Thinking that many of our family members and friends will spend eternity in a lake of burning sulfur is morally revolting and mentally disturbing to us. Even more disturbing is the notion that they will end up there for not believing "problematic" or "iffy" claims to be factually true! It seems as if intellectual knowledge has become a soteriological criterion (a requirement for salvation)!

Vinnie

[Sozo]

:thumb: Freak

[undead]

02-05-2003 @ 12:09 AM
Freak:
So, for one to be saved one has to believe Jesus is God, a denial will keep one from attaining salvation.


Nah. Jesus was a man. That's what the bible says.

Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men

And again:

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Are you a Docetist? Or one of those "Oneness" freaky pentecostals? Can you find me just "1" verse where it says in the bible "Jesus is God"?

[Bill the Cat]

I love this thread. I can't give you one verse where it says in those terms, but I can give you 2 that add up to the statement.

1. And the Word was God
2. And the word became flesh and dwelt with us.

Basic algebra
A=B B=C so A=C
Word=God Word=Jesus Jesus=God.

Now here's where it deviates a bit. Jesus is God, but God is not JUST Jesus.

[dizzle]

I do not want to speak for Freak, but I think the piont he was getting at was this:

Amongst those of us who believe in the divinity of Christ, what is our position about the denial of the divinity of Christ. So.. any disproofs or counterarguments that Christ is not divine, I think is missing the point and underlyng presuppositions (which I also hold) of Freak's statement. It goes without saying that if Christ is not divine, then it is not necessary to believe that.

So... we have plenty of threads to debate over the nature of Christ or the Trinity... I do believe the intent of this one was as I just stated.

Am I right Freak? Or have I misunderstood you?

[Freak]

undead you asked:

Are you a Docetist? Or one of those "Oneness" freaky pentecostals? Can you find me just "1" verse where it says in the bible "Jesus is God"?

The answer is no, no, and yes.

No, I'm not a docetist (I'm a believer in Jesus Christ).

No, I'm not a "Oneness freaky pentecostals" (as you put it).

Yes, I can find scores of Scriptures that point to Jesus being very God.

I'll give you one here for you to deal with:

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

Well, undead, what do you think?

DD, my friend,---:thumb:

[Jaltus]

Vinnie,

You need to read Richard Baukham's article, "John for Readers of Mark," which argues that John was written for those who already knew Mark, thus John just fills in the gaps in Mark's story with respect to what Jesus was doing when Mark focused on the 12.

[dizzle]

Jaltus, Richard Bauckham is the BOMB!!! And I spoke with him about, oh, six months ago, and he was a very cool guy.

[dizzle]

Great Freak!! I thought I had a good handle on where you were coming from 'cause you and I have always been right in tune with each other on this subject.

[$cirisme]

Freak,

Would you mind adding a reference?

Thanks! :thumb:

[Jaltus]

I am a big Bauhckam fan. How did you meet him? He is a big gun in NT circles.

[Freak]

03-07-2003 @ 09:33 PM
cirisme:

Freak,

Would you mind adding a reference?

Thanks! :thumb:

Sorry. Colossians 2:9

[$cirisme]

Thanks.

:cheers:

[undead]

03-07-2003 @ 09:26 PM
Freak:
Yes, I can find scores of Scriptures that point to Jesus being very God.

I'll give you one here for you to deal with:

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

Well, undead, what do you think?


Nah. That says "Christ is God".

I asked you for a verse which said "Jesus is God". You done me wrong. There is not one single verse in the entire bible which says "Jesus is God".

Shows you how Chistians love jumping on bandwagons. You know, I really sympathize with Atheists today. They look at Christianity and its like a closed shop - a set of magic formulae that one must recite. Well, no-one in the NT recited the formula "Jesus is God".

I mean, how can you all say "Jesus is God", when there isn't one verse which says that.

What does the bible say? It says "Jesus is from above". That means, "Before Jesus was born, Jesus was God". It says after Jesus died, "Jesus resumed his position on God's throne".

But whilst Jesus was a man, he was but a man. He was fully man. He lived by faith and not by sight, just like a man. He had the power of a man. He had the limitations of a man. He was, in truth, a man. That is why the bible says "The man Jesus". QED.

[Freak]

03-08-2003 @ 02:54 AM
undead:



Nah. That says "Christ is God".

I asked you for a verse which said "Jesus is God". You done me wrong. There is not one single verse in the entire bible which says "Jesus is God".

Shows you how Chistians love jumping on bandwagons. You know, I really sympathize with Atheists today. They look at Christianity and its like a closed shop - a set of magic formulae that one must recite. Well, no-one in the NT recited the formula "Jesus is God".

I mean, how can you all say "Jesus is God", when there isn't one verse which says that.

What does the bible say? It says "Jesus is from above". That means, "Before Jesus was born, Jesus was God". It says after Jesus died, "Jesus resumed his position on God's throne".

But whilst Jesus was a man, he was but a man. He was fully man. He lived by faith and not by sight, just like a man. He had the power of a man. He had the limitations of a man. He was, in truth, a man. That is why the bible says "The man Jesus". QED.

FYI: Christ is Jesus!

[undead]

03-08-2003 @ 03:28 AM
Freak:FYI: Christ is Jesus

Can you prove it?

Christ existed before he was born, but he wasn't named Jesus until he was.

[Hitch]

A debate for the ages!



I'm amazed to hear believers tell me that it's not necessary. No , you have never heard a believer say that.

H

[Hitch]

03-09-2003 @ 03:12 AM
undead:



Can you prove it?

Christ existed before he was born, but he wasn't named Jesus until he was. Watch out Freak this drivel is what passes for logic these days in the UK.

[undead]

03-09-2003 @ 03:47 AM
Hitch:

Watch out Freak this drivel is what passes for logic these days in the UK.

Judging by your propensity for insult, the spirit of Christ never reached you.

Now, the command to name the son of Mary "Jesus", was never given till Jesus was born. In Colossians Paul is talking about Christ's pre-incarnate attributes. If you don't see any different between Christ pre incarnation, and post incarnation, then you implicitly affirm that the "form of God"/"form of man" argument is, to all intents and purposes, an irrelevance - something that can be ignored.

The effect of saying "Jesus is God", is to say "Christ never stopped being in the form of God after he was born". That is simply untrue.

[undead]

03-09-2003 @ 03:41 AM
Hitch:
No , you have never heard a believer say that.


Arrogance reigns supreme in the US. Hell will be full of theologians.

[Sher]

Isa 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The Son, after birth, is Mighty God and everlasting Father.

Emmanuel - God with us

John 1:34 "And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God."

John 20:28-29 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Even doubting Thomas, the monotheistic Jew, knew He was God.

[Hitch]

03-09-2003 @ 10:35 AM
undead:



Arrogance reigns supreme in the US. Hell will be full of theologians. Hey you got one right. Every thologian who denies the divinty of Jesus will be there shoveling coal. But at least you wont need a blanket.


