Jesus was water baptized into John's baptism. Why would Paul need to re-baptise them in water?
ECT Works of Law and Works of Grace, Is That Biblical?
- Thread starter iamaberean
- Start date
Jesus was water baptized into John's baptism. Why would Paul need to re-baptise them in water?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So according to you Paul said that it is "now" revealed but he must be wrong because the law and the prophets testify to that truth. The fact of the matter is that it was not openly revealed until Paul but he was saying that the truth is found in the OT and in the next chapter he used both Abraham and Moses from the OT to illustrate that the righteousness of God apart from the law has been in effect since the beginning but it wasn't openly revealed until Paul:
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).
Even though Paul wrote the "now" the righteousness of God apart from the law has been made known you say that Paul was in error because it was made known during OT times.
And of course you continue to refuse any of my questions. Are you willing to argue that the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is the same "good news" which Paul called the "preaching of the Cross"?
paradise is up
2Co 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Rev_2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
This passage proves that the third heaven is a paradise but it does not prove the Abraham's Bosom wasn't a paradise or that it would have been inaccurate for Jesus to refer to it as such. This passage certainly does not prove that Abraham's Bosom was in the third heaven, which I think would be the implication of your point here.
Word studies are excellent tools for studying God's word but we have to be careful not to assume more than the passage can support.
I know it's tough for you to figure out what I'm going to think is a sufficient response and what's going to annoy me and I feel like I've not done a great job of communicating it either.
I get that you don't have the time to respond to every point and I wouldn't want you to do so either. As you said, it would get ridiculously long and no one would want to read it, including the both of us.
So this is what I'll do. I'm going to just suppress my emotional response to short responses and presume that whatever response you present is the best that you've got the time to offer and I'll work with it. At least I'll know that whatever you post won't be due to a complete lack of appreciation for the time I've spent typing my posts.
Just please at least try not to simply repeat an argument I've already responded to as though I never said anything. The only thing worse than typing long posts is having to type the same argument over and over again. And, if you want to send the discussion off in another direction, at least do so after having responded to something I've said in the previous post(s). Find some sort of way to segue the discussion so that it doesn't come off like you're just sort of blowing off everything else.
So spend the rest of the week thinking about what I've said and then whatever you post this weekend will be fine.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
God has ALWAYS revealed His will PROGRESSIVELY...
Paul did what came before UNTIL he was told differently.
Right Divider
Body part
No offence intended, but that is idiotic.
Paul clearly explains what the ONE baptism is here:
1Co 12:13 KJV For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
It's a bit odd that you reject the ONE baptism INTO the body.
You should come around and be baptized INTO the body with us.
You're being more dogmatic than the text can support.
The notion of Abraham's Bosom being "down" is consistent with Jesus' descent into "the lowest parts of the Earth" but your "hardly paradise" commentary is at odds with Jesus' own statement that the criminal on the cross would be with Him "in paradise" that very day.
So you're contradicting yourself here, I think.
The implication of your last post was that Abraham's Bosom was in the third Heaven, or did I misunderstand something?
It was either that or you deny that Jesus went to Abraham's Bosom and instead went to the third heaven which you're saying is THE paradise spoken of by Jesus on the cross.
Well, except for the time Jesus mentions it, which indicated neither up nor down.
Regardless, you understand that such an observation, while interesting, is not nearly sufficient to prove anything, right? I'll agree that it might stand as a piece of evidence but no more than that.
This is what we know without any doubt...
- Abraham's Bosom was the place of the righteous dead. (Luke 16:19-31)
- Jesus was righteous at the time of He died. (Genesis - Revelation)
- Jesus went to paradise the day of His crucifixion. (Luke 23:43)
- Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth. (Ephesians 4:9-10)
- Jesus had not ascended to the Father as of the day of His resurrection from the dead. (John 20:17)
These points are not in dispute. I, therefore, conclude that Jesus, being one of the righteous dead, went to Abraham's Bosom. Also, Jesus referred to the place where He was going as Paradise and since we are told by Paul that Jesus descended into the lower parts of the Earth, and since Jesus Himself stated that He hadn't yet ascended as of His resurrection, I further conclude that all three are the same place.
