What is Jesus saying here?

[Derf]

I'm sorry to have to tell you that you are very confused.

I don't think you're sorry about that at all. I think you enjoy telling people they are confused.

Jesus died in regard to ONLY to His humanity.

Do you have scripture for this assertion?

You seem to be trying to mash the TWO natures into ONE with comments like "Did Jesus only partially die (the human part only)? That makes sound like Jesus wasn't fully man."

Isn't that what the Word did? Mash two natures into one person?

 

[Derf]

I disagree. Had He not intentionally laid down His life, He would never have died at all.

That has nothing to do with capacity, only with "cause". The fact that He died proves His capacity for it. You can insert "ability" for capacity, if it helps.

His body was so devoid of the curse that His body didn't even decay while He was in the grave. There's no evidence that He would have ever experience the geriatric process and died of old age and, being God, He would not have been

That's an intriguing speculation, and you're probably right, but it has no bearing on His ability to die--just limits the possible causes of death.

Notice that death hasn't anything to do with whether or not you exist. When you die, you do not cease to exist, you simply move from one mode of being to another.

Based on what scripture? If we never really die all the way (soul or spirit or something still functions), then I guess Satan was correct when he said, "Thou shalt not surely die."

Well, biblically speaking, death is a spiritual issue, not a biological one. It is a spiritual separation.

If this is indeed "biblically speaking", you should be able to find a bible verse that gives us this definition. Else, we should be using the same kind of definition for death of humans that the bible seems to use for other creatures.

the Father had forsaken Jesus, which is to say that there had been a separation introduced between Christ and the Father, which is spiritual death, by definition.

Again, where did you get that definition? I looked for "spiritual death" in different translations, and I only found it in one, the New Living Translation if I remember correctly--and I don't consider the NLT very trustworthy.

where all the other righteous dead had gone up to that point because they where not yet able to be in God's presence since the atonement had not yet been made. After being spiritually separated both from His body and from the Father for three days,

This is the standard narrative, but it isn't mentioned anywhere in scripture except the half parable of Lazarus and the rich man. "Half" may be too generous--it is probably mostly parable. Thus its usefulness as the description of life after death (or half life after death, since the body isn't involved), is questionable.

Thus Jesus was every bit as dead as any righteous person has ever been.

So you're saying righteous people don't really die the same as unrighteous people? I thought Jesus came to pay the penalty of sinners? Why would He then be treated better than sinners in death?

And if we all are sinners and need that same substitutionary death, why did some get better treatment than others before the atonement was accomplished?

 

[Clete]

That has nothing to do with capacity, only with "cause". The fact that He died proves His capacity for it. You can insert "ability" for capacity, if it helps.


That's an intriguing speculation, and you're probably right, but it has no bearing on His ability to die--just limits the possible causes of death.

Based on what scripture? If we never really die all the way (soul or spirit or something still functions), then I guess Satan was correct when he said, "Thou shalt not surely die."

If this is indeed "biblically speaking", you should be able to find a bible verse that gives us this definition. Else, we should be using the same kind of definition for death of humans that the bible seems to use for other creatures.

Again, where did you get that definition? I looked for "spiritual death" in different translations, and I only found it in one, the New Living Translation if I remember correctly--and I don't consider the NLT very trustworthy.

This is the standard narrative, but it isn't mentioned anywhere in scripture except the half parable of Lazarus and the rich man. "Half" may be too generous--it is probably mostly parable. Thus its usefulness as the description of life after death (or half life after death, since the body isn't involved), is questionable.

So you're saying righteous people don't really die the same as unrighteous people? I thought Jesus came to pay the penalty of sinners? Why would He then be treated better than sinners in death?

And if we all are sinners and need that same substitutionary death, why did some get better treatment than others before the atonement was accomplished?

Well, once again, I am taught the lesson of never giving anyone a compliment. I mention your ability to think and the next thing you post is all but absolute proof that you try you best not to do so.