H

[popof3]

The basis of Freaks point is based on what we call 'scripture' based on what the Bible states is scripture.

The problem that is ignored is the Bible does not claim itself as scripture. There are references to prophesies that do not actually exist in the Bible we read. The New Testement texts were not written when the word "scripture" was used. The entire refererences of 'Scripture" refers to much more ancient teachings and writings, many which are not included in today's Bible.

As such, the Bible itself is not 'scripture' nor is the NT books to be given "scripture" strength.

Paul spoke repeatedly about Scripture in his letters. Since these letters are written by him, how could he possibly be refering to them? Yet we claim, repeatedly, "The scriptures say...!" when in fact they don't. The letters of Paul say, or the Gospel according to Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, or the letters of Peter....

When refering to anything in the NT text, you can not claim scriptural basis since Jesus himself was not refering to the NT. Jesus spoke of the past. That is where scripture exists. In the parts of the OT that we accept, and in the parts of judaich teaching that early Christians wanted to break from and so removed from their teachings.

The other point that must be brought up is how readily we decide to ignore facts. We claim the bible as the word of God because the people IN the bible make that claim. But they don't make that claim. There was no 'bible'. There was the Torah. The people who taught the Torah never claimed it was written verbatim the way God recited it. Only after a few hundred years of Christianity did the idea of "Perfect word of God" and "God Inspired" Bible scripture come about.

Now to show you how foolish it is to scream at those who doubt the perfection of the Bible, listen to where you refer to in making that claim.

You claim the book is the perfect word of God because the book itself says it is.

In that case, then the Similarion by J.R.R. Tolkien has just as much basis in fact. I will now state that everything I will ever say is the truth. You now see it in writing. That makes it true based on your beliefs. If the book says it is true, then it is true. If you say the book isn't true, read the book where it says it is true and you must now believe it is true since you have now read it saying it is true.

And we must then follow this up with all the claims of innocence. If one person commits a murder, and there are no witnesses, then the murderer must be innocent once he/she claims innocence.

To prove the deity of Jesus, you can not use a book that others you are trying to prove it to don't believe in. You can not 'scream' them into submission, you can not insult them or claim they are blind, since in all truth, the blind would be the one who reads something and accepts it as fact based on the opinion of the writer.

There are hints, clues, and facts surrounding the history of the Bible as we now possess it. The blind stick to the KJV since it was what they were brought up on, reguardless of the history of how it came to be, and why it was written in english as was, and why certain passages were added or deleted. They are choosing to be blind because they have been told it is not their job to question.

So if we humans are NOT to question, then how can we follow leaders of our faiths? Were they not questioning in their desire to learn more? And as such, if we are sinning and under the influence of satan for questioning, are we not then following leaders who sinned even greater because they question and taught us what they learned?

If you want to prove the diety of Jesus, you must decide to live the life Jesus lived. You must no longer claim imperfection as an excuse to underachieve, but strive to be perfect in your actions everyday, all day, awake or asleep. You must not preach anger and try and use a slight moment in the temple as justification for anger. Jesus made no qualms in the book you quote verbatim. Those whom hate is the same as a murderer. Look it up and quit making rationalizations for excusing your hate or anger.

The deity of Jesus is not in the text. It's in the hearts of those who follow in his footsteps and do not waver. An excuse for failing is an unrepentant waver. To be 'just a human' is not the way to salvation. To state "I believe He died for me!" is not a free ticket to salvation. The proof of your salvation comes from your works after you are truly saved.

Look to your own home. Is your home a home Jesus would rest in? Or a home he would preach from simply because of the level of hypocrisy inside? Are you looking at others and judging your level of salvation based on their lives and actions? Do you spend time of your life telling people they are damned? Did JESUS tell you those people are damned, or are you reading the book and deciding for Him? Do you see that every time you damn someone to Hell in your judgements, you are condemning yourselves?

Walk the walk Jesus Walked. Those who doubt His Deity will see better than they will ever hear. If your desire to bring Jesus to others is a true desire, this is the only way it can be done. Don't believe me? Read your bible and see all the screaming people. Who brought more people to salvation? The ones who screamed? Or the One whom walked the walk? Silence your tongue so that their eyes may see and their ears may hear.

[popof3]

03-07-2003 @ 04:28 PM
Jaltus:

Vinnie,

You need to read Richard Baukham's article, "John for Readers of Mark," which argues that John was written for those who already knew Mark, thus John just fills in the gaps in Mark's story with respect to what Jesus was doing when Mark focused on the 12.


Again one quote theory as fact. There is very very little historical basis for this claim. There is a very high historical basis that none of the Gospels were written by ANY Apostle, specifically the fact that none of the early Christian leaders had access to any of the letters of Paul until 70+ years after the death of Jesus, and that there is absolutely NOTHING but rhetoric in the claims of any of the Gospels existing before the 2nd Century AD. But there IS 2nd AD references by Clement and that 2nd Peter was acknowledged at that time as NOT a letter from the Apostle Peter, that the "Pastoral" letters are not written by Paul, and that the Shepard of Hermes was given as much biblical weight as Revelation had.

It is fine to reference theory, but it in not fine to make theory fact simply because someone placed their theory on paper and got paid a fine sum for doing so.

You want this book read (using the term 'must') simply because it backs your chosen belief. This does not make what is said as fact, but makes you think "See, here is what I wanted to believe. Now I have proof". You have no proof. I will also be publishing my theories. In fact, some are published right now, and able to be read by the masses. You are doing it as you read this post. Are my theories fact? No, and I know they aren't What I DO state is fact though. Clement disagreed with much of your beliefs. Augustine Disagreed. Martin Luther disagreed. Eusebias disagreed. Pliny disagreed. Follow the writings and teachings of the earliest church fathers and you will get closer to what is true than what you will get from zealous people who need to have their beliefs accepted.

Just so you know, I just finished a very well documented book, putting more historical data into their work than any book I have ever read. Would you want to know what they were trying to prove? That a prince somewhere in the mideast is a direct decendent from Jesus brother James. What do I say?

Hogwash! But the perfect lie is the one that is almost perfect truth.

The point here Jaltus, anyone can write anything they want under the name of theory. You can not use theory and claim it as fact though. If we are to use the same criteria we use to judge a criminal, well the facts point out that the person who wrote that book you recommend was as far from the truth than anyone else ever has been.

[popof3]

03-08-2003 @ 10:47 PM
Hitch:

Watch out Freak this drivel is what passes for logic these days in the UK.


TSK TSK TSK

This, my friend, is why people refuse to accept Jesus into their hearts, or to love God as He deserves.

How can the claim of Christian be made when the behavior is so unChristlike? If you want to bring Christ to the people, Christ must guide you. Otherwise you are only bringing your pride to the people, and a desire to condemn, or the desire to be patted on the back for acheivements.

Christ is humble. If you are a Christian, you must be humble too.