Now, is that totally correct? I don't know! The fact is that we just are not given enough information to state much beyond the five points I listed with any dogmatic certainty. Having said that, I sort of doubt that Jesus was on a tour of various after-life venues during His three days in the grave. It seems more plausible to think that all three are the same place, don't you think?
Clete
Last edited:
You are saying those under the law received the same Christ given righteousness that he bought with His blood at the cross!
That is nothing but robbery, Christ was the first fruit.
God imputed righteousness to those under the law by his grace and in each case they were required to obey God. There can be imputed righteousness given by God with written law and without written law because every word that God said is considered law but impossible to impute the righteousness of Christ which must be had before the cross.Let me say it another way....before the cross imputed righteousness given by God was still their righteousness and it was given by grace but it was not the righteousness of Christ who died for our sins and was the only righteous sinless man. What is the only justifiable righteousness for eternal life?...it's the righteousness of a sinless sacrifice and not possible to receive it until that righteous sacrifice was accomplished.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Both Abraham and Noah received it (Ro.4:1-4; Heb. 11:7) but according to your ideas that is not possible.
This is what the Savior Himself told those who lived under the law and there is not one word about obedience:
"He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (Jn.6:47).
If it takes works of obedience to be saved then that salvation cannot be described as being of grace:
"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Ro.4:4-4).
way 2 go
Well-known member
to summarize your position
Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
turns the place beside Hades into paradise
could be that the criminal on the cross went to heaven
to be with God as Paul says happens to us
2Co 5:8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
to summarize my position
Jesus who is God went down to Abraham's side and
the criminal went up to heaven to be with the Father who is God
I could also argue that Jesus spirit went to the father too for a moment and his ascension he spoke of was bodily.
Luk 23:46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last.
Jerry, you jump back and forth through dispensations and build rabbit holes that are difficult for the unlearned to follow and lead to nowhere, you are not even being honest with yourself or me, you are the theologian.
At least give me your brief dissertation of Romans 3:21 through Romans 3:26 that I provided because I am among the unlearned.
Why do you think it's beside Hades?
The parable of the Rich man and Lazarus was a parable. The only good theology you can take from it (on this subject) is what is said explicitly.
From it we know that the place of the righteous dead is not the same place that the unrighteous went to before the cross. We would know that intuitively anyway but the parable seems to nail that point down pretty tight and we can also know that there is no way for someone to get from one place to the other because there is a great gulf between them.
To go beyond that and suggest that they are so proximate to each other that one could not be a paradise has no support from any biblical passage whatsoever.
Further, this summary of yours leaves out most of my argument. Jesus not only said He was going to paradise but He also said that He had not ascended to the Father and Paul tells us that He descended to the lower parts of the Earth.
It doesn't sound to me like the Paradise that Jesus Himself said that He went to was in Heaven.
What happens to us happens because Jesus' redemptive work has been completed and because Jesus has both descended and then ascended (Eph. 4, I Cor. 15 & elsewhere), which He had not yet done as of Luke 23.
This the criminal on the cross would have gone to the place of the righteous dead along with the rest of those who were saved throughout the Old Testament.
This ignores Jesus' plain statement...
Luke 23:43 “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
He did not say, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with My Father in Paradise.”, which is certainly what He would have said if that was to be the case.
This also ignores the fact that no one could go to the Father prior to Christ's resurrection because the plan of redemption had not yet been accomplished.
To do so would be to take a position beyond what this passage states. Committing something into someone's hands is simply a way of saying that your are turning over that thing to their control. Jesus was telling His Father to do what He will's with His Spirit.
One could choose to take the passage in a woodenly literal way and insist that Jesus went to the Father but that ignores Jesus' own words to the contrary when He told Mary that He hadn't yet done so. He didn't say that He hadn't yet done so "bodily", He just simply said that He hadn't yet done so.
And so, once again, without being overly dogmatic about an issue for which the data is sparse, the position on this that seems to best fit what little data we do have is that Jesus went to Abraham's Bosom, which He called Paradise and which Paul indicates was located in the lower parts of the Earth and which has a great gulf fixed between it and the place of the condemned dead.
I see no good reason to believe otherwise and certainly no reason to insist that anything else is true.