The fist half of this post was written before you had ever read the post through and so is entirely worthless and can be ignored except to point out where you contradict your own implied position. Jesus had no more capacity to die than He did before He became flesh. You can move the goal post any time someone says something to refute what you've said but it doesn't move the conversation along and it also doesn't make the refutation go away.

And good doctrine isn't done through proof texting. There doesn't need to be a specific verse that states outright what I've said in my post. The whole bible supports what I've said. When people die they do not cease to exists. They simply shed their physical body and either go to be with God or are forever separated from Him. If you disagree with that then you aren't even trying to be biblical or even logical. If that isn't true then in what sense do you say Jesus died? He certainly didn't cease to exist!

Also, everyone is a sinner, Derf, including those I called the "righteous dead", which any thinking third grader would have been able to understand. It isn't that there are people who have never sinned but that there are people who have died who had a relationship with God. Jesus Himself referred to "righteous Abel". Do you suppose that he was the only righteous man to ever live prior to the incarnation or do you you suppose that he simply belonged to the class of people who had a relationship with the God who made them and who, instead of spending eternity in Hell, they'll live forever with God, not because they were righteous enough to have earned it but by virtue of the blood that God knew in advance was to be shed by Christ on their behalf?

There is, however, proof, since you like your doctrine served up a verse at a time, that those who die in relationship with God do not go to the same place that that those who die in their sin go to. It came of of Christ's own mouth and it is THE reason why when I mentioned Abraham's Bosom I also called it "Paradise" and had you spent any real amount of time doing word searches, you'd have found Luke 23.:43 and perhaps figured out that Jesus and one of the criminals who were crucified along side Christ went there but that the other criminal did not and that they didn't cease to exist but were simply separated from their physical bodies (i.e. their bodies stayed ight here in the regular world along with the alive people). And that's not to mention the verse you yourself found that proves the same but that you blow off as a parable that is "usefulness as the description of life after death" based on nothing at all other than your own doctrine. A doctrine, by the way, that is intuitively false because if death is the cessation of existence then not only would it mean that Jesus lied to the criminal hanging next to Him and would have therefore NOT been the Christ, but just as importantly it would mean that Jesus didn't die!

The fact is, that your previous post proves that you are able to think sufficiently to leave yourself without excuse. If nothing can ever convince you of something new, if you refuse to ever learn anything you don't think you already know, then what in the world are you doing here? There are far better and more productive ways for people who know it all to spend their time.

Clete

 

[Derf]

Well, once again, I am taught the lesson of never giving anyone a compliment. I mention your ability to think and the next thing you post is all but absolute proof that you try you best not to do so.

The fist half of this post was written before you had ever read the post through and so is entirely worthless and can be ignored except to point out where you contradict your own implied position. Jesus had no more capacity to die than He did before He became flesh. You can move the goal post any time someone says something to refute what you've said but it doesn't move the conversation along and it also doesn't make the refutation go away.

And good doctrine isn't done through proof texting. There doesn't need to be a specific verse that states outright what I've said in my post. The whole bible supports what I've said. When people die they do not cease to exists. They simply shed their physical body and either go to be with God or are forever separated from Him. If you disagree with that then you aren't even trying to be biblical or even logical. If that isn't true then in what sense do you say Jesus died? He certainly didn't cease to exist!

Also, everyone is a sinner, Derf, including those I called the "righteous dead", which any thinking third grader would have been able to understand. It isn't that there are people who have never sinned but that there are people who have died who had a relationship with God. Jesus Himself referred to "righteous Abel". Do you suppose that he was the only righteous man to ever live prior to the incarnation or do you you suppose that he simply belonged to the class of people who had a relationship with the God who made them and who, instead of spending eternity in Hell, they'll live forever with God, not because they were righteous enough to have earned it but by virtue of the blood that God knew in advance was to be shed by Christ on their behalf?

