Is death just another life?

[Derf]

is there only one meaning for Dead\death in the bible ?

(death is a place in rev20:13)

to answer you question
the rich man was judged and placed in hell awaiting the final judgement
where he and the place he is are both thrown into the lake of fire
Heb_9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,



Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Hi Way!
I don’t understand how what you said here relates to what you quoted from me.
I don’t have a problem with the use of the same word for different things, but context needs to inform us as to what they mean.

 

[Derf]

The rich man is suffering while he awaits final judgement. We don’t make the rules God does.Is that why the rich man asked Lazarus to dip his finger in water and place it on his tongue because he was tormented in the flames ? Why then if it is only inferred that Lazarus wasn’t in torment did the rich man ask for his help ? You might want to read and study the scripture references about Sheol then you will not be so confused.

I’m certainly more confused after reading your post. I never said Lazarus was in torment.

 

[Derf]

No. I grant you no unearned ground. Establish that such a change is warranted by something other than your desire to move it or else it's just fantacy land, pretend theology where anything goes so long as we like it.

Then you’ll have to wait until I go back and deal with your earlier post more thoroughly.

 

[way 2 go]

Hi Way!
I don’t understand how what you said here relates to what you quoted from me.
I don’t have a problem with the use of the same word for different things, but context needs to inform us as to what they mean.

you said

My position is that when someone is dead, they are dead--there's no life in them or any part of them

is that the only definition for dead \ death ?

explain this to me , just so I know where you're coming from
Mat 8:22 But Jesus said to him, Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead.

 

[Leatherneck]

I’m certainly more confused after reading your post. I never said Lazarus was in torment.

You have a short memory:
[IMG alt="Derf"]https://www.theologyonline.com/data/avatars/m/17/17457.jpg?1605493707[/IMG]

Derf​

Well-known member​

• Today at 4:37 PM
• Add bookmark
• #35

Why ? You would twist the meaning to fit your false narrative. Where do you think Lazarus ,Abraham, and the rich man was in the scriptural I already gave you ? In case you missed it they were all in Sheol.

In case you missed it, the rich man was already suffering punishment. How could that be unless he had already been judged?
And in case you missed it, only the rich man was said to be in Hades. That doesn’t mean Lazarus wasn’t, but it is inferred, not explicit.

 

[Derf]

you said

is that the only definition for dead \ death ?

explain this to me , just so I know where you're coming from
Mat 8:22 But Jesus said to him, Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead.

In the passage nobody was really physically dead, including the man’s father. If nobody was physically dead, but one was about to be, and the other is compared to him, then both were about to be physically dead, just one sooner than the other. If the son was waiting around for his father to die, then he was of no use to Jesus, who needed his followers to be committed to him more than to their parents (or other family members). Thus, the son was as good as dead, just like his father.

 

[Derf]

You have a short memory:
[IMG alt="Derf"]https://www.theologyonline.com/data/avatars/m/17/17457.jpg?1605493707[/IMG]

Derf​

Well-known member​

• Today at 4:37 PM
• Add bookmark
• #35

In case you missed it, the rich man was already suffering punishment. How could that be unless he had already been judged?
And in case you missed it, only the rich man was said to be in Hades. That doesn’t mean Lazarus wasn’t, but it is inferred, not explicit.

And you think that means I said Lazarus was in torment? I’m not seeing it.

 

[way 2 go]

In the passage nobody was really physically dead, including the man’s father.

sorry but in context his father is physically dead
Mat 8:21 And another of His disciples said to him, Lord, allow me first to go and bury my father.
Mat 8:22 But Jesus said to him, Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead.

If nobody was physically dead, but one was about to be, and the other is compared to him, then both were about to be physically dead, just one sooner than the other. If the son was waiting around for his father to die, then he was of no use to Jesus, who needed his followers to be committed to him more than to their parents (or other family members). Thus, the son was as good as dead, just like his father.

so you define dead as useless
and "there's no life in them or any part of them"

so now explain this ,
Mat 22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

You’re assuming that “the spirit” here is referring to a part of the person, and that the person still exists without the body. Even if I grant you that a person is made up of body soul and spirit, or even body and spirit, the person would no longer be a person when one of those was missing.

still a person without a body ,Moses talked with Jesus
Mat 17:3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.

 

[Derf]

@Clete: I went back to the other thread and picked up a few quotes from your posts to me. BUt I'm not sure I got the most important ones. Please let me know if I haven't addressed all that you'd like me to.

There is no such thing as a real Christian who denies the death of Jesus Christ nor is there any such thing as a real Christian who believes that Jesus ever ceased to exist.