Clete
I've never been able to make any sense out of Jerry's doctrine either, so it might not have anything to do with whether one is "unlearned" or not.
Jerry ignores the dispensation of law and thinks that there was never anything but a dispensation of grace; that salvation never had anything to do with obedience or works of any kind. As best as I can decipher he doesn't think that there was ever any need for a gentile to get circumcised and become a proselyte Jew or even for the Jews themselves to obey the Law. Lord only knows what he does with James 2:24. And what in the world was Paul going on and on about in regards to righteousness apart from the law, as in the passages you cite in Romans 3 (brilliant, point by the way).
He has no concept in his head of the fact that grace can be added to law but not law to grace. Under a dispensation of law, if one is given more than they've earned, the law is still satisfied but under a dispensation of grace, attempting to earn what has been given to you freely and to place yourself under the bondage of the law is an insult to the One who bought your freedom with His life's blood and gave it to your freely.
What Jerry doesn't seem to understand is that God's grace belongs to God and that He gets to decide who benefits from it and under what conditions. If He decides that His grace will be given to those who live a life of faith and who remain obedient to Him through their lives then that's His very own prerogative. If He then decides to switch to a different program with a different set of people then that's His prerogative as well. If He then decides it's time to turn again back to the first group with a similar set of conditions as before then, once again, God is within His just rights to do so.
Perhaps Jerry will be more forthcoming in his explanations of his doctrine with you than he ever was with me. Good luck! I'll be interested to read your exchange.
Clete
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Beginning at Romans 3:21 Paul uses the word "now" to describe when a righteousness of God apart from law was made known:
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify" (Ro.3:21).
That can only mean that this righteousness of God apart from the law was not openly revealed in the OT. But Paul says that the OT testifies to the fact that down through time all of the saved have been saved apart from works. And in the next chapter Paul reveals that David, who lived under the law, was also saved apart from works--"to which the Law and the Prophets testify."
Here is what Paul said about David:
"However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them" (Ro.4:5-8).
Here Paul quotes David at Psalms 32:1-2 and he makes it plain in the passage I just quoted that David's salvation was not dependent on "works" of any kind. That was a truth that was not revealed earlier and later Paul tells us exactly how all the saved down through history have been saved, that all believers "are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).
If you have any questions about what I have said about these verses then please ask me what you don't understand.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Here is what the Lord Jesus said to those who lived under the law, Clete:
"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).
Those word of the Savior Himself are not difficult to understand, are they Clete? The person who lived under the law and believed possessed eternal life. If "works" of one kind or another were required for those who lived under the law to be saved then why didn't the Lord mention them? The Lord also said the following to the Jews who lived under the law:
"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).
We also know that those who believed enjoyed eternal security:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).
The Jews who lived under the law were born of God by the Word of God and nothing more:
"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God...And this is the word that was preached to you" (1 Pet.1:23-25).
"He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created" (Jas.1:18).
Clete, now is your opportunity to tell us exactly why you can't make sense out of my teaching concerning how the Jews who lived under the law were saved. Show us that you are the learned one who can prove that what I said is in error.
I typically do not respond directly to Jerry because it has repeatedly been shown to be a complete waste of my time but since I brought it up, I'll go as far as what I've posted below - no further.
When Jesus was directly asked what was needed to inherit eternal life, Jesus answered, "Obey the Ten Commandments (and then some)".
James specifically and explicitly states that a man is justified by works and not by faith only...
Now that's just two places that DIRECTLY contradict Jerry's doctrine. He will almost certainly ignore both passages entirely and respond instead by posting his favorite proof texts that he never seems to leave out of any post on the subject. But even if he does respond directly, I could go on quoting passages from both the New and Old Testament until it would require Jerry to pen a complete commentary on the whole of the bible. In short, Jerry's position on this so ludicrous that it's laughable and not worthy of any response beyond what I've posted here. To go much further would be to lend it a validity that it just is not deserving of. It's nothing short of a delusion on par with the flat earth and ancient alien theories.
It is, however, an outstanding example of the silliness that one can conjure via the proof-texting method of formulating doctrine.
Clete
When Jesus was directly asked what was needed to inherit eternal life, Jesus answered, "Obey the Ten Commandments (and then some)".
