The Second Coming of Christ

[hermeneutika]

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.


But if we accept the Bible as the very Word of God.....

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And also if we accept that the Bible is the Word of God Himself and that He cannot lie

Nu 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


If all the above are accepted .....then if God says He will return

Re 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Re 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

THEN HE WILL RETURN.....The Lord Jesus Christ is coming back.....

1Jo 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

Mr 13:33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
Lu 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS COMING BACK.

2Pe 3:11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,

yikes i ave had it wrong for decades.....it is not about the money....as most teach....but about something else entirely

[Timreason]

AFAIK all Christians believe in the Second Coming. Indeed, the Creed
says He shall return in glory. "He will come again in glory to judge the
living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. "

Clearly this didn't happen within that first generation!

So, what of the Bible text? Well, I've heard various explanations over
the years, such as "There's been a delay", etc.

My own view might be a bit unorthodox, but I feel that for each person
that passes away before that time, the next thing they will know will be
that day. So, for ALL of us, as far as we will subjectively experience
time, His return is indeed imminent. Even if another 10,000 years were
to pass before that time, we would not be aware of those intervening
years. So we should all live in expectation of it being 'soon'.

Tim.

[Charles Lindsey]

On 22/09/2019 12:52, Timreason wrote:

>
> AFAIK all Christians believe in the Second Coming. Indeed, the Creed says He
> shall return in glory. "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the
> dead, and his kingdom will have no end. "
>
> Clearly this didn't happen within that first generation!

And yet the apostles (esp. Paul) clearly believed that it would. So what went wrong?

My take is that whatever Jesus actually said, and whatever the angels at the
Ascension actually said, the early Christians clearly misunderstood it, and that
misunderstanding evidently fed back into the accounts they wrote of those sayings.

>
> So, what of the Bible text? Well, I've heard various explanations over the
> years, such as "There's been a delay", etc.
>
> My own view might be a bit unorthodox, but I feel that for each person that
> passes away before that time, the next thing they will know will be that day.
> So, for ALL of us, as far as we will subjectively experience time, His return is
> indeed imminent. Even if another 10,000 years were to pass before that time, we
> would not be aware of those intervening years. So we should all live in
> expectation of it being 'soon'.

I think I could accept that. Indeed it is more or less what Paul taught "at the
last trumpet", which does not have to be an instant in time as "time" is defined
in our universe.

Indeed, I would find it rather odd for Christ to come and show us the way to
salvation and then to shut it all down before a significant number of people had
been born, lived, and had the opportunity to follow that way.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At my New Home, still doing my own thing-----------
Tel: +44 161 488 1845 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 40 SK8 5BF, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/09/2019 12:52, Timreason wrote:

> My own view might be a bit unorthodox, but I feel that for each person
> that passes away before that time, the next thing they will know will be
> that day. So, for ALL of us, as far as we will subjectively experience
> time, His return is indeed imminent. Even if another 10,000 years were
> to pass before that time, we would not be aware of those intervening
> years. So we should all live in expectation of it being 'soon'.

I totally agree - but also believe that the actual return of Jesus is
getting nearer all the time.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Madhu]

* Charles Lindsey <gupelf...@mid.individual.net> :
Wrote on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 15:26:54 +0100:

> On 22/09/2019 12:52, Timreason wrote:
>
>> AFAIK all Christians believe in the Second Coming. Indeed, the Creed
>> says He shall return in glory. "He will come again in glory to judge
>> the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. "
>> Clearly this didn't happen within that first generation!
>
> And yet the apostles (esp. Paul) clearly believed that it would. So
> what went wrong?
>
> My take is that whatever Jesus actually said, and whatever the angels
> at the Ascension actually said, the early Christians clearly
> misunderstood it, and that misunderstanding evidently fed back into
> the accounts they wrote of those sayings.

I'm presently reading a pdf which attempts to systematically determine
exactly what it was that Jesus was saying:

biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/e-books/cadoux_c-j/historic-mission-of-jesus_cadoux.pdf

Cecil John Cadoux [1883-1947], "The Historic Mission of Jesus. A
Constructive Re-Examination of the Eschatological Teaching in the
Synoptic Gospels. London & Redhill: Lutterworth Press,
1941. Hbk. pp.376.

The author is bitten by the liberal scholarship bug - and spends a lot
of time on NT documentary hypotheses to discern "genuine" sayings of
Jesus from the spurious ones and then trying to reason about them. I
also find some of his beliefs in the afterlife and aspects of his
worldview untenable. Despite these he makes interesting observations
and makes an effort to draw the matter out. The inevitable conclusion
(even for him) from the available evidence is that there is a future
kingdom envisaged with the coming king.

[snip]

> I think I could accept that. Indeed it is more or less what Paul
> taught "at the last trumpet", which does not have to be an instant in
> time as "time" is defined in our universe.
>
> Indeed, I would find it rather odd for Christ to come and show us the
> way to salvation and then to shut it all down before a significant
> number of people had been born, lived, and had the opportunity to
> follow that way.

Even if this were the case it would happen in a larger context.