[Hitch]

03-10-2003 @ 06:13 AM
popof3:




TSK TSK TSK

This, my friend, is why people refuse to accept Jesus into their hearts, or to love God as He deserves.

How can the claim of Christian be made when the behavior is so unChristlike? If you want to bring Christ to the people, Christ must guide you. Otherwise you are only bringing your pride to the people, and a desire to condemn, or the desire to be patted on the back for acheivements.

Christ is humble. If you are a Christian, you must be humble too.
Coming from one who advises as relunctantly as your self I cant but LMAO. Soon as I get my boots on, its a gettin deep

HITCH

[popof3]

03-10-2003 @ 01:38 AM
Hitch:


Coming from one who advises as rleunctantly as your self I cant but LMAO.

HITCH

Hmmmm I'm sorry. There must be something missing that led you to not understand. Jesus was humble. He advised. What is the claim you are making then? That the idea that he advised makes him someone you should LYAO at?

Again, please walk His walk.

[Hitch]

03-10-2003 @ 06:44 AM
popof3:



Hmmmm I'm sorry. There must be something missing that led you to not understand. Jesus was humble. He advised. What is the claim you are making then? That the idea that he advised makes him someone you should LYAO at?

Again, please walk His walk.
Well tell me slimey one, how do you know what Jesus was like? You have slandered the Scriptures of the NT by stateing that they are not and cannot be Scriptures so you have no reliable source.

But I really liked the way you tried to turn around what I was laughing at. It pleases me to no end when one with a head so large that he equates himself to Christ shows up and blesses us all with his wisdom,,, because surely you're not such an idiot to not see that it was you I am laughing at.



Nice try cutie.

H

[popof3]

03-10-2003 @ 02:04 AM
Hitch:


Well tell me slimey one, how do you know what Jesus was like? You have slandered the Scriptures of the NT by stateing that they are not and cannot be Scriptures so you have no reliable source.

But I really liked the way you tried to turn around what I was laughing at. It pleases me to no end when one with a head so large that he equates himself to Christ shows up and blesses us all with his wisdom,,, because surely you're not such an idiot to not see that it was you I am laughing at.



Nice try cutie.

H

And you honestly can not see how your posts are so unChristlike?

There is no slander. You do not have the right to call them scripture. Only God has the right to state what is scripture and what isn't. No where on earth is there any claim that God has made through prophesy or otherwise the the Letters and Gospels written years after the death of Jesus is scripture. No where in the bible does it even refer to ANY NT text as scripture.

You are overly gracious in your names for me. Thank you.

Your comment stated that because I was advising that I was not showing humility. I showed you that Jesus advised and was humble. My claim shows that advising and humility are not contradictory, which is what your "LMAO" implied.

Please, let me know if I have offended you again.

[Mikeb]

I don't know, is it me?

I feel a little uncomfortable setting conditions for salvation. Fortunately, its not my job. So I'll pass.

You want to set those conditions, you feel free, but I seem to remember something about God saving who he wants to save and asking us to judge not that we be not judged.

[popof3]

03-10-2003 @ 10:24 PM
Mikeb:

I don't know, is it me?

I feel a little uncomfortable setting conditions for salvation. Fortunately, its not my job. So I'll pass.

You want to set those conditions, you feel free, but I seem to remember something about God saving who he wants to save and asking us to judge not that we be not judged.

To whom is this directed Mike?

[Mikeb]

The original post, I think.

So, for one to be saved one has to believe Jesus is God, a denial will keep one from attaining salvation.

Seems like setting conditions to me.

Sorry, didn't mean to interupt you and Hitch flaming one another.

[popof3]

03-10-2003 @ 10:45 PM
Mikeb:

The original post, I think.

So, for one to be saved one has to believe Jesus is God, a denial will keep one from attaining salvation.

Seems like setting conditions to me.

Yes, that has been my arguement also.

[Hitch]

Please, let me know if I have offended you again.


Be so advised.

Now, slimey, tell me how you know what is Christ like since you have no authotitative information.

[PuritanD]

03-10-2003 @ 12:37 AM
popof3:




Again one quote theory as fact. There is very very little historical basis for this claim. There is a very high historical basis that none of the Gospels were written by ANY Apostle, specifically the fact that none of the early Christian leaders had access to any of the letters of Paul until 70+ years after the death of Jesus, and that there is absolutely NOTHING but rhetoric in the claims of any of the Gospels existing before the 2nd Century AD. But there IS 2nd AD references by Clement and that 2nd Peter was acknowledged at that time as NOT a letter from the Apostle Peter, that the "Pastoral" letters are not written by Paul, and that the Shepard of Hermes was given as much biblical weight as Revelation had.

The point here Jaltus, anyone can write anything they want under the name of theory. You can not use theory and claim it as fact though. If we are to use the same criteria we use to judge a criminal, well the facts point out that the person who wrote that book you recommend was as far from the truth than anyone else ever has been.

I must be a bit confused. First you deconstruct the NT as not having any grounds for existence. You would refute that in one of Peter's letters he refers to Paul's writings as Scripture giving some evidence for the NT.

And to prove this you rely on your own theories as facts. You have not offered any "proof" (whatever that is to you) that what you say is true but as theory which you seem to abhor.:argh:

One observation: I agree that Hitch may be a bit excited in his posts and not reflective of the spirit of Christ but on what ground can you charge him since you have no idea what Jesus is since the Gospels have no truth. In fact, how do you know who Jesus is without the Gosples and the NT which you demean and try to deconstruct.

How do you know what was given weight or not? Since you disregard church tradition concerning the writings of Scripture (oops), how can you argue for any contention at all. If church history is not good enough for you, what is?:huh:

Essential, what in the world are you proving if there is nothing backing up your own claims. As you said in a previous post concerning conjections and theories... yours seem to fit your own catagory of hogwash.

[popof3]

03-11-2003 @ 10:14 AM
PuritanD:



I must be a bit confused. First you deconstruct the NT as not having any grounds for existence. You would refute that in one of Peter's letters he refers to Paul's writings as Scripture giving some evidence for the NT.

And to prove this you rely on your own theories as facts. You have not offered any "proof" (whatever that is to you) that what you say is true but as theory which you seem to abhor.:argh:

One observation: I agree that Hitch may be a bit excited in his posts and not reflective of the spirit of Christ but on what ground can you charge him since you have no idea what Jesus is since the Gospels have no truth. In fact, how do you know who Jesus is without the Gosples and the NT which you demean and try to deconstruct.

How do you know what was given weight or not? Since you disregard church tradition concerning the writings of Scripture (oops), how can you argue for any contention at all. If church history is not good enough for you, what is?:huh:

Essential, what in the world are you proving if there is nothing backing up your own claims. As you said in a previous post concerning conjections and theories... yours seem to fit your own catagory of hogwash.


Incorrect. I stated, very clearly, they are not scripture. That does not mean they have no facts in them. It means they are not God breathed words on parchment.