There is, however, proof, since you like your doctrine served up a verse at a time, that those who die in relationship with God do not go to the same place that that those who die in their sin go to. It came of of Christ's own mouth and it is THE reason why when I mentioned Abraham's Bosom I also called it "Paradise" and had you spent any real amount of time doing word searches, you'd have found Luke 23.:43 and perhaps figured out that Jesus and one of the criminals who were crucified along side Christ went there but that the other criminal did not and that they didn't cease to exist but were simply separated from their physical bodies (i.e. their bodies stayed ight here in the regular world along with the alive people). And that's not to mention the verse you yourself found that proves the same but that you blow off as a parable that is "usefulness as the description of life after death" based on nothing at all other than your own doctrine. A doctrine, by the way, that is intuitively false because if death is the cessation of existence then not only would it mean that Jesus lied to the criminal hanging next to Him and would have therefore NOT been the Christ, but just as importantly it would mean that Jesus didn't die!

The fact is, that your previous post proves that you are able to think sufficiently to leave yourself without excuse. If nothing can ever convince you of something new, if you refuse to ever learn anything you don't think you already know, then what in the world are you doing here? There are far better and more productive ways for people who know it all to spend their time.

Clete

Maybe both your compliments and insults are too quickly given.

You back up your assertion that the righteous dead go to Abraham's bosom by a statement that they go to a place with a different name, Paradise? How is that a proof of anything? You might consider whether the added commas and quote marks might be influencing your interpretation. Is it "I say to you, 'Today you will be with me in Paradise.'" Or is it "I say to you today, 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"

And what form did Lazarus have in Abraham's bosom, if his body was still on earth? Does a soul have fingers? Did the rich man's soul have a tongue? Could he actually feel water if Lazarus had been able to bring it?

I believe you and I are in agreement with the concept of open theism, which is so radical a departure from the accepted narrative of the churches here in our country that people have been called heretics for preaching it. Yet you and I and many others on this forum have resisted explanations on that topic that are much more heavily supported in scripture than the Abraham's bosom/paradise connection you've made. Are you willing to give the idea as much thought as open theism? You might just change your mind.

If death is cessation of existence, the only thing you lose is the connection you've made. All else is pure narrative that obscures rather than exalts the power of God over , imho. We not need to redefine death for the bible's many scriptures referring to it to make sense. If death means complete cessation of life, God is able to completely restore us to life. His power is that great!

And to get back to the thread topic, it doesn't do us any harm to consider the objections of non-trins, as long as we continue to learn and grow in the truths revealed in scripture.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You might consider whether the added commas and quote marks might be influencing your interpretation. Is it "I say to you, 'Today you will be with me in Paradise.'" Or is it "I say to you today, 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"

Actually, it says:


"and He said to him, 'Truly to you I say today with me you will be in paradise.'"

The Comma of Luke 23:43 | Grace Communion International

Visit gci.org and browse Grace Communion International's extensive library of articles on God, the Bible, faith, and the Christian Life.

www.gci.org

 

[Derf]

Actually, it says:
View attachment 322

"and He said to him, 'Truly to you I say today with me you will be in paradise.'"

The Comma of Luke 23:43 | Grace Communion International

Visit gci.org and browse Grace Communion International's extensive library of articles on God, the Bible, faith, and the Christian Life.

www.gci.org

Thanks for that post, JR. I read the link you provided. The author stated:
'The reading “Verily I say unto you today” not only contains a redundancy (“I say” is in the present tense already — making “today” redundant), it destroys the natural force of these words.'
Unfortunately the author appears to be working under the influence of his own bias, as he discounts the possibility "today" still refers to the change in destiny, and not the time of the statement. I.e. "Today you have been saved, and therefore you will be with me in Paradise".
This seems like a translation you would support, since instead of changing the location of the previously saved, it declares that he was saved by his belief at that moment--and not individually from the foundation of the world.

But just so you can see how wording can be confusing, I can agree with his other statement:

"In effect, Christ was saying, “It is not at all a case of my remembering you or that you need to wait for some future time! You will be with me, as of today.”
The difference is that the way I think I see it, "as of today" refers to the time of the cause ("because you have believed in me this day, you can be assured you will be with me in Paradise"), and not the time of the effect. (My wording is poor even to me, as I'm trying to explain the difference. I hope you can understand what I'm getting at.)

