ST. JOHN 11:26

[glorydaz]

Spoiler

Jesus makes a similar distinction in the other Lazarus' case, here:
[Jhn 11:11-14 KJV] 11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

But he then removes the distinction. Jesus, in this passage, equates death and sleep. I don't think He meant it differently in your reference. What is the difference between death and sleep? In sleep we usually wake up. I think the use of "sleep" for death is that Jesus was focusing on the waking up that was coming (very soon in these cases). So these don't negate what I was suggesting. In fact, they reinforce it.

It doesn't seem to me that Jesus was giving a doctrine that says, "even when you are dead, you are really alive, you just look like you are dead" as you are trying to say.

You said, "Jesus, in this passage, equates death and sleep." No doubt. The question then is what part of man is he talking about? I say He is speaking of the body, just as resurrection speaks of the body. So what part of man is "present with the Lord" when we depart this body of flesh? Are you going to try and explain these texts away, as Rosenritter does? Notice, Paul is speaking of the body (home in the body - absent from the Lord). AND, (absent from the body - present with the Lord).

2 Corinthians 5:6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.​

Man is composed of SPIRIT, SOUL, and BODY. Our body is merely a tent in which we dwell while here on earth. Until you see that, you'll miss this great truth.

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

Jesus called back the girl's life. "Spirit" here could be read to be "breath" or "life force". To read more than that is to interject your preconception into the text, so it becomes of little use for your argument.

I rather think it's YOUR preconception.

Luke 8:54 And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. 55 And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.​

No, there is a spirit in man. Not my "preconception", but supported by Scripture. Jesus was calling the girl's spirit.

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. ​

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
​

Yes, that's right--appeal back to the question we are trying to answer, just like [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION] keeps doing. Maybe you don't know what the word "death" means.

Rather you attribute death to the whole man...body, soul, and spirit...at the death of the TENT in which we dwell. Very short-sighted.

 

[glorydaz]

How do you know what Abraham has or had? You are using your preconception, which eventually goes back to the Rich man/Lazarus story, as you referenced above.

Are you suggesting I'm wrong to give the words of the Lord credence? Are you suggesting He gave some Greek mythology story instead of a picture of the after life?

And Jesus' reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was in relation to the resurrection of the dead, not the resurrection of the living.

Only according to you and Rosenritter.

He said that when there had yet been NO resurrection. I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM. GOD IS THE GOD OF THE LIVING. :idea:

Matthew 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.​

So your claim is that God wasn't the God of dead Abraham, but of the future resurrected Abraham. Which by so claiming, you are calling Jesus a liar for what He said in Luke 16. :think:

Jesus was referring to this which has nothing to do with the resurrection, but a state of being. I AM...not I was the God of your fathers.

Exodus 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Exodus 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.​

I think I've said before--that may be a correct preconception. But if it's really only based on a single passage of scripture, it suffers from source material. A doctrine that is resting on a single passage of scripture is one that might be wrong, and we should, imo, be prepared to let it go. The concern, even if we say that Jesus words are more trustworthy than others (with which I agree), what we are missing is Jesus' interpretation of His words. And you must admit there are passages of Jesus' words that are not consistently interpreted across different denominations.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of a "single verse", and your insistance there is only a single passage of scripture, "one that MIGHT be wrong" shows me you aren't really listening or even open on this issue.

 

[Rosenritter]

Are you suggesting I'm wrong to give the words of the Lord credence? Are you suggesting He gave some Greek mythology story instead of a picture of the after life?



Only according to you and Rosenritter.

He said that when there had yet been NO resurrection. I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM. GOD IS THE GOD OF THE LIVING. :idea:

Matthew 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.​

So your claim is that God wasn't the God of dead Abraham, but of the future resurrected Abraham. Which by so claiming, you are calling Jesus a liar for what He said in Luke 16. :think:

Jesus was referring to this which has nothing to do with the resurrection, but a state of being. I AM...not I was the God of your fathers.

Exodus 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Exodus 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.​

I'm not sure where you get the idea of a "single verse", and your insistance there is only a single passage of scripture, "one that MIGHT be wrong" shows me you aren't really listening or even open on this issue.

Would you be so kind as to clarify whether you still maintain that Jesus did not speak in the passages below for the purpose of proving the resurrection of the dead, as indicated by the phrases "but as touching the resurrection of the dead", "and as touching the dead, that they rise" and "now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush?"

