ST. JOHN 11:26

[way 2 go]

Really? Jesus quoted Himself talking about Lazarus and the rich man,

Jesus quoted Abraham

like He quoted from Ps 22: "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken Me"?

which was a psalm of David

You know about Ps 22's applicability to Jesus crucifixion because of 2 things--1)Jesus quoting the Psalm's first lines, and 2) the events match up.

You can't use the first means to establish who Abraham's talking about because Jesus did NOT quote Himself speaking the parable as far as we know.

You can't use the second means to differentiate between Jesus vs Lazarus coming back from the dead because both Jesus and at least one Lazarus came back from the dead.

Jesus is the only one still risen from the dead , Abraham was prophetic when he said
Luk 16:29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
...
Luk 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

underlined part is true, people who do not hear Moses and the Prophets don't hear Jesus either and are not convinced of the fire the rich man was in.

Lazarus didn't have a body like Jesus' either, as far as we know. So maybe the brief visits WERE like Lazarus', but Lazarus stayed around for longer.

:AMR:
no , resurrected then murdered no, resurrected then just fell down dead ,no , so not like Lazarus.

I don't know Elijah's or Moses' or Samuel's form either. But there's no indication that they were "spirits", especially since the texts don't say that.

you have all kinds of evidence ,you just have to put it all together.

 

[Rosenritter]

I don't know Elijah's or Moses' or Samuel's form either. But there's no indication that they were "spirits", especially since the texts don't say that.

Are these questions for me? Can you write them in the form of questions so I can tell what it is you want me to answer?

There is some indication that the "spirit of Samuel" (as it is often called) was a spirit.

1 Samuel 28:13-14 KJV
(13) And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
(14) And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.

If this "Samuel" was raised from the dead and of physical form, why would Saul need to ask the witch what it looked like? Wouldn't he be able to see for himself? The dialogue indicates that this was something that only the witch herself could see, thus indicating an evil spirit granting the witch the ability to see but no one else.

 

[Rosenritter]

you said "not based on actual scripture" , prove it.

my proof .
Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

are you anti trinitarian ?

What does this subject have to do with Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian?

 

[Derf]

What does this subject have to do with Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian?

I think I understand where [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION] is going with this. He's trying to say that Jesus, being God in a trinitarian fashion, would be everywhere at one time--omnipresent.

you said "not based on actual scripture" , prove it.

my proof .
Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

are you anti trinitarian ?

My problem is that it completely deflates any comfort the thief might have derived from being told he would be with Jesus. The same words would apply to the other thief, the one that did not repent but mocked Jesus, as well as Pilate, and Hitler, and Satan himself. It makes Jesus' words mean nothing.

Regarding the anti-trinitarian charge, how could God forsake Jesus, as foretold in Ps 22:1?? Was David anti-trinitarian? How much meaning are you wanting to pour into the word?

What was the thief asking for, though? Wasn't he asking that Jesus remember him when He comes into His kingdom? In other words, the thief thought Jesus had not yet come into His kingdom. Meaning Jesus, according to the thief, was NOT omnipresent. He may have been wrong, but I don't think Jesus was rebuking his theology. Jesus was making a statement about the thief's presence and Jesus' presence when He came into His kingdom.

Surely there's a conflict in our views about what "today" means in the passage, but you seem to want to manufacture more conflict than exists.

 

[Rosenritter]

I think I understand where @way 2 go is going with this. He's trying to say that Jesus, being God in a trinitarian fashion, would be everywhere at one time--omnipresent.

My problem is that it completely deflates any comfort the thief might have derived from being told he would be with Jesus. The same words would apply to the other thief, the one that did not repent but mocked Jesus, as well as Pilate, and Hitler, and Satan himself. It makes Jesus' words mean nothing.

Regarding the anti-trinitarian charge, how could God forsake Jesus, as foretold in Ps 22:1?? Was David anti-trinitarian? How much meaning are you wanting to pour into the word?

What was the thief asking for, though? Wasn't he asking that Jesus remember him when He comes into His kingdom? In other words, the thief thought Jesus had not yet come into His kingdom. Meaning Jesus, according to the thief, was NOT omnipresent. He may have been wrong, but I don't think Jesus was rebuking his theology. Jesus was making a statement about the thief's presence and Jesus' presence when He came into His kingdom.