 

[Clete]

Maybe both your compliments and insults are too quickly given.

You back up your assertion that the righteous dead go to Abraham's bosom by a statement that they go to a place with a different name, Paradise? How is that a proof of anything?

It's proof because the only reason that term exists in Christian doctrine is because Jesus Himself told one of the criminals hanging next to Him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43)

That sounds like proof to me! How much more proof do you need?

You might consider whether the added commas and quote marks might be influencing your interpretation. Is it "I say to you, 'Today you will be with me in Paradise.'" Or is it "I say to you today, 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"

If you want to make an argument based on translation then make it but you will have to actually make the real argument where you present evidence that has nothing to do with your doctrine that makes the case that the reading that exists in every English bible that anyone has ever heard of before is incorrect. If you know of such an argument, please make it. I'd be interested in reading it.

And what form did Lazarus have in Abraham's bosom, if his body was still on earth? Does a soul have fingers? Did the rich man's soul have a tongue? Could he actually feel water if Lazarus had been able to bring it?

Why is it so difficult to imagine that a person could have fingers and a tongue and the ability to feel things without having a physical body? God spent an eternity without a physical form and yet was able to interact with other beings. How in the world could it have been possible for God to speak the universe into existence if He didn't have a physical tongue? Did God have no idea what different foods tasted like before the incarnation? Was the milk from Mary's breast the first thing God ever tasted? Angels came and not only talked but ate food with people several times in the Old Testament. Moses was shown God's back side. Etc. etc. etc.

You do not need to have a physical body of flesh to have a body.

I believe you and I are in agreement with the concept of open theism, which is so radical a departure from the accepted narrative of the churches here in our country that people have been called heretics for preaching it. Yet you and I and many others on this forum have resisted explanations on that topic that are much more heavily supported in scripture than the Abraham's bosom/paradise connection you've made.

All I know to say in response to this is that saying it doesn't make it so.
Jesus Himself states as plain as day that He and at least one other person would be in paradise by the end of the day. In addition to that, Jesus, while discussing the realities of our existence after physical death, refers to the place where the righteous dead go as "Abraham's bosom" or "Abraham's side" depending on the translation, indicating basically that the righteous dead go to the same place that Abraham went to when he died.
That is not in any sense a flimsy biblical foundation! You propose that the latter is useless because it was just a parable but Jesus wasn't telling that criminal on the cross a parable. On the contrary, He was making him a promise! A promise that is completely consistent with the parable that you blow off as worthless for no reason at all other than to maintain a doctrine that is contrary to it's teaching.

Are you willing to give the idea as much thought as open theism? You might just change your mind.

Not unless I find someone willing to do more than make the claim that I am wrong. I WANT to know where I'm wrong but am bereft of any actual argument in that direction.

If death is cessation of existence, the only thing you lose is the connection you've made. All else is pure narrative that obscures rather than exalts the power of God over , imho. We not need to redefine death for the bible's many scriptures referring to it to make sense. If death means complete cessation of life, God is able to completely restore us to life. His power is that great!

If death is the cessation of existence then no one has ever died nor will they this side of the Lake of Fire.
The problem there being that the bible calls the Lake of Fire "the SECOND death" (Revelation 20:14). It doesn't call it "death", it calls it "the second death".

If death is the cessation of existence then Adam did not die the day he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil nor at any other time and not only would God have lied to Adam when He warned Adam and Eve not to eat of that tree but Romans 5 is also a lie (and therefore the whole rest of Paul's books which are predicated on that chapter).

In short, basically the whole of the Christian worldview falls into dust if death is defined as the cessation of existence.

And to get back to the thread topic, it doesn't do us any harm to consider the objections of non-trins, as long as we continue to learn and grow in the truths revealed in scripture.

Well, with that there can be no argument. In fact, folks who reject the Trinity are one of the few groups who are often both able and willing to make actual arguments for their doctrine. They are never convinced by the counter arguments but at least it takes some intellectual juice to debate them.