The contingent here wants to show how you MUST accept Jesus as God and his sacrifice to be saved. They use the NT writings as their bases and claim they are God Breathed because the Bible states 'scriptures' are from God. The NT books are not scripture. They never refered to themselves as scripture. Based on that, the is no factual basis of trying to convince a nonChristian that he/she must be reborn. The Bible itself does not have God make that claim.

The 'scriptures' are the ancient Jewish teachings, and these are the ONLY teachings Jesus quoted. He did not quote what had not yet been written. He did not quote the teachings of other beliefs. He came and explained that, just as hitch is showing, and how Freak has started, that the Pharisees had made up so many laws of their own for salvation that not even THEY could be saved. (Again this is in the Gospels.)

When we quote word of God, it must be from the sources His son also claimed a scripture. We can not arbitrarily say, 400 years or so later, this is scripture, this isn't, which is exactly what happened during the cannonization. Word of God should have no ability for human judgement as to it's blessedness.

Now, none of the early church leaders accepted any of the NT books as 'scriptures' They were christian faith teaching devices.


I am a Christian. But I will not lie to make others believe. To do so would be to decieve my Lord and to betray Him. So I will not tell anyone they aren't going to heaven. Nor will I say God said "..." when the truth is a man said so. My preacher says many things. Much he has also written. He is wise enough to say. This is as how I understand it. He is wise enough to rethink. He is not foolish enough to claim God told him to say that and it is scripture. And he is wise enough to NEVER make a claim For God based on ANYTHING he has learned, because that one teaching stands out high over all others. We have only one Judge, and that is God. All others are fools who desire the power of God, just as Satan did.

We know what Jesus acted like historically. It doesn't need to be scripture to walk the way Jesus walked. If we are going to claim him as God incarnate, then we must follow the actions we have of his teachings.

While there is very little outside of the bible that tells about Jesus, there is much that tells us about the lives of those who followed him. Even laying the book of acts aside, there are historical documents that show those who called themselves Christians lived communally, shared everything and owned nothing, helped the poor, fed them and clothed them, took care of the widowed and homeless, and prayed and preached the love that was Jesus. They exmplified the man they had walked with, and later the children of those who knew Him best.

You do not need to have a bible to know the love that is God my friend. You do not have to be able to read to know His love. You can be deaf and know His love.

The NT texts are not 'scripture' God breathed. They are man written and enhanced. They have historical data that is wrongly placed. It has incorrect geneologies. It has psedonymic names. It has at the minimum 4 very well known letter that are NOT written by Paul, and even Clement of Alexandria knew this in the 2nd century.

If God can not err, then these writings can not be His.

Yet the love that is God, of that there is not mistake. The deaf, mute, and blind can experience the love that is God.

If you want to convert people to God, you must show that God is in you. God does not need to call a person 'slimey' (that is the correct spelling hitch).

This is the end of all the discussion. This encompasses all my words. I do not need to read the bible to kow Gods love. I DO need to show God's love to all for it to be real. He overcomes anything I have evil in me when I let Him in. If I can not show the love, I have worshipped Him with nothing but my mouth, and kept my heart far from him.

[Hitch]

Actually slimey is an extremely retrained term for anyone a screwy as you. And I figured as long as you kept talking your agenda would soon float.

While there is very little outside of the bible that tells about Jesus, there is much that tells us about the lives of those who followed him. Even laying the book of acts aside, there are historical documents that show those who called themselves Christians lived communally, shared everything and owned nothing, helped the poor, fed them and clothed them, took care of the widowed and homeless, and prayed and preached the love that was Jesus. They exmplified the man they had walked with, and later the children of those who knew Him best.

Im not surprised to see the socialist strains mixed with your satanic 'I know Jesus outside the NT ' garbage. Your use of the Scriptures is. such as it, is , foul and says great deal about you. None of which is good. And the saccharine you lay on so thick is as obvious as your disdain for the Scriptures.

One observation: I agree that Hitch may be a bit excited in his posts and not reflective of the spirit of Christ Well PD this drivel dosnt fit the catagory of difference of opinion. This is a two pronged attack against the Diety of Christ and the voracity of the Scriptures and I make no apology for being able to see it, wrapped in the soft sinthetic fuzzy it is ,for what it is.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

When we quote word of God, it must be from the sources His son also claimed a scripture. We can not arbitrarily say, 400 years or so later, this is scripture, this isn't, which is exactly what happened during the cannonization. Word of God should have no ability for human judgement as to it's blessedness.

LMAO

If you cant see the contradiction here you deserve what this clown is trying to sell you. This 'pop' claims the NT Scriptures are not Scriptures at all then directly goes back and spouts ' it must be from the sources His son also claimed a scripture . Hmmmmm And Jesus is recoreded as speaking in what sources?

Its a good system if you need a way to extract what suits your agenda and disregard what doesnt fit. The next step ,of course, is to fill in the void left. And there is no shortage of 'other writtings' which can be adopted ,as fits the needs of the cult. If you have been reading 'pop' has already alluded to extra-Scriptural sources. Its an old game and I dont care for where the rules come from.

I hope none here are inclined to take this stuff seriously. And if you do ,,,well I warned ya.

Take care

Hitch

[popof3]

And I thank you again. Bless you in your search for God. May he find you too.

[popof3]

There is not contradiction my friend. You are refusing to read what is said because you have blinded yourself. Jesushad his words written in the NT texts. Jesus did not QUOTE the NT texts. The scriptures quoted are Judaich teachings from the prophets. The words ascribed to Jesus are written in the NT.

It is simple. Jesus quoted the past, not the future.

[Hitch]

03-11-2003 @ 10:56 PM
popof3:

There is not contradiction my friend. You are refusing to read what is said because you have blinded yourself. Jesushad his words written in the NT texts. Jesus did not QUOTE the NT texts. The scriptures quoted are Judaich teachings from the prophets. The words ascribed to Jesus are written in the NT.

It is simple. Jesus quoted the past, not the future. LOL Now deary just how do you know that part(s) said to be quotes from Christ, of the OT, are reliable? How do you know Jesus had his words written in the NT text? How do youy know he was quoted correctly?


Pray tell what chrystal balll allows you vision back 2,000 years to be able to know this or that verse is reliable and the other not?

Your logic smells of death.

H

[popof3]

I can tell you this without worry. If you are worshipping Jesus in this manner, and you are teacher others to worship with the same anger, insults, and belittling comments. I would not want your God for mine.

But I know that He doesn't support your actions. Don't YOU know that?

[Hitch]

03-12-2003 @ 02:16 AM
popof3:

I can tell you this without worry. If you are worshipping Jesus in this manner, and you are teacher others to worship with the same anger, insults, and belittling comments. I would not want your God for mine.( I dont doubt that a bit)

But I know that He doesn't support your actions. Don't YOU know that? Heh heh, why not just answer the questions? A logical and complete answer might give your complaints some legs. As of now you have no standing.