Surely there's a conflict in our views about what "today" means in the passage, but you seem to want to manufacture more conflict than exists.

"When you come into your kingdom"

I don't think that's talking about entering into an already-existing place, but rather about when he inherits that kingdom as its King. For example, if I were to say "when I come into money, you'll be the first to know" I'm not saying that I am moving to a city named Money.

Luke 23:41-42 KJV
(41) And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
(42) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.


Just reviewing this phrase,

"Remember me" isn't asking for Jesus to say "Oh yea, there was that malefactor on the cross. Good memory." It's a request for favor and forgiveness that only makes sense to be asked of one that could grant favor and forgiveness.

"When thou comest into thy kingdom" is in the context of the Kingdom of God, the coming Kingdom that we see preached in the gospels. I think it is safe to assume that this man also on the cross had heard something of what Jesus preached, else why would he make reference to His kingdom? Regardless, I think it makes better sense as "when you inherit the kingdom in power" rather than "when you cross the border into the kingdom physically."

Some thoughts about what is meant by "Paradise" are spoiler tagged below...

Spoiler

"Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise" indicates that the coming Kingdom might well be associated with, lead to, or possibly equated with Paradise. It would be strange for Jesus to give an entirely abstract answer with no relevance to what came before. Although other references to Paradise are "up" it is possible that it might defined by other attributes other than direction.

1. "Paradise" might be the abode of God, but in Revelation are we not told that God himself shall dwell with men?
2. "Paradise" might be where there is the tree of life, which might be kept away from us in heaven presently, but brought again to us later?
3. "Paradise" might also mean the third heaven still, but perhaps the Kingdom of God that will be established on earth at his return might merge with the realm of heaven later, as with the imagery of the Holy City that descends from heaven at the end of Revelation.

 

[way 2 go]

I at least partially agree with way 2 go as to whom was meant by "if one came back from the dead." It would be a primary reference to Lazarus (whom Jesus did bring back from the dead) but also with a double prophetic meaning in relation to Jesus (to which way 2 go made reference.)

I am not following the rest of this post very well, but I will comment that
1) The bible does not say that Enoch was taken up to heaven (book chapter and verse for that claim please?)
2) In the context of Elijah the heaven to which he was drawn up can be the heaven of the sky. It could not have been the third heaven of the abode of God of which Jesus says "no man has ascended to heaven" without creating immediate contradiction.

2 Kings 2:1 KJV
(1) And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.

But in 2 Chronicles 21 the king receives a letter from Elijah, indicating that he is still on the earth. If "heaven" means the abode of God then Jesus was wrong, but if "heaven" means the upper limits of the sky then God can set him down again elsewhere and he still sends his letter.

So what form were they in? Elijah would have been in physical form, and Enoch didn't go to heaven.

I say Enoch went to heaven, you say no, but Elijah went to heaven so I will extrapolate Enoch went to Heaven to.

Gen 5:24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.

2Ki 2:1 Now when the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal.


Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat and Elijah were alive at the same time.

2Ki 1:17 So he died according to the word of the LORD that Elijah had spoken. Jehoram became king in his place in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, because Ahaziah had no son.

2Ch 21:5 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.

 

[Derf]

There is some indication that the "spirit of Samuel" (as it is often called) was a spirit.

1 Samuel 28:13-14 KJV
(13) And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
(14) And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.

If this "Samuel" was raised from the dead and of physical form, why would Saul need to ask the witch what it looked like? Wouldn't he be able to see for himself? The dialogue indicates that this was something that only the witch herself could see, thus indicating an evil spirit granting the witch the ability to see but no one else.

I think you see that because that is what you want to see in it. Have you thought of other options?

Here's one--the witch might have had the ability to "see" further than Saul. "Seer" is another name for mediums. Samuel was also called a seer:
[1Sa 9:9 KJV] (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for [he that is] now [called] a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)

I think in this verse is both an indication of the similarity of a "prophet" to a "seer" as well as a possible disconnect between what is good and what is bad in "seers". The difference between a good and bad seer would be where the seer gets his information from--a trustworthy source, or an untrustworthy source. God was Samuel's trustworthy source, making Samuel more of a "prophet", whereas the witch of Endor sought information from a familiar spirit.