 

[Derf]

It's proof because the only reason that term exists in Christian doctrine is because Jesus Himself told one of the criminals hanging next to Him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43)

That sounds like proof to me! How much more proof do you need?

That's exactly the same as saying, "My translation is the correct one because all the other translations are wrong." and before you disagree with me here, please reread your statement.

If you want to make an argument based on translation then make it but you will have to actually make the real argument where you present evidence that has nothing to do with your doctrine that makes the case that the reading that exists in every English bible that anyone has ever heard of before is incorrect. If you know of such an argument, please make it. I'd be interested in reading it.

Hahahahahahahahaha! x2
I might refer to your own thread again, which I tagged for @Hilltrot in the same message I "invited" you into this thread.

Regardless of what was used as source material for the translation, the King James Bible has influences and stabilized the English language for centuries. There are many expressions in common use throughout English society that would not exist if not for the King James Bible and any use of "word" in reference to the divine reason (Logos) is one of them. If that error originated with Tyndale or Jerome and that error survived into the King James Bible then so be it. It does nothing to refute my position.

I'll let your answer stand for me, too, since you think it so strong an argument.

You do not need to have a physical body of flesh to have a body.

Then you agree they have bodies in Hades and Abraham's bosom? And that those bodies function the same way, as far as we know as our current bodies? And those bodies could last forever? Then why do we need new ones at the resurrection?

Jesus Himself states as plain as day that He and at least one other person would be in paradise by the end of the day.

"My translation is the correct one because all the other translations are wrong."

You propose that the latter is useless because it was just a parable but Jesus wasn't telling that criminal on the cross a parable.

"My translation is the correct one because all the other translations are wrong."

On the contrary, He was making him a promise! A promise that is completely consistent with the parable that you blow off as worthless for no reason at all other than to maintain a doctrine that is contrary to it's teaching.

"My translation is the correct one because all the other translations are wrong."

If death is the cessation of existence then no one has ever died nor will they this side of the Lake of Fire.

And you agree that's a problem, right? So if I make the same claim about your narrative, that should make you sit up and take notice, right?

The problem there being that the bible calls the Lake of Fire "the SECOND death" (Revelation 20:14). It doesn't call it "death", it calls it "the second death"

So here we have a definition of death that most Christians believe is not a cessation of life, but the exact opposite--continuence of life, but in the worst possible circumstances. Why do you think the Spirit was so clear that this was a "second death" and so clearly defined it. It looks so much like what you've described for the rich man as to be indistinguishable--no chance of escape, continuing torment, the place of the unrighteous dead. Yet that death (the "first death", if you will) was cast into the lake of fire. It was defeated entirely. So why are those that were already in that condition resurrected and then returned to that condition with a resurrection body??? God already knew they were the unrighteous, according to your narrative. Why go to the trouble of remaking their bodies, having a judgment trial, then putting them back into the same condition, and then define a new term for it: "second death"?

If death is the cessation of existence then Adam did not die the day he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

There are many uses of "the day" that do not refer a twenty four hour period. I'm not talking about the creation, because those days were clearly defined as evening and morning days. But "the day of the Lord" is one such use--it refers often to a time of judgment that stretches over more than one day.

In short, basically the whole of the Christian worldview falls into dust if death is defined as the cessation of existence.

Yeah, that's what Satan said, too. "Thou shalt not surely die." It will be a kind of living death--you're immortal after all, and you cannot surely die.

 

[musterion]

Does the Bible refer to Father, Son, and Spirit as three distinct persons who are distinguished from each other? YES.

Does the Bible refer to each as God? YES.

Does the Bible say there is only one God? YES.

That's why trinitarianism is both valid and honest: it not only comprehensively accounts for whatever the Bible states on the matter, it does so by taking the many verses exactly as they are.

 

[Clete]

That's exactly the same as saying, "My translation is the correct one because all the other translations are wrong." and before you disagree with me here, please reread your statement.

WHAT?

