I have no idea what you are trying to twist out of this. When people die they are dead and their bodies uusually get cremated or buried. How hard is that to understand?
Is death just another life?
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
That's pretty clear, thanks. I'm not trying to twist anything, I'd just like to make sure our language isn't confusing; see the title of the thread.
In a previous post you defined the body's demise in terms of the person going to heaven, which I didn't quite expect.
So if Paul talks about death as something that is before it really is, in Rom 8:10, you think it is because we are to hold the body as dead to sin, because we are in Christ, right?
But the structure of the sentence compares two things that are "because" of something, "if you are in Christ." The body is dead because of sin, and the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If your interpretation was intended, I think it would have to say "the body is dead TO sin," rather than BECAUSE of sin. Thus, the Roman readers, whose bodies were still living and breathing, were told their bodies weren't living and breathing "because of sin."
In other words, their bodies were doomed to die. Thus Paul was using a future reality (death) to describe a present condition.
The same could be said about when we were "dead in our trespasses and sins." We weren't really dead, just doomed to die.
Derf
Well-known member
I'm not for sure about it, but Judas' father's name was Simon, and they were at a Simon's house.
John 12:4 (KJV)
Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], which should betray him,
Mark 14:3 (KJV)
And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured [it] on his head.
Both of these passages describe the same event.
Right Divider
Body part
Simon seems to be a fairly common name at that time. Even Peter is Simon:
Matt 4:18 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:18) ¶ And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Mark calls this Simon "Simon the leper". You'd think that if it was Judas Iscariot's father, he would have said so (because that's an import detail, if true).
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Could just be a different Simon, like the Simony Simon in Acts.
Another argument from silence. You love those. You employ them all the time. They're very rhetorically effective, but they're still logically invalid. In order to know the truth you must understand the difference.
Right Divider
Body part
Absolutely.
It's not an argument from silence. You love to make that bogus claim. You do it all the time.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Judas was only called Simon's son three times, that I found--all by John. We know some of the other disciples' father's names, like Zebedee (James and John), or Jonas (Simon Peter and Andrew). But not all. Since Judas had a "last name", his father's name wasn't necessary to distinguish from the other Judas. It's certainly not something I can support with scripture--just a conjecture.
Judas Iscariot was Simon Iscariot's son. Scripture makes that pretty clear as it tells us Judas' last name.
Derf
Well-known member
Which is almost as much of a conjecture as mine.
Do you really think the disciples were apt to forget the name of the guy who betrayed their Lord?
Derf
Well-known member
Here's another use of the word "surnamed", also by Luke:
Acts 4:36 (KJV) And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, [and] of the country of Cyprus,
It probably wasn't a "last name" as we usually think of such. Joses' father was probably not "consolation".
Big difference. Who does Luke say surnamed Barbabas? If that was true of Judas why didn't he say say the same thing he did about Barnabas? Because it was Judas' family name and as I said the disciples were not apt to forget Judas' entire name. They had traveled and worked with him for 3 years before his betrayal.
Not that this will mean anything to you, but I have never seen any pastor, Bible commentary, theologian, or author ever question Judas' last name. Not a single one. But when you think your speculation is as reliable as God's word I'll leave you to your speculation.
Derf
Well-known member
The apostles surnamed Barnabas. Jesus surnamed Peter and the sons of thunder, if I remember correctly. Who knows who surnamed Saul (“Paul”). In none of these cases do we transfer the surname to the actual fathers. Why should we presume to do it with Judas’s?
I don't see any presumption in it. You can't find you point of view in any spiritual writings. It simply doesn't exist. So do what you want to do. Be the one person on earth who disbelieves scripture on this subject. It's no skin off my nose either way.
Derf
Well-known member
I've admitted I can't find my position anywhere, but I've also shown you can't find yours in the bible, either.
My point was for you to consider that Jesus had actually embarrassed Judas in front of his father, and possibly many other people. That wouldn't be manipulation, because Judas brought it on himself, but it might have caused him stop the pretense of being a disciple.
Right Divider
Body part
Saul was not surnamed Paul.
Saul was ALSO CALLED Paul.
Acts 13:9 KJV
Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
Paul had both Hebrew and Greek names.
So the one person on earth who never sinned deliberately manipulated Judas to betray Him. That is sin as it is deception. You're willing to accuse Jesus of sin to uphold your speculation. Sorry, but I find that pretty much off the charts weird for anyone to say who claims to love God.
There is nothing wrong with God manipulating His enemies into accomplishing His will.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Exodus 9:12