So here's my storyline, if you will. Samuel was buried in Ramah (1 Sam 25:1), 5 miles northwest of Jerusalem but Saul went to see the woman at Endor, which was closer to the southern area of Galilee. If Samuel were somehow raised bodily from the dead, he would be starting out from Ramah. The woman claimed to see him coming up out of the ground. If (big "if" here) it was a bodily resurrection of some kind, then Samuel's body must be what came up out of the ground, and it would make the most sense for it to come out of the ground where it was buried, rather than somewhere else. So Saul, not being a "seer" would not so easily see the event. The woman, being a seer, might have been able to do so through some means. Remember that what she saw (named "Samuel" in the text) startled her to a point where she suddenly recognized King Saul, bane of mediums. As Samuel approached, perhaps quite quickly with the assistance of the angels (see below), Saul was soon able to see him and converse with him.

In addition, possibly, were other beings that came out of the ground bearing Samuel:
[1Sa 28:13 KJV] And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

This is often taken to refer to Samuel in a spirit form ("elohim" might be either "gods" or "god" or "godlike creature(s)", or sometimes it is used for "angels". Then she saw this:

[1Sa 28:14 KJV] And he said unto her, What form [is] he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he [is] covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it [was] Samuel, and he stooped with [his] face to the ground, and bowed himself.
It seems strange to think that she would see both something that looked like a god (or spirit) as well as an old man covered with a mantle. Obviously we would want to remain skeptical of something she told us anyway, but if we assume she just reported what she saw, it would seem like some angels brought Samuel up from under the ground. This MIGHT be them bringing a spirit up from Hades, or it MIGHT be them bringing his body up from the grave. It doesn't say how long Samuel had been dead.

And we have no clue how long he stayed around or what happened to him after his message was delivered. We just don't know.

 

[Derf]

"When you come into your kingdom"

I don't think that's talking about entering into an already-existing place, but rather about when he inherits that kingdom as its King. For example, if I were to say "when I come into money, you'll be the first to know" I'm not saying that I am moving to a city named Money.

Luke 23:41-42 KJV
(41) And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
(42) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.


Just reviewing this phrase,

"Remember me" isn't asking for Jesus to say "Oh yea, there was that malefactor on the cross. Good memory." It's a request for favor and forgiveness that only makes sense to be asked of one that could grant favor and forgiveness.

"When thou comest into thy kingdom" is in the context of the Kingdom of God, the coming Kingdom that we see preached in the gospels. I think it is safe to assume that this man also on the cross had heard something of what Jesus preached, else why would he make reference to His kingdom? Regardless, I think it makes better sense as "when you inherit the kingdom in power" rather than "when you cross the border into the kingdom physically."

I agree. But the same argument that [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION] tried to make for omnipresence would certainly have to apply in terms of omnipotence, don't you think? Thus, if Jesus wasn't already reigning over all the earth, as God does in Ps 47:8, then I must be anti-trinitarian, yes? My point was that the trinitarian argument is too strong to be of any help here, as there are obvious non-trinitarian characteristics at play, including that Jesus was about to die, which God could never do.

Don't get me wrong--I'm trinitarian, but there are plenty of discussions we can have about what that means in terms of Jesus powers and characteristics.

 

[Rosenritter]

I say Enoch went to heaven, you say no, but Elijah went to heaven so I will extrapolate Enoch went to Heaven to.

Gen 5:24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.

2Ki 2:1 Now when the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal.


Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat and Elijah were alive at the same time.

2Ki 1:17 So he died according to the word of the LORD that Elijah had spoken. Jehoram became king in his place in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, because Ahaziah had no son.

2Ch 21:5 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.

1. Elijah would have been caught up in the second heaven (the sky) which was certainly witnessed, but certainly not the third heaven as that interpretation would contradict Jesus's own statement in John. What heaven are you talking about?