I didn't translate the bible! Every translation of the bible I've ever read says that Jesus promised the criminal hanging next to Him that they would be together in Paradise that very day.

At bottom, I have the plain reading of pretty nearly any bible you want to quote and you have your doctrine.

Hahahahahahahahaha! x2
I might refer to your own thread again, which I tagged for @Hilltrot in the same message I "invited" you into this thread.

I have no idea what thread you're talking about.

I'll let your answer stand for me, too, since you think it so strong an argument.

If you aren't interested in making the argument then why bring it up?

Then you agree they have bodies in Hades and Abraham's bosom? And that those bodies function the same way, as far as we know as our current bodies? And those bodies could last forever? Then why do we need new ones at the resurrection?

They do not have bodies in the sense they we are used to thinking of bodies. They are spirit beings but the point is that they have some means of interacting with their environment. They can see and hear, they can speak, that can move around, etc, etc. and as such have the spiritual equivalent of eyes and ears, the spiritual equivalent of a mouth, etc.

This is really not that hard to understand.

"My translation is the correct one because all the other translations are wrong."


"My translation is the correct one because all the other translations are wrong."


"My translation is the correct one because all the other translations are wrong."

If you aren't willing to debate then why bring it up? What are you doing here if you won't make the argument? Why believe your doctrine if you are either unwilling or unable to defend it?

And you agree that's a problem, right? So if I make the same claim about your narrative, that should make you sit up and take notice, right?

What claim are you talking about and how would it apply to "my narrative", what ever the crap that is?

Look, I lose patience almost instantly with people who try to force me to read their mind. Either make you point or excuse yourself from the discussion.

So here we have a definition of death that most Christians believe is not a cessation of life, but the exact opposite--continuence of life,

No, not the continuation of life, the continuation of existence. There is a difference. God is Life. To be seperated from God is to be separated from life which is death by definition.

but in the worst possible circumstances. Why do you think the Spirit was so clear that this was a "second death" and so clearly defined it. It looks so much like what you've described for the rich man as to be indistinguishable--no chance of escape, continuing torment, the place of the unrighteous dead. Yet that death (the "first death", if you will) was cast into the lake of fire. It was defeated entirely. So why are those that were already in that condition resurrected and then returned to that condition with a resurrection body??? God already knew they were the unrighteous, according to your narrative. Why go to the trouble of remaking their bodies, having a judgment trial, then putting them back into the same condition, and then define a new term for it: "second death"?

Well, I could refute the veracity of this pseudo argument by simply saying that I don't know why! I'm not God and I don't know what the Lake of Fire is going to be like and I don't know what judgment day is going to be like and I don't know with any great deal of precision what God has planned for anyone - anyone - righteous or otherwise and it isn't for me to argue against God's own wisdom. If God sees fit to resurrect the dead for judgement day then what I do know is that there is excellent reasons why. What those reasons are if for God to know and for me to speculate about (at best) and perhaps to learn on judgment day itself.
Regardless, nothing in my doctrine is the slightest bit in contradiction to either the principles of righteousness nor the plain reading of God's word. A theological advantage you cannot claim.

There are many uses of "the day" that do not refer a twenty four hour period. I'm not talking about the creation, because those days were clearly defined as evening and morning days. But "the day of the Lord" is one such use--it refers often to a time of judgment that stretches over more than one day.

This is irrelevant to the point. There is no definition of "day" that has not come and gone many times over since Adam ate that tree and if your idea of death being the cessation of existence is correct then Adam has yet to die to this very day, never mind any other.

Yeah, that's what Satan said, too. "Thou shalt not surely die." It will be a kind of living death--you're immortal after all, and you cannot surely die.

So since you completely ignored the point and said this little gem of irrelevant nonsense, are you conceding the debate or what?

Clete

 

[Derf]

I have no idea what thread you're talking about.

I think this says just about everything that needs to be said. I quoted from the thread, with the link to it. If you don't know which thread, it's because you didn't read your comments that I was answering. If you didn't read your comments before reading my answers, my answers have no context, and of course you won't understand them.