I will graciously repeat the questions below;


LOL Now deary just how do you know that part(s) said to be quotes from Christ, of the OT, are reliable? How do you know Jesus had his words written in the NT text? How do you know he was quoted correctly?


Pray tell what chrystal balll allows you vision back 2,000 years to be able to know this or that verse is reliable and the other not?

HITCH

[PuritanD]

Hitch,

I believe that you and I are on the same page in regards to popof3's assertions. His ideas are full of contradictions and denouncement of the NT without evidence is weak, even his own suppossed facts do not live us to his criteria. He does not offer any evidence as to why his statements are facts and all others are just theories and half-truths at best.

Though we both disagree with him, I think that we do not have to stupe down to name calling in order to get our point across. I think that popof3 is doing a fine job by himself driving around in circles of contraditions. I think that we can respond as Peter suggested with gentleness and reverence. Though Peter was probably referring to those who are seriously questioning and desiring truth, I think that we could do no wrong by doing this with all even those who seem to argue just to get under a Christian's skin.

I would also like to see popof3 answer the questions raised. If he doesn't, he is just not worthy of being responded to and probably needs to be ignored. Why bother placing our pearls before...

Just some thoughts

PuritanD

[Jaltus]

The point here Jaltus, anyone can write anything they want under the name of theory. You can not use theory and claim it as fact though. If we are to use the same criteria we use to judge a criminal, well the facts point out that the person who wrote that book you recommend was as far from the truth than anyone else ever has been. I never said it was fact, I said it was something one needed to read. Can you understand the difference?

[charles]

The original post, I think.

So, for one to be saved one has to believe Jesus is God, a denial will keep one from attaining salvation.

I believe the question should be? So, for one to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit one has to believe Jesus to be Lord and Christ, and if so, the person should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and then the person would receive the gift of the Father the Holy Spirit. A person has to make a covenant with God. God only works with covenant people.

The question for one to be saved? Saved from what? Are you asking about the physical or spiritual realm? Jesus is God? What Jesus are you speaking about? I believe you are speaking about Jesus the Christ? Who also is Lord?
Denial will keep one from attaining salvation? Are you saying salvation is the same as immortality? I believe the word salvation is just a nice word for deliverance. Deliverance from the physical world such as the Law of sin and death. Salvation does not mean immortality, life after death, life in the Holy Spirit.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same Spirit. And we take part of the Holy Spirit in the Christ, Jesus Christ who is Lord.
For it says we are to be baptized in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And the only revealed name in the bible of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Jesus the Christ who is Lord. The Father is Lord the Son is Lord and the Holy Spirit is Lord, they are all the same Spirit. One Holy Spirit. Salvation or deliverance is what Jesus Christ accomplished, that being the end of the law of sin and death. The old covenant. When you deny Jesus being Lord and Christ you deny yourself of immortality after die. A person only enters into the Spirit world by the Holy Spirit. With out the Holy Spirit there is no life after death. It is known in scripture as sheol or Hades. We like to call it hell. But hell is just a word for no life after death.
Charles

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 03:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=377293#post377293)

When you deny Jesus being Lord and Christ you deny yourself of immortality after die. A person only enters into the Spirit world by the Holy Spirit. With out the Holy Spirit there is no life after death. It is known in scripture as sheol or Hades. We like to call it hell. But hell is just a word for no life after death.
Charles

According to the scriptures, sheol is a place of some kind of consciousness after death.

Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Isa 14:9 Hell [שאיל/sheol] 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.
Isa 14:10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

[Xavier]

:hrm: Dang Folks... Now THAT'S Digging... :hrm:

:digger:

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 09:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=378846#post378846)
Xavier:

:hrm: Dang Folks... Now THAT'S Digging... :hrm:

:digger:

:hrm: Is that a ↑ or a ↓?

[Pilgrim]

Wow, I saw Freaks name on the boards and got excited for a moment, I was thinking there was going to be some real fireworks!

[Xavier]

OldShepherd:

:hrm: Is that a ↑ or a ↓?

It was a comment on how old this thread was... :smile:

[charles]

Posted by OldShepherd on 01-15-2004 12:19 AM:

“ Yesterday @ 03:45 PM post located here

When you deny Jesus being Lord and Christ you deny yourself of immortality after die. A person only enters into the Spirit world by the Holy Spirit. With out the Holy Spirit there is no life after death. It is known in scripture as sheol or Hades. We like to call it hell. But hell is just a word for no life after death.
Charles ”


Old Shep:
According to the scriptures, sheol is a place of some kind of consciousness after death.

Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Isa 14:9 Hell [ùàéì/sheol] 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.
Isa 14:10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

C.
I believe the verses you quoted are speaking about the chief: O Lucifer:
v. 12 How art thou fallen form heaven. O Lucifer, son of the morning. how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.

v. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell to the sides of the pit.

The verses are speaking about spirits who were created and do not have an end, they as we say live on. Humans are not born with a immortal spirit. Your mortal life is over when you die.
The only thing that will rise will be the Spirit of God in you. Jesus showed us that when he rose from the dead.
Charles

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 04:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=385310#post385310)
charles:

Posted by OldShepherd on 01-15-2004 12:19 AM:

“ Yesterday @ 03:45 PM post located here

When you deny Jesus being Lord and Christ you deny yourself of immortality after die. A person only enters into the Spirit world by the Holy Spirit. With out the Holy Spirit there is no life after death. It is known in scripture as sheol or Hades. We like to call it hell. But hell is just a word for no life after death.
Charles ”


Old Shep:
According to the scriptures, sheol is a place of some kind of consciousness after death.

Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Isa 14:9 Hell [ùàéì/sheol] 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.
Isa 14:10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

C.
I believe the verses you quoted are speaking about the chief: O Lucifer:
v. 12 How art thou fallen form heaven. O Lucifer, son of the morning. how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.

v. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell to the sides of the pit.

The verses are speaking about spirits who were created and do not have an end, they as we say live on. Humans are not born with a immortal spirit. Your mortal life is over when you die.
The only thing that will rise will be the Spirit of God in you. Jesus showed us that when he rose from the dead.
Charles

That is an interesting interpretation but IMO totally disregards the context, instead pulling one verse out-of-context to make it fit your presuppositions. Note, that I quoted vs. 4, which addresses this person as the King of Babylon. When was Satan ever King of Babylon? When did the chief evil spirit ever rule nations, v. 6? Verse 9 refers to the chief ones of the earth, not evil spirits. You claim that they live on, but vs. 9, says the "dead" are stirred up for the arrival of the dead king of Babylon.

Verse 16, the dead speak, "this the man [not demon or spirit] that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; [That] made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; [that] opened not the house of his prisoners?"

There are several more statements which clearly show this is referring to a living man who died, i.e. the king of Babylon, and the other dead kings, princes, etc. in sheol are stirred up and rise to meet him when he goes into sheol.

As I said sheol is a place of some kind of consciousness. The dead in sheol have awareness, can move about and speak.