2. How do you use Elijah being caught up in the sky as an inference that Enoch must have been caught up in the sky? I don't see how you make that connection (nor how it helps any of the positions you typically endorse.)

 

[Derf]

I say Enoch went to heaven, you say no, but Elijah went to heaven so I will extrapolate Enoch went to Heaven to.

Gen 5:24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.

2Ki 2:1 Now when the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal.

I think [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] was trying to say that Elijah was not taken up into God's heaven, but into the sky, and put down somewhere else, perhaps.

Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat and Elijah were alive at the same time.

2Ki 1:17 So he died according to the word of the LORD that Elijah had spoken. Jehoram became king in his place in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, because Ahaziah had no son.

2Ch 21:5 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.

Seems like Jehoshaphat was still king after Elijah died:[2Ki 3:11 KJV] But Jehoshaphat said, [Is there] not here a prophet of the LORD, that we may enquire of the LORD by him? And one of the king of Israel's servants answered and said, Here [is] Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah.

And the letter from Elijah would make no sense to Jehoram if he received it prior to becoming king, would it? The only other option you have, in my mind, is that Elijah knew exactly what Jehoram would do and wrote the letter with that in mind, before he was taken up. But that suggests that the future is fixed, which I don't agree with for other reasons.

 

[Rosenritter]

I think you see that because that is what you want to see in it. Have you thought of other options?

I have thought of other options, or to be more accurate I have read other options put forth from sources like King James, Luther, Calvin, plus all the free commentaries available for E-Sword. Sometimes what is suggested doesn't entirely line up.

Here's one--the witch might have had the ability to "see" further than Saul. "Seer" is another name for mediums. Samuel was also called a seer:
[1Sa 9:9 KJV] (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for [he that is] now [called] a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)

I think in this verse is both an indication of the similarity of a "prophet" to a "seer" as well as a possible disconnect between what is good and what is bad in "seers". The difference between a good and bad seer would be where the seer gets his information from--a trustworthy source, or an untrustworthy source. God was Samuel's trustworthy source, making Samuel more of a "prophet", whereas the witch of Endor sought information from a familiar spirit.

So here's my storyline, if you will. Samuel was buried in Ramah (1 Sam 25:1), 5 miles northwest of Jerusalem but Saul went to see the woman at Endor, which was closer to the southern area of Galilee. If Samuel were somehow raised bodily from the dead, he would be starting out from Ramah. The woman claimed to see him coming up out of the ground. If (big "if" here) it was a bodily resurrection of some kind, then Samuel's body must be what came up out of the ground, and it would make the most sense for it to come out of the ground where it was buried, rather than somewhere else. So Saul, not being a "seer" would not so easily see the event. The woman, being a seer, might have been able to do so through some means. Remember that what she saw (named "Samuel" in the text) startled her to a point where she suddenly recognized King Saul, bane of mediums. As Samuel approached, perhaps quite quickly with the assistance of the angels (see below), Saul was soon able to see him and converse with him.

In addition, possibly, were other beings that came out of the ground bearing Samuel:
[1Sa 28:13 KJV] And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

This is often taken to refer to Samuel in a spirit form ("elohim" might be either "gods" or "god" or "godlike creature(s)", or sometimes it is used for "angels". Then she saw this:

[1Sa 28:14 KJV] And he said unto her, What form [is] he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he [is] covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it [was] Samuel, and he stooped with [his] face to the ground, and bowed himself.
It seems strange to think that she would see both something that looked like a god (or spirit) as well as an old man covered with a mantle. Obviously we would want to remain skeptical of something she told us anyway, but if we assume she just reported what she saw, it would seem like some angels brought Samuel up from under the ground. This MIGHT be them bringing a spirit up from Hades, or it MIGHT be them bringing his body up from the grave. It doesn't say how long Samuel had been dead.

And we have no clue how long he stayed around or what happened to him after his message was delivered. We just don't know.

I never thought of that version before. Samuel was raised at a different location and the witch was using remote viewing to see him? Although somewhat unusual, that's not immediately out of consideration. I'd ask how then Saul was speaking with Samuel later, except that I already have a suitable answer under that scenario: Saul could speak to the witch, which serves as a medium for the spirit to speak through her voice. Thus Samuel is "seen" in a remote location and still "speaks" to Saul.