That's why I said this in my first answer to your post--one that I repeated several times, because it explains your logical fallacy:

That's exactly the same as saying, "My translation is the correct one because all the other translations are wrong." and before you disagree with me here, please reread your statement.

Did you reread your statement?

 

[Clete]

I think this says just about everything that needs to be said. I quoted from the thread, with the link to it. If you don't know which thread, it's because you didn't read your comments that I was answering. If you didn't read your comments before reading my answers, my answers have no context, and of course you won't understand them.

That's why I said this in my first answer to your post--one that I repeated several times, because it explains your logical fallacy:

Did you reread your statement?

I'm not sure what you think you're trying to pull here. Not only is the entire thread is still here for the world to see, Derf, but our discussion doesn't yet take up thirty posts of this thread. You have not posted one single link to anything in any response to me. You've posted an @ Hilltrot tag a couple of times but that doesn't link to anything other than his profile page, which is the reason why I have no idea what thread you're talking about!

And I read and reread my statement multiple times. Your reaction to it makes no sense. I made no statement that in any rational mind could be turned into anything similar to "My translation is the correct one because all the other translations are wrong.". It would never occur to me to say such a thing because I didn't translate anything and wouldn't know how to do so if I wanted to. The fact is that you are the one making an affirmative claim that our English bibles made an error. It is your burden to make the argument in support of that claim and "because my doctrine conflicts with what is found in the KJV, NJKV, NIV, NASB, ESV, and probably every other English translation that anyone has ever heard of before, isn't going to be the slightest bit convincing. It is not my responsibility to defend the veracity of every English bible I've ever read, all of which explicitly state that Jesus promised that man hanging next to Him that they'd be together in paradise that day. Not that it would even matter whether it was "that day" or not! The disagreement here has to do with whether death is a cessation of existence or not. Whether they'd be together in paradise in a few hours or a few centuries is beside the point. You can't be in paradise if you don't exist and if you don't go to paradise until after you die then you cannot possibly cease to exist when you die. Not to mention, by the way, that the belief that one's soul/spirit survives our natural death just happens be one of the most fundamental presuppositions of the Christian worldview.

Lastly, what should I glean from the fact that you refuse to make any valid argument whatsoever to support your translation error argument even after repeatedly be asked to do so? This discussion began quite well, with both sides responding directly and substantively to what the other said. Now it has degraded into me repeatedly telling you to make an argument and you being evasive and cryptic. The former was fun, this is boring and annoying.

Clete

 

[Lon]

Not a single instance of "Jesus is God" has been shown to me.

I don't see how this is possible. Do you have an incredibly narrow reading on TOL? It appears blatantly untrue. There are many posts, let alone a 'single instance.' To me, it seems willfully ignorant and dishonest to say something on this scale.

 

[Lon]

Timelessness doesn't have a "before".

It rather 'shows' and expresses that way. You cannot make a statement that 'before' such and something "am." Am is a PRESENT verb and Jesus is expressing it both as then (HE chose 'before') AND now. You simply are committing to constructs without thought for implication. It means 1) you aren't thinking correctly and missing very important points from our Savior and 2) are committing to constructs before you've allowed scripture to inform your theology. Let God form your theology and simply follow Him wherever He leads. I'll do the same, but must insist that this scripture necessarily, by Jesus' own words, means both. It is grammatically necessary.

 

[Hilltrot]

I don't see how this is possible. Do you have an incredibly narrow reading on TOL? It appears blatantly untrue. There are many posts, let alone a 'single instance.' To me, it seems willfully ignorant and dishonest to say something on this scale.

You're projecting . . .

 

[Lon]

You're projecting . . .

You, aren't accurate. There is a difference between that and 'projecting'

 

[Hilltrot]

You, aren't accurate. There is a difference between that and 'projecting'

You're still projecting . . .

 

[Clete]

You're projecting . . .

No, he's really not.

 

[Hilltrot]

No, he's really not.

Now, you're projecting

 

[Right Divider]

Now, you're projecting

No, he's really not.