I'm in complete agreement with you on the first one, but I'm not so sure about the second one. "Jesus Christ" is the name and title given to the human being that was born of Mary. We know He was also the Son of God who was with God before the world began, but He wasn't at that time "Jesus Christ", as far as we know. The name "Jesus" (Jeshua, or whatever that name would be in the heavenly tongue) was only introduced to us as His name just before He was born, and the title "Christ" was added later. Perhaps the name "Jesus" was used before then, or perhaps not). The man Jesus Christ did not exist before He was born to Mary. But He, the person that is Jesus Christ, did in the Godhead.

So I tend to agree with your second point as well, with the caveat that Jesus Christ, the Son of God probably continued to exist while Jesus Christ the man may have ceased to exist. I could be convinced otherwise.

Because Jesus is not the Father nor is He the Holy Spirit. There are not three Gods, there is one triune God. In some sense they are quite separate. In another sense they are one. While some theologians teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a manner that is self-contradictory, the bible itself does not. There are details we are not taught and so there's plenty of room for confusion but if we simply stick with what the bible itself says there is no contradiction inherent in the idea that the singular God is triune in nature.

So, enlighten me. Can a "triune God" ever be separate from Themselves? How does that work? They were with each other before the world began. They were still one while Jesus was on the earth, but Jesus was "sent from God" or "sent by God". We don't consider either of those separate, but they could be. Jesus was "forsaken" by the Father, but was the Son of God separated? @JudgeRightly commented that He was "forsaken", and it could mean separated--he has a good point, but we haven't finished the conversation). I'll plead a fair amount of ignorance here about how the Trinity, the One God, could ever be separated from each other, just as I'll plead a fair amount of ignorance about how a single God can have relationship with Himself in the other two persons.

Jesus was fully human and He died in exactly the same sense in which any other human being has ever died and went to the same place that all the other righteous dead went. The difference is that He was also God who, by the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8), was able to take His life back up again, reuniting Himself both with His physical body and with the Father.

I agree with most of this, but disagree with what that "place" is and how it applies.

So, if death isn't a separation then what is it? What do you mean when you say that Jesus died and rose from the dead?

Why is it a problem saying that He died (at least the man part of Him, but not just the physical part of Him)--that He completely ceased to function? And then He was resurrected and life started again?

Are you suggesting here that we do not have actual spirits but that what we call our "spirit" is some sort of undefined "life force"?

I'm not saying you ARE suggesting that, by the way. It's a real question. Is that what you mean by what you said here?

What is a man's "spirit"? Is it a spiritual being that is trapped in a physical body? Spiritual beings don't seem to lack anything, except a way to interact with the physical world, so why does a spiritual being need a body at all?

I will say that man is given something of God's spirit. God breathed into the clay that was to become Adam the breath of life, and he became a living creature. So it is more defined than what you suggest--in that case it was a life force given by God to animate something that was lifeless. And what is it that we will return to? the same thing.
[Gen 3:19 KJV] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
Notice that the verse doesn't say, "Your body is dust and to dust it shall return." Rather "YOU are dust, and YOU will become dust once more."

 

[Derf]

sorry but in context his father is physically dead
Mat 8:21 And another of His disciples said to him, Lord, allow me first to go and bury my father.
Mat 8:22 But Jesus said to him, Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead.

You don't know that.

so you define dead as useless
and "there's no life in them or any part of them"

Dust isn't useless, but I'll agree with the second part.

so now explain this ,
Mat 22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

You remember the context, right? That Jesus was talking to people who didn't believe in the resurrection at all? So He used the example of the Patriarchs as an illustration of "resurrection", not that they were still living. You can't resurrect someone who is alive. So He's talking about an assured state of life for those that were currently dead, just as David was dead, not alive, when Peter spoke about him.

[Act 2:29 KJV] Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
[Act 2:34 KJV] For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

As an aside, this second verse seems to indicate that David is not in heaven, right? even though Jesus had already led captivity captive by this point in time.

still a person without a body ,Moses talked with Jesus
Mat 17:3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.

Elijah's easier than Moses, since he didn't die, as far as we can tell. But I don't consider it a hard thing for God for Moses to be resurrected, maybe temporarily. Why would you think it was a person without a body? Peter offered to build them shelters. Why would a spirit need a shelter?

 

[Clete]

I'm in complete agreement with you on the first one, but I'm not so sure about the second one. "Jesus Christ" is the name and title given to the human being that was born of Mary. We know He was also the Son of God who was with God before the world began, but He wasn't at that time "Jesus Christ", as far as we know. The name "Jesus" (Jeshua, or whatever that name would be in the heavenly tongue) was only introduced to us as His name just before He was born, and the title "Christ" was added later. Perhaps the name "Jesus" was used before then, or perhaps not). The man Jesus Christ did not exist before He was born to Mary. But He, the person that is Jesus Christ, did in the Godhead.

So I tend to agree with your second point as well, with the caveat that Jesus Christ, the Son of God probably continued to exist while Jesus Christ the man may have ceased to exist. I could be convinced otherwise.