Matthew 22:31 KJV
(31) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Mark 12:26 KJV
(26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Luke 20:37 KJV
(37) Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

You were pretty adamant before that Jesus wasn't proving the resurrection of the dead with the words that follow. Are you still of that persuasion?

 

[glorydaz]

Would you be so kind as to clarify whether you still maintain that Jesus did not speak in the passages below for the purpose of proving the resurrection of the dead, as indicated by the phrases "but as touching the resurrection of the dead", "and as touching the dead, that they rise" and "now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush?"

Matthew 22:31 KJV
(31) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Mark 12:26 KJV
(26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Luke 20:37 KJV
(37) Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

You were pretty adamant before that Jesus wasn't proving the resurrection of the dead with the words that follow. Are you still of that persuasion?

As I said before, Jesus is quite capable of correcting the Sadducees concerning their denial of life after death, while at the same time saying Abraham etal are living. The God of the Living not the dead.

While Abraham was dead to those of this world, He is never dead to God.

Luke 20:38 King James Version (KJV)
38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.​

 

[Rosenritter]

As I said before, Jesus is quite capable of correcting the Sadducees concerning their denial of life after death, while at the same time saying Abraham etal are living. The God of the Living not the dead.

While Abraham was dead to those of this world, He is never dead to God.

Luke 20:38 King James Version (KJV)
38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.​

I didn't see your answer to the question:

Would you be so kind as to clarify whether you still maintain that Jesus did not speak in the passages below for the purpose of proving the resurrection of the dead, as indicated by the phrases "but as touching the resurrection of the dead", "and as touching the dead, that they rise" and "now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush?"

Matthew 22:31 KJV
(31) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Mark 12:26 KJV
(26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Luke 20:37 KJV
(37) Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

You were pretty adamant before that Jesus wasn't proving the resurrection of the dead with the words that follow. Are you still of that persuasion? To make this simple, you may choose A or B.

a) Jesus was proving the resurrection of the dead (you are no longer of that persuasion)
b) Jesus was NOT proving the resurrection of the dead (your are of the same persuasion)

 

[glorydaz]

I didn't see your answer to the question:

Would you be so kind as to clarify whether you still maintain that Jesus did not speak in the passages below for the purpose of proving the resurrection of the dead, as indicated by the phrases "but as touching the resurrection of the dead", "and as touching the dead, that they rise" and "now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush?"

Matthew 22:31 KJV
(31) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Mark 12:26 KJV
(26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Luke 20:37 KJV
(37) Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

You were pretty adamant before that Jesus wasn't proving the resurrection of the dead with the words that follow. Are you still of that persuasion? To make this simple, you may choose A or B.

a) Jesus was proving the resurrection of the dead (you are no longer of that persuasion)
b) Jesus was NOT proving the resurrection of the dead (your are of the same persuasion)

You're incorrect on both counts. You didn't understand what I said before, and you still don't. "As touching the resurrection of the dead..." shows Jesus was addressing two points...not just the one the Sadducees were wrong about.

 

[glorydaz]

I didn't see your answer to the question:

What? Do you want me to repeat my answer like you do your questions?

Spoiler

Would you be so kind as to clarify whether you still maintain that Jesus did not speak in the passages below for the purpose of proving the resurrection of the dead, as indicated by the phrases "but as touching the resurrection of the dead", "and as touching the dead, that they rise" and "now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush?"

Matthew 22:31 KJV
(31) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Mark 12:26 KJV
(26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Luke 20:37 KJV
(37) Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

You were pretty adamant before that Jesus wasn't proving the resurrection of the dead with the words that follow. Are you still of that persuasion? To make this simple, you may choose A or B.

a) Jesus was proving the resurrection of the dead (you are no longer of that persuasion)
b) Jesus was NOT proving the resurrection of the dead (your are of the same persuasion)

I'll have to go with

c) Rosenritter does not yet understand the complexity of the answer Jesus gave.

In the same way, the Jews didn't understand Jesus' words here. How do you think this might fit with what Jesus says elsewhere in the Gospels?

John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?​

 

[Rosenritter]

You're incorrect on both counts. You didn't understand what I said before, and you still don't. "As touching the resurrection of the dead..." shows Jesus was addressing two points...not just the one the Sadducees were wrong about.

Either he was proving the resurrection of the dead, or he wasn't proving the resurrection of the dead. Those two options are mutually exclusive, one or the other, not both, and not neither. "Wrong on both" isn't a viable option.