[Ron Macy]

OldShepherd,

Let me offer the following passages of scripture as a definition of death from what I believe is the Biblical perspective.

Genesis 2:7.
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I see this as an equation of life. Body + Breath = Life. The phrase “living being” is translated as “soul” in the King James. Before there was breath there was a non-living soul, being. I consider a non-living being as being dead.

Psalm 146:4.
His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish.

I see this verse as an equation of death. Body - Breath = Death. I believe when one’s thoughts perish, they stop thinking. In death there are no more thought processes. I see it as a state of unconsciousness.


Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10.
5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.

I believe these verses build on the idea of death being a state of non-thinking, unconsciousness. The dead do not know anything. There is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in the grave (Sheol). Those who are dead can do none of these things.

Psalm 6:5
5 For there is no mention of You in death; In Sheol who will give You thanks?

I believe this verse continues to build on the idea of no mental activities in death. There is no one in the grave who will give thanks to God. The mentioning of God and the giving thanks to God is for the living to do.

Psalm 115:17
17 The dead do not praise the LORD, Nor do any who go down into silence;

Again, the idea expressed is those who are dead do not praise God. It is not something they are able to do.

Psalm 30:9
9 "What profit is there in my blood, if I go down to the pit? Will the dust praise You? Will it declare Your faithfulness?

This is the expression of a faithful man. He sees death as a time of silence in which God cannot be praised nor can the faithfulness of God be told.

Psalm 88:10-12
10 Will You perform wonders for the dead? Will the departed spirits rise and praise You? Selah.
11 Will Your lovingkindness be declared in the grave, Your faithfulness in Abaddon?
12 Will Your wonders be made known in the darkness? And Your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?

I believe the implied answer to all these questions is, no. Those who are dead are not conscious. Because they are not conscious, there is no activity they can perform, there are no thought processes of which they are capable.

Jesus referred to death as a sleep in John 11:11. Paul called death a sleep in 1 Corinthians 15:51 (the favorite passage for church nurseries) and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

I believe there this ample scriptural context to substantiate the idea that when one dies, they are unconscious. Their thought processes cease to exist. That is why the resurrection of the dead is such an important part of the teaching of the New Testament (and really the OT, too). Without the resurrection, there is no hope of eternal life.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks,
Ron

[OldShepherd]

01-17-2004 @ 11:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=385778#post385778)
Ron Macy:

OldShepherd,

Let me offer the following passages of scripture as a definition of death from what I believe is the Biblical perspective.

Psalm 146:4.
His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish.

I see this verse as an equation of death. Body - Breath = Death. I believe when one’s thoughts perish, they stop thinking. In death there are no more thought processes. I see it as a state of unconsciousness.

The first problem I see with your response is, it totally ignored the passage I quoted and referred to. Simply throwing a handful of proof texts at the board, answers nothing. Did the verses I quoted mean what they say or not? If not, why not? While you claim not to be JW, this is right out of their teachings.

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10.
5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.

I believe these verses build on the idea of death being a state of non-thinking, unconsciousness. The dead do not know anything. There is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in the grave (Sheol). Those who are dead can do none of these things.

Again it does not address the verses I posted from Isaiah. Also I would suggest you do some reading in the original language and other versions, for example, the NIV. Also what does Jesus say about the dead? Do they speak, have knowledge, recognize people? See the story , not parable, of Lazarus and the rich man.
NIV Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.

Gill Commentary
The Targum [Aramaic translations of the O.T., during the Babylonian captivity] is,

"and sinners know not any good, so that they do not make their works good while they live; and they know not any good in the world to come;''
And yes I know already you are going to give me the old knee jerk argument that the story of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable. First, if it is a parable then what is the theological meaning? Jesus always explained His parables? Second, what is the real life situation? Jesus always used real life examples to illustrate a theological truth. Third, if this is a parable then it is the only one that identifies real people by name.

In this story Jesus identifies two real persons by name, Abraham and Lazarus. The rich man, in hell, experiences pain and thirst, he recognizes Abraham and Lazarus, and is concerned for the fate of his brothers, still living. See Gill's commentary from the Talmud.
John Gill Commentary
"the gates of paradise are fixed over against the gates of hell, so that they can see the righteous in rest, and themselves in distress.''

(b) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 125. 3.
Psalm 6:5
5 For there is no mention of You in death; In Sheol who will give You thanks?

I believe this verse continues to build on the idea of no mental activities in death. There is no one in the grave who will give thanks to God. The mentioning of God and the giving thanks to God is for the living to do.

Psalm 115:17
17 The dead do not praise the LORD, Nor do any who go down into silence;

Again, the idea expressed is those who are dead do not praise God. It is not something they are able to do.

This is the expression of a faithful man. He sees death as a time of silence in which God cannot be praised nor can the faithfulness of God be told.

Knee jerk presupposition. Read Luke 16:19-31. A person who is being tormented in flames, by God, is certainly not going to give God thanks or praise, will they? What about the dead who rise up to greet the king of Babylon, Isaiah 14:4-20?

Psalm 30:9
9 “What profit is there in my blood, if I go down to the pit? Will the dust praise You? Will it declare Your faithfulness?”

Psalm 88:10-12
10 Will You perform wonders for the dead? Will the departed spirits rise and praise You? Selah.
11 Will Your lovingkindness be declared in the grave, Your faithfulness in Abaddon?
12 Will Your wonders be made known in the darkness? And Your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?

I believe the implied answer to all these questions is, no. Those who are dead are not conscious. Because they are not conscious, there is no activity they can perform, there are no thought processes of which they are capable.

I believe your response is the same old, same old, knee jerk presupposition. I have posted two verses which clearly state that the dead in hell speak and recognize people. See my previous response, those in hell will certainly not be giving thanks or praise to God, whose justice placed them in hell.

Jesus referred to death as a sleep in John 11:11. Paul called death a sleep in 1 Corinthians 15:51 (the favorite passage for church nurseries) and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

I believe there this ample scriptural context to substantiate the idea that when one dies, they are unconscious. Their thought processes cease to exist. That is why the resurrection of the dead is such an important part of the teaching of the New Testament (and really the OT, too). Without the resurrection, there is no hope of eternal life.

If there is ample scriptural evidence to support this view then why have you not posted it? As I have shown, the proof texts you posted do not necessarily have the meaning you presume. I have addressed the verses you posted. Would you care to address the passages I quoted, now? FYI, Isaiah 14:4-20 and Luke 16:19-31.

See also Mark 9:43-48. Was Jesus concerned about worms with long life spans and fire? Or was the warnings that Jesus repeated, for a total of 10 times, concerned with the condition of men after death? If death is only unconsciousness, why would Jesus warn people about fire that is not quenched, and worms that do not die? What difference would that make to the dead who experience nothing, according to you?

[Ron Macy]

Hello OldShepherd,

I trust you are doing well. I hope you are staying warm. It is cold where I live.