A rose, by any other name, is still a rose. Right?

Since we are talking about what it means to die, I think this, more or less semantic point, only serves to muddy the water but it is true that He whom we call Jesus was not always a man but became a man at the incarnation. The point is, however, that Jesus Christ, the man, exists right now - as a man with a physical body and scares left by the crucifixion. At what point do you suggest He could have ceased to exist and why would you suggest such a thing?

So, enlighten me. Can a "triune God" ever be separate from Themselves?

Yes. At least in some meaningful way. (Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34).

I answered directly because I understand the thrust of the question but you should be careful not to fall into thinking that the Trinity doctrine is some kind of self-contradictory teaching. Your question could be read in manner that would imply that God is both singular and triune in the same sense. That is not what the bible teaches. So suffice it to say that in whatever sense they are seperate persons, they can be seperated from each other's fellowship, as Jesus Himself indicated happened while He was still on the cross.

How does that work?

I have no idea except that one is in some location, either spiritually or physically (or both) apart from the others.

They were with each other before the world began. They were still one while Jesus was on the earth, but Jesus was "sent from God" or "sent by God". We don't consider either of those separate, but they could be. Jesus was "forsaken" by the Father, but was the Son of God separated? @JudgeRightly commented that He was "forsaken", and it could mean separated--he has a good point, but we haven't finished the conversation). I'll plead a fair amount of ignorance here about how the Trinity, the One God, could ever be separated from each other, just as I'll plead a fair amount of ignorance about how a single God can have relationship with Himself in the other two persons.

Again, your speech seems to at least imply a contradiction that is not there.

Is there one and only one God?
Yes!

Is that one God triune in nature?
Yes!

Two separate questions, the former has to do with the quantity of a thing, the latter has to do with the nature of that thing. There are lots of things around you that have a similar quality and you understand it intuitively. A tree has roots, a trunk, branches and leaves. The leaves aren't the trunk and the trunk isn't the roots but all are not only one with the tree, they are the tree. And it gets really complicated if you try to get specific about where the roots end and the trunk begins and where trunk ends and the branches begin or where the branches end and the leaves begin. The closer you look, the more the boundaries are blurred into non-existence but if you remove a leaf, that leaf is dead because you've cut it off from it's source of life. It may not look dead right away but with time, the truth of its condition is made apparent.

God is THE source of life. He is Life itself. Thus, to reject God is to embrace death and to be separated from Him is the very definition of death.

I agree with most of this, but disagree with what that "place" is and how it applies.

Why?

Why is it a problem saying that He died (at least the man part of Him, but not just the physical part of Him)--that He completely ceased to function? And then He was resurrected and life started again?

Because it is in conflict with scripture. Jesus Himself said that He would be in paradise that day and not only that but He couldn't have taken up His life again, as Jesus explicitly said He had the power to do (John 10:18), if He had been in some sort of an unconscious dormant state.

Now, I understand that the bible says that Jesus was raised by the power of the Holy Spirit and that is entirely true and it immediately gets back into a discussion about the Trinity and where does one member start and that other end and to what degree are they are the same thing, etc, etc and so I readily admit that it is a complex issue that we have not been given sufficient information about to have the ability to discuss it is any great detail but, I submit that the details don't really matter for our purposes because the fact is that, to whatever extent God the Son is distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit, it was Him and ONLY Him (i.e. God the Son) who laid down His life. It wasn't the Father who was in the grave for three days. So, even if we granted that you're right for the sake of argument, how would God the Son being in an unconscious dormant state not be a significant separation from the rest of the Godhead?

What is a man's "spirit"? Is it a spiritual being that is trapped in a physical body? Spiritual beings don't seem to lack anything, except a way to interact with the physical world, so why does a spiritual being need a body at all?

Doesn't that question answer itself?

We know biblically that there is a spiritual realm and a physical realm. We also know that man is a three fold being. You have a soul, a spirit and a body (I Thessalonians 5:23 and elsewhere). Your soul is you. It is your mind, emotions, personality, etc. Your spirit is that part of you that interacts with the spiritual realm and your body is that which interacts with the physical realm. This is the way in which man was created and so a disembodied spirit is an incomplete creature.

I should point out that, as we've already been discussing, it is rather more complex than what I just said because your soul, spirit and body are all integrated in a manner that makes all but impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins. We know for example that your mind is housed, at least to a great degree, within your physical brain (and perhaps to some significant degree, your physical heart as well) and where the boundary is between the two is less than clear.

I will say that man is given something of God's spirit. God breathed into the clay that was to become Adam the breath of life, and he became a living creature. So it is more defined than what you suggest--in that case it was a life force given by God to animate something that was lifeless. And what is it that we will return to? the same thing.
[Gen 3:19 KJV] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
Notice that the verse doesn't say, "Your body is dust and to dust it shall return." Rather "YOU are dust, and YOU will become dust once more."