You're using a lot of words and multiple posts to avoid giving a clear answer when a single character of "A" or "B" would suffice.

 

[glorydaz]

Either he was proving the resurrection of the dead, or he wasn't proving the resurrection of the dead. Those two options are mutually exclusive, one or the other, not both, and not neither. "Wrong on both" isn't a viable option.

According to YOU.

You're using a lot of words and multiple posts to avoid giving a clear answer when a single character of "A" or "B" would suffice.

Your "choices" are both too simplistic to be entertained.

Are you UNABLE to see that you are saying Jesus is lying in this text?

John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.​

What does Jesus mean by "You shall never see death"?

I won't give you any multiple choice. Just say whatever you think plain out like an adult should.

 

[glorydaz]

Here Jesus is correcting the Sadducees concerning their understanding about there being an afterlife. He brushes aside their question up by saying they will be as the angels of God in heaven. He says for "in the resurrection" explaining what it is like in that future PLACE.

Matt. 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.​

Then He turns to the important TRUTH.....BUT AS TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD....he is speaking of the state of the dead (NOT THE PLACE OF THE DEAD) that God is the God of the LIVING....not of the dead.

Matt. 22:31-32 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.​

Which is why God is the God of the LIVING.....the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They are living though not as yet resurrected from the dead. Just as Moses and Elijah, and Samuel still await that resurrection from the dead (which is bodily).

Yes, very wordy, but not too difficult to understand unless your preconceptions overtake you.

 

[Rosenritter]

According to YOU.

Your "choices" are both too simplistic to be entertained.

Are you UNABLE to see that you are saying Jesus is lying in this text?

John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.​

What does Jesus mean by "You shall never see death"?

I won't give you any multiple choice. Just say whatever you think plain out like an adult should.

It is "too simplistic" for you to state whether Jesus spoke to prove the resurrection of the dead in those gospel passages? You are previously on record as saying that Jesus was NOT proving the resurrection of the dead.

John Gill commentary
Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead,.... In proof of that doctrine, and which will greatly serve to confirm and establish it, and that it may appear that the dead are, or will be raised, and to put it out of all doubt,

Albert Barnes commentary
Mat_22:31, Mat_22:32
As touching ... - That is, in proof that the dead are raised.

If you are unable to answer a simple question, how should I believe that you would be able to answer any question that is more complicated? the gospels record this conversation with slightly different phrasing, and it is possible that all of these words were said. So when Jesus is recorded as introducing his argument with these phrases:

"but as touching the resurrection of the dead"
"and as touching the dead, that they rise"
"now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush?"

Does he say this to state his intention to prove the resurrection of the dead? or not? Last time you said he was not proving the resurrection. If you are being honest there is no reason to be evasive here:

a) Jesus was speaking to prove the resurrection of the dead.
b) Jesus was not speaking to prove the resurrection of the dead.

If you refuse to answer (as you have so far three times) then it shall be justly assumed that your opinion is still the same as that previous, that Jesus was NOT speaking to prove the resurrection of the dead (answer B).

 

[glorydaz]

It is "too simplistic" for you to state whether Jesus spoke to prove the resurrection of the dead in those gospel passages? You are previously on record as saying that Jesus was NOT proving the resurrection of the dead.

John Gill commentary
Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead,.... In proof of that doctrine, and which will greatly serve to confirm and establish it, and that it may appear that the dead are, or will be raised, and to put it out of all doubt,

Albert Barnes commentary
Mat_22:31, Mat_22:32
As touching ... - That is, in proof that the dead are raised.

If you are unable to answer a simple question, how should I believe that you would be able to answer any question that is more complicated? the gospels record this conversation with slightly different phrasing, and it is possible that all of these words were said. So when Jesus is recorded as introducing his argument with these phrases:

"but as touching the resurrection of the dead"
"and as touching the dead, that they rise"
"now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush?"

Does he say this to state his intention to prove the resurrection of the dead? or not? Last time you said he was not proving the resurrection. If you are being honest there is no reason to be evasive here:

a) Jesus was speaking to prove the resurrection of the dead.
b) Jesus was not speaking to prove the resurrection of the dead.

If you refuse to answer (as you have so far three times) then it shall be justly assumed that your opinion is still the same as that previous, that Jesus was NOT speaking to prove the resurrection of the dead (answer B).

It's a sad day when a pupil insists on sticking to addition and subtraction when multiplication and division would make that pupil's life so much simpler.