You wrote,


The first problem I see with your response is, it totally ignored the passage I quoted and referred to. Simply throwing a handful of proof texts at the board, answers nothing. Did the verses I quoted mean what they say or not? If not, why not? While you claim not to be JW, this is right out of their teachings.


You are absolutely correct. I did ignore the text you offered. I wasn’t offering the texts as proof texts for anything. I see them as foundational for what the Bible teaches about those who are dead. I would look at the text you offered from the reference point of these verses.

You again resurrected your effort at poisoning the well (http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html#625) when you brought up the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why not just deal with the teaching and not label the teaching. The Seventh Day Adventists, Advent Christian, and a number of other groups share the belief in conditional immortality with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Parallel to the idea of conditional immortality is the sleep of the dead. Just deal with the teachings without resorting to poisoning the well.

I found your quote of Ecclesiastes 9:5 from the NIV quite interesting.


NIV Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.


I would have put the emphasis on a different phrase.


NIV Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.



You wrote,


And yes I know already you are going to give me the old knee jerk argument that the story of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable. First, if it is a parable then what is the theological meaning? Jesus always explained His parables? Second, what is the real life situation? Jesus always used real life examples to illustrate a theological truth. Third, if this is a parable then it is the only one that identifies real people by name.


I don’t understand your question, “Jesus always explained His parables?” If you intended to make a statement instead of a question, I would have to disagree with you. Jesus didn’t always explain his parables. I would say he seldom did. As a question, I just don’t understand it’s intent.

As for the understanding of the Rich man and Lazarus (which I have always thought was a story and not a parable) see below.


Knee jerk…


Your multiplied use of the phrase suggests a negative connotation to it. It seems to me you are retreating into the realm of poisoning the well (http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html#625), again. You have good thoughts to present, why couch your statements in negativity. Just deal with what I have written.


You wrote,


Read Luke 16:19-31. A person who is being tormented in flames, by God, is certainly not going to give God thanks or praise, will they?


Neither will a person who is unconscious as in a sleep and knows not what is happening in the world.


You wrote,


If there is ample scriptural evidence to support this view then why have you not posted it? As I have shown, the proof texts you posted do not necessarily have the meaning you presume. I have addressed the verses you posted. Would you care to address the passages I quoted, now? FYI, Isaiah 14:4-20 and Luke 16:19-31.


I did not see anything in what you wrote which contradicted the meaning of Psalm 146:4. When a person dies, his thoughts perish.

I did not see anything in what you wrote which contradicted the meaning of Ecclesiastes 9:5 when it said “the dead know not anything.”

I did not see anything in what you wrote which contradicted the idea expressed in Psalm 115:7 when it described the dead as going “down into silence.” This does not express the idea of simply not praising God, it expresses the idea nothing at all is spoken, good or bad. It expresses the idea dead people don’t say anything.

I did not see anything in what you wrote which contradicted what was expressed in Psalm 30:9 and 88:10-12. These verses describe no one in the grave praising God.

You did make an interesting comment, “See my previous response, those in hell will certainly not be giving thanks or praise to God, whose justice placed them in hell.” The assumption you make in your statement is everyone who is dead is in a burning hell. This ignores the idea people whom God declared righteous ever died. Righteous people died and in death even they could not praise God. The passages I offered did not provide the moral condition of the dead, saved or not saved. It just said they were dead.

I provided three (what I consider major) passages in the New Testament which speak of death as a sleep, sleep being a state of unconsciousness. Now, I thought those three were ample proof, yet you ignored them and their meaning to suggest I haven’t offered any passages at all to prove the dead are unconscious.

If I were to simply play a numbers game (which is entirely inappropriate) I have presented 10 passages which speak of the dead not knowing anything and being asleep. You provided 2 passages to suggest the dead are indeed conscious and know their surroundings. Why should I believe your 2 passages in the light of the 10 I have presented?


Isaiah 14:4-20

I looked at Isaiah 14:4-20. Help me to understand why I should take these “dead” people speaking as literal language rather than figurative.

Consider:
v. 8. “Even the cypress trees rejoice over you, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, ‘Since you were laid low, no tree cutter comes up against us.’”

v. 9. “Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come;…”

Cypress trees rejoicing? Cedars of Lebanon speaking? Sheol is excited to see you? Cypress trees are not sentient beings to be able to rejoice. Neither are Cedars. Sheol is a place, the grave, it isn’t sentient, either. A place cannot get excited. This is clearly figurative language. There is no reason to suppose the dead speaking is to be taken literally, either.


Luke 16:19-31.

As for the meaning of the Rich man and Lazarus, the answer is in wrapped around the story in the introduction, Luke 16:14-17, and the summary, 30-31. If people won’t listen to Moses and the Prophets, they won’t listen even if someone is raised from the dead to warn them. We can see the truth to Jesus’ words in John 12:10-11 where the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus (the friend of Jesus) because many people were believing in Jesus because Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. They would rather kill the “evidence” than believe Jesus is the Messiah.

Let us consider a few other ideas about this parable/story.

Point 1.
To interpret this parable as teaching the dead being taken immediately into some kind of paradise directly contradicts Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching in other places. Jesus and Paul taught judgment is not done and rewards not given until Jesus returns.

Matthew 16:27.
“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.”

Matthew 25:31-34
31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 22:12
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.”

And Paul’s words in
1 Corinthians 15:51-52
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.


Point 2.
I don’t believe all the details of a parable/story are critical to the point of the parable, nor should they be used to provide supposition for doctrinal details not given elsewhere. I mentioned the point of this parable above.

Point 3.
If one is going to apply the details of this parable to other doctrinal ideas, then we must take all the details, not just the details we want to use.

a. The definition of whom will be in God’s Kingdom and whom will be in the lake of fire.
There is no reason given as to why the rich man was tormented and Lazarus was given paradise. The only thing we can conclude, then, is all rich people will suffer torment in hell and only those who live as beggars, eating the crumbs from other people’s tables will have paradise.

b. Our bodies will exist throughout eternity.
The mention of body parts for both the rich man (tongue) and Lazarus (finger) would tell us our bodies do make it into eternity. This is contrary to what most people would suggest.

c. We will be able to watch the suffering of the wicked. Will we enjoy it?
In eternity, those who receive God’s blessing in paradise will be able to watch their loved ones who didn’t make into God’s paradise suffer for all eternity. They will be able to hear the suffering of the damned. Sounds pleasant, doesn’t it?


I am looking forward to what you have to say.

Ron

[Spokoina]

Necessary for salvation? but what did this guy know?

Luk 23:40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
Luk 23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

NOW..before you insist "thy kingdom" meant he knew Jesus was God, consider that Jews of that day believed the messiah would come with the messianic kingdom and never that it meant the messiah was God, so you cannot use that as an excuse to say..he knew Jesus was God.

All he knew..was Jesus was innocent, and asked to be remembered when he in the kingly glory, kingdom. (Messiah in Judaism was to be king of Israel..not God!)