No. Use of scripture in this manner (i.e. ignoring the context) is not proper. It makes it possible for you to have ANY wacky doctrine that you can dream up and utterly impossible to falsify any theological claim. The context here makes clear what is being said. It is not trying to say that we ARE the dust of the ground but that our bodies are. It was Adam's BODY that was made from the dust of the ground and Moses was simply saying that our body will decompose back into that which it was made from.

Incidentally, I've seen people attempt to suggest that because the Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible for 'spirit' or 'soul' are words that can also mean breath that they are therefore the same thing. This is just not so. When one word means two (or more) things, that doesn't make the those separate things the same thing. The right side of your house is not related in any way to a constitutional right nor is it related to being right (i.e. neither factually correct nor morally right). There are some such uses of words were the meanings over lap but even then they aren't synonymous to the point that they are talking about the same thing. As always, the specific meaning of a word is determined by the context in which it is used.
There is a similar thing that goes on in the bible with angels and stars. It seems the bible intentionally blurs the distinction between the two to the point that at some places its rather hard to tell whether its talking about stars or angels but this does NOT mean that the stars we see in the sky are angels, as I've seen more than one Christian teacher attempt to assert.

Clete

 

[Gary K]

Jesus never told fairy tales of course He told a truth that most would rather avoid because it relates to everyone’s future. Heaven or hell is where everyone is going to end up it’s your choice.

Story telling, i.e. parables, was the most common way Jesus taught truth. To figure out the lesson Jesus is teaching in that passage is to look at who Jesus was interacting with and about what.

Luke 16:13 ¶No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Jesus' response was to the sneering of the Pharisees when Jesus is teaching about morality/honesty and being faithful to whom/what you profess to believe in. He goes on to say it's easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of God's word to fail. From this He goes directly to the story of Abraham/Lazarus. So by this story He is illustrating the concepts He has just been teaching. This is something He does very often.

The story ends with Jesus making a very important point:

Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Had Jesus ever said anything very similar to the Pharisees before? Yes.

John 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that comethfrom God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Did someone rising from the dead change the minds of the Pharisees? Nope. It happened twice after that. Jesus raised the brother of Mary and Martha, Lazarus, and all it did was increase the hatred of the Pharisees. And did the fact that Jesus rose from the dead change their minds? Nope. Not in the least.

So what was Jesus illustrating with the story of Abraham/Lazarus? The spiritual blindness of the hearts of the Pharisees. They didn't believe Moses so they wouldn't believe someone who rose from the dead. That His analysis was truth is born out by His death.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[Right Divider]

Story telling, i.e. parables, was the most common way Jesus taught truth.

Jesus speaking in parables was specifically to HIDE the truth from those that opposed the truth.

Matt 13:10-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(13:10) And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? (13:11) He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (13:12) For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (13:13) Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (13:14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: (13:15) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (13:16) But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. (13:17) For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them].

The parables had to be explained, privately, by Jesus.

 

[Gary K]

Jesus speaking in parables was specifically to HIDE the truth from those that opposed the truth.

The parables had to be explained, privately, by Jesus.

Mark 12:1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
3 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.
6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
11 This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
12 And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.

 

[Derf]

Jesus speaking in parables was specifically to HIDE the truth from those that opposed the truth.

The parables had to be explained, privately, by Jesus.

Not always:
[Mat 21:45 KJV] And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

 

[Right Divider]

@Derf @ffreeloader
Guys... just because they understood that he was talking about them does not mean that my comment was incorrect.

Jesus specifically said that parables were to hide information and not to make things clear.
The clarity ONLY came when He PRIVATELY explained the parables.

 

[Gary K]

Jesus speaking in parables was specifically to HIDE the truth from those that opposed the truth.

The parables had to be explained, privately, by Jesus.

Mark 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

 

[Right Divider]

Again... Jesus was explaining the parables to the twelve but NOT to the rest.

 

[Gary K]

@Derf @ffreeloader
Guys... just because they understood that he was talking about them does not mean that my comment was incorrect.

Jesus specifically said that parables were to hide information and not to make things clear.
The clarity ONLY came when He PRIVATELY explained the parables.

You.ve just been given examples where your idea is refuted by scripture. It's true some of Jesus' parables were not understood by all, but that is not a universal truth as shown by scripture. Jesus didn't explain those parables yet people clearly understood His meaning.

 

[Right Divider]

You.ve just been given examples where your idea is refuted by scripture. It's true some of Jesus' parables were not understood by all, but that is not a universal truth as shown by scripture. Jesus didn't explain those parables yet people clearly understood His meaning.

Matt 13:10-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(13:10) And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? (13:11) He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.