You brought up Gill, and you should have gone on for the fuller lesson I've been talking about.

Thus our Lord having to do with the same sort of persons, fetches his proof of the doctrine of the resurrection out of the law, and from a passage which respects the covenant relation God stands in to his people, particularly Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and which respects not their souls only, but their bodies also, even their whole persons, body and soul; for God is the God of the whole: and therefore as their souls now live with God, their bodies also will be raised from the dead, that they, with their souls, may enjoy everlasting glory and happiness; which is the grand promise, and great blessing of the covenant of grace. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; as all the saints are; for though their bodies are dead, their souls are alive, and their bodies will be raised in consequence of their covenant interest in God, to enjoy an immortal life with him: so the Jews are wont to say, that the righteous, even in their death, are called living F11: ``from whence is it proved, (say they,) that the righteous, even in their death, (Myyx Nyywrq) , "are called living?"'' from ( Deuteronomy 34:4 ) as it is written, "and he said unto him, this is the land which I have sworn to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying." Menasseh ben Israel, a learned Jew, of the last century, has produced F12 this same passage of Scripture, Christ here does in proof of the immortality of the soul, and argues from it in much the same manner: having mentioned the words, he adds, ``for God is not the God of the dead, for the dead are not; but of the living, for the living exist; therefore also the patriarchs, in respect of the soul, may rightly be inferred from hence to live.'' https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-22-32.html

You also brought up Barnes.

Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, As touching ... - That is, in proof that the dead are raised. The passage which he quotes is recorded in Exodus 3:6, Exodus 3:15, This was at the burning bush (Mark and Luke). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been dead for a long time when Moses spoke this - Abraham for 329 years, Isaac for 224 years, and Jacob for 198 years - yet God spake then as being still "their God." They must, therefore, be still somewhere living, for God is not the God of the dead; that is, it is absurd to say that God rules over those who are "extinct or annihilated," but he is the God only of those who have an existence. Luke adds, "all live unto him." That is, all the righteous dead, all of whom he can be properly called their God, live unto his glory. This passage does not prove directly that the dead "body" would be raised, but only by consequence. It proves that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had an existence then, or that their souls were alive. This the Sadducees denied Acts 23:8, and this was the main point in dispute. If this was admitted - if there was a state of rewards and punishments - then it would easily follow that the bodies of the dead would be raised. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/matthew/22.htm

 

[Rosenritter]

It's a sad day when a pupil insists on sticking to addition and subtraction when multiplication and division would make that pupil's life so much simpler.

You brought up Gill, and you should have gone on for the fuller lesson I've been talking about.

You also brought up Barnes.

And were they alive today, they would be in just as much the pickle as you are right now were they posed with that very same question... because by acknowledging that Christ was speaking to prove the resurrection of the dead in his statement, by substituting their own doctrine they would have him destroy his own proof in the process.

We've been through this before, which is why you're refusing to answer now. If John Gill and Albert Barnes don't answer we understand we don't assume it's because they are dishonest or cowardly, because we know that they are unable to answer because they are dead.

But you don't have that excuse.

 

[glorydaz]

And were they alive today, they would be in just as much the pickle as you are right now were they posed with that very same question... because by acknowledging that Christ was speaking to prove the resurrection of the dead in his statement, by substituting their own doctrine they would have him destroy his own proof in the process.

We've been through this before, which is why you're refusing to answer now. If John Gill and Albert Barnes don't answer we understand we don't assume it's because they are dishonest or cowardly, because we know that they are unable to answer because they are dead.

But you don't have that excuse.

You're a fool, and a carnal one at that.

You brought them up, I didn't. But, now you pretend like their words don't mean a thing.

You are simply UNABLE to understand spiritual things. You've proven that once again.

 

[way 2 go]

You're a fool, and a carnal one at that.

You brought them up, I didn't. But, now you pretend like their words don't mean a thing.

You are simply UNABLE to understand spiritual things. You've proven that once again.

:chuckle:

rosen asks questions like a Sadducee, to trap not to find truth rosen is not interested in truth.

 

[glorydaz]

:chuckle:

rosen asks questions like a Sadducee, to trap not to find truth rosen is not interested in truth.

The Sadducees didn't believe in the spiritual realm, either. :nono:

 

[glorydaz]

And were they alive today, they would be in just as much the pickle as you are right now were they posed with that very same question... because by acknowledging that Christ was speaking to prove the resurrection of the dead in his statement, by substituting their own doctrine they would have him destroy his own proof in the process.