So what theology did he know to be saved? Or did God see right to his heart and not his theological professions.

Just wondered.

[Dave G]

Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58

This was the time the Jews went to stone him for claiming to be the God that delivered Moses and the Israelites from Egypt. It was done publically. There's no reason to assume that in a tightly-controlled status culture like that word wouldn't spread.

So unless the thief had been in jail for three years and never heard any of Jesus's later escapades, it's likely that he knew that Jesus was God and accepted a promise to be in paradise without question, instead of asking, "But what about your kingdom?"

It might also be a good idea to ask Jaltus about the Greek word for "Lord" being used in your verses. It could even mean "Almighty" for all I know.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 05:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=393813#post393813)
Dave G:

Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58

This was the time the Jews went to stone him for claiming to be the God that delivered Moses and the Israelites from Egypt. It was done publically. There's no reason to assume that in a tightly-controlled status culture like that word wouldn't spread.

So unless the thief had been in jail for three years and never heard any of Jesus's later escapades, it's likely that he knew that Jesus was God and accepted a promise to be in paradise without question, instead of asking, "But what about your kingdom?"

It might also be a good idea to ask Jaltus about the Greek word for "Lord" being used in your verses. It could even mean "Almighty" for all I know.

It wasn't the "I AM" that sent the Pharisees over the edge. It was when Jesus said he was before Abraham that they finally understood he was claiming to be the Messiah and then tried to kill him.

In addition to John 8:58, Jesus had already said these same words (ego eimi) in John 8:24 and 28. Let's notice these:


If you do not believe that I am (ego eimi) [the one I claim to be], you will die in your sins. (John 8:24, New International Version)

The words [the one I claim to be] are in brackets because the New International Version is informing the reader they do not appear in the Greek text. (This is the implied predicate.) So here we see Jesus saying ego eimi, the same phrase used 34 verses later in 8:58. Did the Jews think this made him God? No. Notice their reply in the next verse,

"Who are you?" they asked. (verse 25)

In other words, they didn't pick up the implied predicate. So they did not connect ego eimi with God. Notice four verses later:


Then you will know that I am (ego eimi) [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. (John 8:28)

Again Jesus says ego eimi but the Jews do not seem to think he is claiming to be God here either. With good reason too! It would be difficult to understand Jesus as saying -

'then you will know I Am God and I do nothing on my own but only what the Father has taught me to do.' -

So Jesus' saying ego eimi did not make the Jews think he was God in John 8:24 or 28. The third time it appeared, Jesus finally added the trigger that set them off. He was before Abraham.

The whole context of John 8 shows Jesus wasn't claiming to be God . The Jews, at least UNTIL verse 58, would have NEVER drawn the conclusion Jesus was claiming to be God. Note a few points:


John 8:26-27
I have many things to speak concerning you and to pass judgment upon. As a matter of fact, he that sent me is true, and the very things I heard from him I am speaking in the world.” They did not grasp that he was talking to them about the Father. ”



Jesus says the things he is teaching are not his own but from the Father. All there would immediately conclude the Father is God, not Jesus.


John 8:28-30
Therefore Jesus said: “When once you have lifted up the Son of man, then You will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him.” As he was speaking these things, many put faith in him. ”


Does God do nothing of his own initiative? The things Jesus taught were not his own terachings. Jesus does the things pleasing to GOD. People were putting faith in Jesus at this point. But faith in what? That he IS Almighty God? Remember, these people were not Trinitarians, at least not yet. They couldn't say, 'Well Jesus is speaking from his human nature. When God came to the earth he had to give up his "God" powers. He is in functional subjection but ontologically he is equal with God.' If you put yourself in their time frame and knowledge base, you don't hear Jesus say these things and still think he is God.


John 8:40
But now you are seeking to kill me, a man that has told you the truth that I heard from God. ”

Jesus claims to be “a man that has told you the truth that [he] heard from God.” Does it sound like he is claiming to be God? If you didn't have a Bible dictionary with the doctrine of the Trinity outlined in it, could you even BEGIN to think Jesus was God after hearing this?


John 8:42
Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for from God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth.”

Jesus doesn’t claim to be the God of the Jews. He claims to have been sent forth from the their God. It seems obvious to me that no one is even getting a hint that Jesus was claiming to be God.


John 8:54
Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my
Father that glorifies me, he who you say is your God.”

Jesus again doesn’t claim to be the God of the Jews. He said their God is his Father. These accounts in John 8 show that Jesus was not claiming to be God in verse 58.

What was this discussion about?


John 7:31,32
Still, many of the crowd put faith in him; and they commenced saying: “When the Christ arrives, he will not perform more signs than this man has performed, will he?”
The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring these things about him and...dispatched officers to get hold of him."

So NO ONE was questioning Jesus about his being God. They wanted to know if he was claiming to be the Messiah. The saying "ego eimi" didn't set the Pharisees off in verses 24 or 28 and it didn't set them off in verse 58 either. It was the statement that Jesus was "before Abraham" that they finally realized he was claiming to be the Messiah.

We also notice John 9:9:

"Some would say: "This is he." Others would say: "Not at all, but he is like him." The man would say: "I am (ego eimi)."

This man also used the term ego eimi with the implied predicate being himself. It's not like the Jews went around refering to God as the "I AM". Some Trinitarians, but not all, have turned this normal verb (to be) into a proper noun.

I talked to Bill about this in the Tennis Court, for more information on it, go here-
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15883&perpage=16&pagenumber=2

[AVmetro]

Non-Trin,

If you want to discuss John 8:58, you'll probably need to give it it's own thread (in order to respect the initiator of this threads interests).

Many of your objections seem to be based upon what you feel Trinitarians should believe as opposed to what they do believe (i.e. I think you're bringing in a priori suppositions as well as to what God can and cannot do or be).

If you'd like, you can preuse this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=576), where the topic was disscussed at length.

God bless--AV

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 12:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=394991#post394991)
AVmetro:

Non-Trin,

If you want to discuss John 8:58, you'll probably need to give it it's own thread (in order to respect the initiator of this threads interests).

Many of your objections seem to be based upon what you feel Trinitarians should believe as opposed to what they do believe (i.e. I think you're bringing in a priori suppositions as well as to what God can and cannot do or be).

If you'd like, you can preuse this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=576), where the topic was disscussed at length.

God bless--AV


AV,
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to hijack this thread. My information is based on many discussions with Trinitarians and Trinitarian books. Even a number of Trinitarian scholars don't think John 8:58 is linked to Ex 3:14. Thus, there is a broad range of thoughts on what Trinitarians think about this verse. So I think what you mean is that my objections are not in line with what you and some Trinitarians think.

I'll bow out and let this thread get back on its purpose.

best regards,
NT

[mickiel]

Will religon ever grow tired of trying to limit what has no limit? No one can count the number of salvation. You cannot belittle what God has enlarged.

[Jeannot]

Couldn't Jesus be divine in some sense, w/o a doctrine of the Trinity?