Matthew 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept [g]from my youth. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept [g]from my youth. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
James specifically and explicitly states that a man is justified by works and not by faith only...
James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Now that's just two places that DIRECTLY contradict Jerry's doctrine. He will almost certainly ignore both passages entirely and respond instead by posting his favorite proof texts that he never seems to leave out of any post on the subject. But even if he does respond directly, I could go on quoting passages from both the New and Old Testament until it would require Jerry to pen a complete commentary on the whole of the bible. In short, Jerry's position on this so ludicrous that it's laughable and not worthy of any response beyond what I've posted here. To go much further would be to lend it a validity that it just is not deserving of. It's nothing short of a delusion on par with the flat earth and ancient alien theories.
It is, however, an outstanding example of the silliness that one can conjure via the proof-texting method of formulating doctrine.
Clete
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Of course you just ignored the words of the Lord Jesus which I quoted at John 6:47 and John 5:24. Why is that? Why did you just ignore the verses which I quoted which demonstrate that the Jews who lived under the law were born again by the word of God and the word of God alone?
Do you not even realize that no one was saved by keeping the law?:
"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Ro.3:20).
"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" (Gal.2:1).
The Lord Jesus answered in the way that He did in order that the young man would realize his sinfulness and need of a Savior. He should have realized that if he really kept the law he would follow what the Lord said about it and give his money to those in need:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Mt.22:37-40).
Again, here are the words of the Savior Himself spoken to the Jews who lived under the law and of course you just ignored it:
"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).
Of course you just ignored the following verse also:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).
First of all, you ignored the verse which I quoted from the first chapter of the book of James where it is plain that the new birth is a result of faith and faith alone:
"He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created" (Jas.1:18).
Secondly, James makes it clear that he is writing about what a man may know about another man's faith:
"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (Jms.2:18).
Charles C. Baker and Cornelius Stam established the Milwaukee Bible Institute, and Baker understood that Abraham was not justified by "works" in the eyes of God, writing that "James speaks of Abraham being justified by works 'when he offered up his son Isaac', which happened 49 years after his justification by faith as mentioned by Paul (Genesis 15:6; Genesis 22). Paul makes it plain in Romans 4:1 and 2 that the justification by works of which James speaks, was not a justification before God, and James states that it was the fulfilling of the faith which he already had (James 2:23). Grace is the source of justification (Romans 3:24); Christ's blood is the ground (Romans 5:9); faith is the means (Romans 3:28); and works are the evidence (James 2:21). As the tree must have life before it can bear fruit; so Abraham received life when justified by faith alone, and 49 years later that faith bore the fruit, of which James speaks" [emphasis added] (Baker, HOW WAS ABRAHAM JUSTIFIED BY WORKS?).
Sir Robert Anderson writes, "Paul's Epistle (Romans) unfolds the mind and purposes of God, revealing His righteousness and wrath. The Epistle of James addresses men upon their own ground. The one deals with justification as between the sinner and God, the other as between man and man. In the one, therefore, the word is, 'To him that worketh not, but believeth'. In the other it is, 'What is the profit if a man say he hath faith, and have not works?' Not 'If a man have faith', but 'If a man say he hath faith' proving that, in the case supposed, the individual is not dealing with God, but arguing the matter with his brethren. God, who searches the heart, does not need to judge by works, which are but the outward manifestation of faith within; but man can judge only by appearances...He (Abraham) was justified by faith when judged by God, for God knows the heart. He was justified by works when judged by his fellow men, for man can only read the life " [emphasis added] (Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry, [Kregel Publications, 1978], pp.160-161).
With that in mind we can understand the following verse is saying that Abraham was justified before the Lord by his "faith" and he was justified before man by his "works":
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (Jms.2:24).
I did not ignore anything but instead I addressed both. It is you who ignored the words of the Lord Jesus spoken to the Jews who lived under the law:
"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).
"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).
We also know that those who believed enjoyed eternal security:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).
You call yourself a Christian but from what I can see the words of the Lord Jesus Christ spoken to the Jews who lived under the law have no place in your heart. If these verses are not saying that the Jews who lived under the law were saved by faith alone then they must have another meaning.