But this touches my main concern, is that this type of occurrence is what one would expect of the occult, witches, and devil worshipers. It doesn't sound at all like the type of events where God has brought back the dead. I concede that spirits were involved, just not the good and loyal ones.

 

[Derf]

I have thought of other options, or to be more accurate I have read other options put forth from sources like King James, Luther, Calvin, plus all the free commentaries available for E-Sword. Sometimes what is suggested doesn't entirely line up.



I never thought of that version before. Samuel was raised at a different location and the witch was using remote viewing to see him? Although somewhat unusual, that's not immediately out of consideration. I'd ask how then Saul was speaking with Samuel later, except that I already have a suitable answer under that scenario: Saul could speak to the witch, which serves as a medium for the spirit to speak through her voice. Thus Samuel is "seen" in a remote location and still "speaks" to Saul.

But this touches my main concern, is that this type of occurrence is what one would expect of the occult, witches, and devil worshipers. It doesn't sound at all like the type of events where God has brought back the dead. I concede that spirits were involved, just not the good and loyal ones.

No, I reject the witch as medium for Samuel for the same reasons as you do, I think. I don't think Samuel had to stay where he was, but could come to where Saul was. Maybe with angel help, or maybe because he has less restriction applied to him in the body, or whatever it was, he had for that period of time.

 

[Rosenritter]

I agree. But the same argument that @way 2 go tried to make for omnipresence would certainly have to apply in terms of omnipotence, don't you think? Thus, if Jesus wasn't already reigning over all the earth, as God does in Ps 47:8, then I must be anti-trinitarian, yes? My point was that the trinitarian argument is too strong to be of any help here, as there are obvious non-trinitarian characteristics at play, including that Jesus was about to die, which God could never do.

Don't get me wrong--I'm trinitarian, but there are plenty of discussions we can have about what that means in terms of Jesus powers and characteristics.

I do not think that the "omnipresent" perspective can be properly applied so that Jesus is "in Paradise" that day no matter what else happened... because didn't Jesus also say this after three days later?

John 20:17 KJV
(17) Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jesus has to be subject to location, or else it would be impossible to "ascend" which requires a change of location. With some bending of words I might change "ascend" into a term of status but that starts to speak against the way the words are given to us to begin with. Jesus did seem to be subject subject to physical limitations of this world such as location, much as he was other limitations (such as physical age, etc).

We have to keep normal meanings of these words or everything gets lets loose on a slippery slope. For example, if we say that "Jesus was omnipresent" (which I would contest for technical reasons) then you might as well say he was in Hell before the cross and even when he was twelve years old. But he cannot be "omnipresent" in this way that Way 2 Go describes even because of a specific scripture refutation:

Acts 2:31-32 KJV
(31) He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
(32) This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.


If there was a time when Jesus was not in hell, then he is not "omnipresent" in the sense of "he is always everywhere for the purposes of interpreting a scripture in regards to his presence." Likewise, if he was not in hell after he was raised, by the same token he should not be in hell before he was killed.

All this talk of locations, but isn't it more accurate to say that hell is a state associated with location(s) such as the earth, the sea, and the tomb? This would resolve the "omnipresence" problem completely for everyone. Jesus isn't going to be in a state of "dead" always, just during the three days.

 

[way 2 go]

I think I understand where @way 2 go is going with this. He's trying to say that Jesus, being God in a trinitarian fashion, would be everywhere at one time--omnipresent.

:nono:
no

Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
Joh_10:30 I and the Father are one."

My problem is that it completely deflates any comfort the thief might have derived from being told he would be with Jesus. The same words would apply to the other thief, the one that did not repent but mocked Jesus, as well as Pilate, and Hitler, and Satan himself. It makes Jesus' words mean nothing.

how do you figure the same words would apply to Pilate, and Hitler, and Satan.

Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

Regarding the anti-trinitarian charge, how could God forsake Jesus, as foretold in Ps 22:1?? Was David anti-trinitarian? How much meaning are you wanting to pour into the word?

are you anti trinitarian ?