We've been through this before, which is why you're refusing to answer now. If John Gill and Albert Barnes don't answer we understand we don't assume it's because they are dishonest or cowardly, because we know that they are unable to answer because they are dead.

But you don't have that excuse.

They are only dead in the eyes of those who cannot see.

God must be dead to you, as well, for He is a spirit, and you cannot see Him.

There is a spiritual realm, Rossenritter. It's amazing you reject that.

 

[Rosenritter]

They are only dead in the eyes of those who cannot see.

God must be dead to you, as well, for He is a spirit, and you cannot see Him.

There is a spiritual realm, Rossenritter. It's amazing you reject that.

Do you feel a particular need to misrepresent others? You know perfectly well that I have never rejected the spiritual realm. I am even currently active on a thread about the nature of the spiritual realm.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?131945-What-IS-an-quot-immaterial-spirit-quot

But it's amazing that you feel a need to misrepresent me about something like that. But did it work? The diversion to distract from that you aren't willing to answer a simple yes or no question? That terrible question of "Was Jesus declaring that he was about to prove the resurrection of the dead?"

 

[glorydaz]

Do you feel a particular need to misrepresent others? You know perfectly well that I have never rejected the spiritual realm. I am even currently active on a thread about the nature of the spiritual realm.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?131945-What-IS-an-quot-immaterial-spirit-quot

But it's amazing that you feel a need to misrepresent me about something like that. But did it work? The diversion to distract from that you aren't willing to answer a simple yes or no question? That terrible question of "Was Jesus declaring that he was about to prove the resurrection of the dead?]"

Yes, it is a terrible question....Your suggesting that Jesus was "trying to prove" anything to the Sadducees is ludicrous. He simply brushed them off.

Matt. 22:34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.​

HE PUT THEM TO SILENCE. Which is where you should be right now.


Move on, little sprite, move on to the MAIN POINT IN THE DISPUTE.

From Barnes, who you quoted and then quickly dismissed.

Matthew 22:31
The passage which he quotes is recorded in Exodus 3:6, Exodus 3:15, This was at the burning bush (Mark and Luke). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been dead for a long time when Moses spoke this - Abraham for 329 years, Isaac for 224 years, and Jacob for 198 years - yet God spake then as being still "their God." They must, therefore, be still somewhere living, for God is not the God of the dead; that is, it is absurd to say that God rules over those who are "extinct or annihilated," but he is the God only of those who have an existence. Luke adds, "all live unto him." That is, all the righteous dead, all of whom he can be properly called their God, live unto his glory. This passage does not prove directly that the dead "body" would be raised, but only by consequence. It proves that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had an existence then, or that their souls were alive. This the Sadducees denied Acts 23:8, and this was the main point in dispute. If this was admitted - if there was a state of rewards and punishments - then it would easily follow that the bodies of the dead would be raised.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/matthew/22.htm​

You speak many words, but you have no spiritual understanding.

Try simply addressing what Barnes says instead of relying on the fact that he is dead PHYSICALLY.
You used him before....try reading what he wrote about this text. Afraid or what?

 

[clefty]

Do you feel a particular need to misrepresent others? You know perfectly well that I have never rejected the spiritual realm. I am even currently active on a thread about the nature of the spiritual realm.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?131945-What-IS-an-quot-immaterial-spirit-quot

But it's amazing that you feel a need to misrepresent me about something like that. But did it work? The diversion to distract from that you aren't willing to answer a simple yes or no question? That terrible question of "Was Jesus declaring that he was about to prove the resurrection of the dead?"

Misrepresent more than just others.

What they claim you miss in this:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.”

Is that one at death, goes to the bosom of Abraham so fast he never sees he is dead or tastes his death.

It’s ok you missed it because obviously the jews didnt believe this folktale themselves as a doctrine of the afterlife.

Rather
“52 Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ 53 Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Who do You make Yourself out to be?”

jews were incredulous here because either jews forgot about the jettison to Abraham’s bosom or jews believed the dead know NOTHING.

But those that misrepresent claim even now Barnes and Gill are floating about as spirits under the altar or something...and could be reached if you find the right witch...and then they could answer...

Sadduccees believed in the spiritual realm, kinda awkward to run the temple and all its sacrifices and not believe...they just didn’t believe in the resurrection...as nothing about the afterlife was taught in the first five books...certainly nothing about Abraham’s bosom...