What is your interpretation of the meaning of His words, Clete? Or are you just going to ignore them again like you did the last time?
way 2 go
Well-known member
why do I think Abraham's side is beside Hades .Luk 16:22,23
why didn't you say before Jesus descension & ascension . (we always say before the cross for a reason)
no indication from luke 16 that it is paradise.
so you have a bunch of verses referring to the place of the righteous dead before the cross as paradise
"the Paradise that Jesus Himself said that He went to" I missed this verse
so now its not Jesus death on the cross it his descending and then ascending that does it.
why ? the criminal's sin was paid for ,Jesus died first that day.
is it Christ death that paid for sin ?
is it Christ descending that paid for sin ?
is it Christ ascending that paid for sin ?
how so , the criminal was with God in paradise
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one."
so now its Jesus resurrection that paid for sin ?
Joh 19:30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Joh_20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
which would be saying that this is not his second coming .
Eph 4:8 Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men."
captives not a description of paradise
also do you think Jesus waited forty days (before he ascended) to empty out Abraham's side Act 1:3
Paul didn't call it paradise either
Unresponsive. This passage has already been cited and my question was asked with that passage specifically in mind.
Abraham's Bosom, according to the Luke 16 passage (which is a parable not intended to be accepted as a recount of actual events), is said to be "afar off" from Hades.
That doesn't sound like they're next door to each other and even if they were (which they aren't) they're clearly not so proximate to each other that one could not be a Paradise. Nor does this parable rule out the idea that Abraham's Bosom could be considered in a position "up" from Hades. It is also true that this parable doesn't rule out that they are perfectly parallel to each other. The point being that they're relative position to one another is not spoken of beyond the detail that they are "afar off" from one another.
Because the point had to do with where Jesus and the criminal both went THAT DAY, not three days later.
Two problems here. Just as there is no direct indication from Luke 16 that Abraham's Bosom is Paradise, so also there is no indication from Luke 16 that it is not.
In other words, what you done here is to make an argument from silence. Extraordinarily poor doctrines have been created from such arguments. There's a reason why it is considered a logical fallacy.
And I have more than just verses referring to the place of the righteous dead, I have Jesus own words stating that someone other than Himself was going to be in Paradise before Christ's resurrection and before Christ's ascension. You've got your doctrine, I've got Jesus Christ's own words, w2g.
The following verse is the very first time the word "paradise" is used in the bible...
Luke 23:39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”
40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”
43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”
43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
1 Corinthians 15:17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
This has been normal Christian doctrine since the whole thing got started. Besides, we aren't talking about whether the criminal who went to paradise was saved or how he got that way and so this objection makes no sense to begin with.
Please don't allow yourself to go so far down the road trying to understand the location of Paradise that you undermine the entire Christian faith in order to preserve a doctrine that amount to little more than a piece of trivia.
The criminal did not ascended before Jesus did and Jesus Himself said that He had not yet ascended as of three days later, that's why.
In other words, I'm not just making this stuff up. I've made the argument already and am now having to repeated it over and over again.
This point of yours is bordering on hysteria.
Again, we are not talking about how or even whether the criminal was saved. He was saved just as Abraham and Lazarus were.
But he certainly didn't ascend to the Father before Jesus Christ did!
Again, you have your doctrine and I have Jesus' own words. It isn't me that is stating the Jesus hasn't ascended to the Father. Jesus Himself said that.
Further, Jesus had also said, immediately prior to His physical death that the Father had forsaken Him. This separation from the Father, however temporary, is the spiritual death that Jesus suffered and thus Jesus died in every sense in which any righteous man dies.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy the fact that you're this stupid.
I never said anything like this nonsense and you know it. This is nothing more than you flailing about trying to preserve a nearly meaningless doctrine because you can't defend it against the arguments I've made.
He wasn't saying anything about the 2nd coming.
Do you always read your doctrine into the text?
First of all your translation is terrible. But leaving that aside, your commentary is your doctrine. It is neither what the bible states nor is it any kind of argument at all. Simply stating your doctrine isn't the same as establishing it.
Perhaps. I do not know. Neither do you. That's the whole point here.
You're right Paul didn't, Jesus did.
Clete