What was the thief asking for, though? Wasn't he asking that Jesus remember him when He comes into His kingdom? In other words, the thief thought Jesus had not yet come into His kingdom. Meaning Jesus, according to the thief, was NOT omnipresent. He may have been wrong, but I don't think Jesus was rebuking his theology. Jesus was making a statement about the thief's presence and Jesus' presence when He came into His kingdom.

why do you always try and form your theology from the questions rather than the answers ? just wondering

sometimes the questions are wrong.

Mat 22:27 After them all, the woman died.
Mat 22:28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her."
Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Surely there's a conflict in our views about what "today" means in the passage, but you seem to want to manufacture more conflict than exists.

your assumptions create conflict where I have none.

 

[Rosenritter]

:nono:
no

Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
Joh_10:30 I and the Father are one."


how do you figure the same words would apply to Pilate, and Hitler, and Satan.

Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!




are you anti trinitarian ?


why do you always try and form your theology from the questions rather than the answers ? just wondering

sometimes the questions are wrong.

Mat 22:27 After them all, the woman died.
Mat 22:28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her."
Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

your assumptions create conflict where I have none.

I think what he was saying that if your theology necessarily makes Paradise equal to Hell, or within Hell, or a subdivision of Hell, then an assurance that "today you will be in Hell" doesn't hold much comfort for the thief on the cross.

 

[way 2 go]

I think @Rosenritter was trying to say that Elijah was not taken up into God's heaven, but into the sky, and put down somewhere else, perhaps.

no

2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Seems like Jehoshaphat was still king after Elijah died:[2Ki 3:11 KJV] But Jehoshaphat said, [Is there] not here a prophet of the LORD, that we may enquire of the LORD by him? And one of the king of Israel's servants answered and said, Here [is] Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah.

you're right

And the letter from Elijah would make no sense to Jehoram if he received it prior to becoming king, would it? The only other option you have, in my mind, is that Elijah knew exactly what Jehoram would do and wrote the letter with that in mind, before he was taken up. But that suggests that the future is fixed, which I don't agree with for other reasons.

I think the writing was pre written
it is not rocket science for God to know the heart of psycho who would murder his brothers

 

[Derf]

why do you always try and form your theology from the questions rather than the answers ? just wondering

sometimes the questions are wrong.

 

[Derf]

no

2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Before, you said we should take Jesus word over someone's from the Old Testament when talking a bout Hades. Now you are saying we should take someone from the Old Testament's word over Jesus's.

you're right


I think the writing was pre written
it is not rocket science for God to know the heart of psycho who would murder his brothers

Really? Do you think God already knows all of the bad we will do before we do it? Is it possible to repent at any point?

 

[Rosenritter]

Before, you said we should take Jesus word over someone's from the Old Testament when talking a bout Hades. Now you are saying we should take someone from the Old Testament's word over Jesus's.


Really? Do you think God already knows all of the bad we will do before we do it? Is it possible to repent at any point?

The "closed future" paradigm inevitably leads to Calvinist premises...

 

[Derf]

:nono:
no

Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
Joh_10:30 I and the Father are one."

Then I'm confused, because you just said "no" to the trinitarian omnipresence argument, then followed with the classic omnipresence of God verse, along with Jesus' statement of oneness.

how do you figure the same words would apply to Pilate, and Hitler, and Satan.

Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

If Jesus is everywhere, then He must also be in hell with the other thief, Pilate (assuming he didn't repent), Hitler, and where Satan will be eventually. I think [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] was making this same argument with different wording.

are you anti trinitarian ?

Maybe you should define what you mean by "anti-trinitarian". I consider my self a trinitarian.

Mat 22:27 After them all, the woman died.
Mat 22:28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her."
Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

The thing that interests me about this discussion with the Sadducees is that Jesus, in talking about the resurrection, said Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ARE alive. Now, if Jesus was saying they are currently alive in Hades (prior to His resurrection, and certainly prior to theirs), then there was no need to point to the resurrection or "the power of God", He only needed to point to the fact of their being currently alive. But if they are currently dead, then they NEED a resurrection to be counted as "alive", so it makes sense of Jesus reference to them. And to be resurrected, the "power of God" is necessary.