[John]

Timreason wrote:

> AFAIK all Christians believe in the Second Coming. Indeed, the Creed
> says He shall return in glory. "He will come again in glory to judge the
> living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. "
>
> Clearly this didn't happen within that first generation!
>
> So, what of the Bible text? Well, I've heard various explanations over
> the years, such as "There's been a delay", etc.
>
> My own view might be a bit unorthodox, but I feel that for each person
> that passes away before that time, the next thing they will know will be
> that day. So, for ALL of us, as far as we will subjectively experience
> time, His return is indeed imminent. Even if another 10,000 years were
> to pass before that time, we would not be aware of those intervening
> years. So we should all live in expectation of it being 'soon'.

Never had you down as believing in soul sleep Tim.

[Timreason]

Well, I don't, exactly. You see, I believe departed souls are
'ex-temporal'. Thus, not bound by time, they have access to any moment
of time, once they have come into God's kingdom they see all time from
that perspective. Rather like being in a balloon and looking down upon a
road from town A to town B, they can see any point on that road as well
as both the start and the finish. So I don't believe they "Go to sleep"
so much as they go to somewhere 'outside' or 'above' time. Thus, it
doesn't matter where we happen to be on the 'Time Road', we can ask them
to pray for or with us at any point.

Tim.

[Mohammed]

On 22/09/2019 12:00, hermeneutika wrote:

> 2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
>
>

> THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS COMING BACK.
>
> 2Pe 3:11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
>
> yikes i ave had it wrong for decades.....it is not about the money....as most teach....but about something else entirely
>

Muslims believe Jesus will return when Damascus has fallen, when the
final remanence of the Muslim combatants will be encircled by the
anti-Christ and his army. Jesus will be lowered by two angels, to a
mosque with a white minaret. Jesus will pray with the Muslims, and once
the prayer is complete, Jesus will lead them into battle against the
anti-Christ, chasing them into Jerusalem. Islamic prophecy states that
the anti-Christ army will be made up of mainly Jews, it also states
others including Christians and Muslims will also follow him. Jesus will
kill the anti-Christ, his army will be chased into Jerusalem and slayed.
It mentioned stones and a specific tree/plant will give voice that a
follower of the anti-Christ is hiding behind me, so that they all can
slayed - this I think is similar to when Jesus in the Bible mentions,
being those enemies of mine and slay them in front of me.
And, yes, you've got it. It is not about the money, it never was. Much
of the aspects of our lives in how we have set-up, in how we live, we've
made hurdles and distractions in the way of what we really should be
doing.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Timreason" wrote in message news:

>My own view might be a bit unorthodox, but I feel that for each person that
>passes away before that time, the next thing they will know will be that
>day.

Spot on Tim.
We die and the very next waking moment we are before Christ and the Angels
at the judgment seat.

>So, for ALL of us, as far as we will subjectively experience time, His
>return is indeed imminent.

Spot on again.

"42 Watch therefore: for ye know not on what day your Lord cometh.

43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what watch
the thief was coming, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his
house to be broken through.

44 Therefore be ye also ready; for in an hour that ye think not the Son of
man cometh.

45 Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over
his household, to give them their food in due season?

46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so
doing."
Matt 24:42-46 (ASV)

> Even if another 10,000 years were to pass before that time, we would not
> be aware of those intervening years. So we should all live in expectation
> of it being 'soon'.

Spot on Tim.
"The Day and Hour Unknown.
32 "No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, *nor
the Son*, but only the Father.

33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."
Mark 13:32-33 (ANIV)
Amen!

Jeff...

"33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

34 It is as when a man, sojourning in another country, having left his
house, and given authority to his servants, to each one his work, commanded
also the porter to watch.

35 Watch therefore: for ye know not when the lord of the house cometh,
whether at even, or at midnight, or at cockcrowing, or in the morning;

36 lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, **Watch**."
Mark 13:33-37 (ASV)

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Timreason" wrote in message news:

On 22/09/2019 18:29, John wrote:
> Timreason wrote:
>>> My own view might be a bit unorthodox, but I feel that for each person
>>> that passes away before that time, the next thing they will know will be
>>> that day. So, for ALL of us, as far as we will subjectively experience
>>> time, His return is indeed imminent. Even if another 10,000 years were
>>> to pass before that time, we would not be aware of those intervening
>>> years. So we should all live in expectation of it being 'soon'.
>
>> Never had you down as believing in soul sleep Tim.
>

>Well, I don't, exactly.

What does the Bible teach?

"At that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found
written in the book.

2 And many of them that **sleep in the dust of the earth** shall awake, some
to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

3 And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and
they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever"
Daniel 12:1-3 (ASV)


And St. Paul.
"15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are
alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede
them that are **fallen asleep**

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and *the dead in Christ*
shall rise first;

17 then *we that are alive*, that are left, shall together with them be
caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever
be with the Lord."
1 Thess 4:14-17 (ASV)

Jeff...

[John]

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> "Timreason"  wrote in message news:
> On 22/09/2019 18:29, John wrote:

>>> Never had you down as believing in soul sleep Tim.
>>
>
>> Well, I don't, exactly.
>
> What does the Bible teach?

Certainly not soul sleep

> Daniel 12:1-3 (ASV) https://biblehub.com/asv/daniel/12.htm

> 1 Thess 4:14-17 (ASV) https://biblehub.com/asv/1_thessalonians/4.htm

So what does this mean then Jeff, a bodily resurrection for those that
are dead? Those that lived 5500 to, I don't know 1000 years ago, it's
extremely unlikely that Their bones will still be around. And what of
those that have been cremated?

Of course one could perhaps actually study the subject for themselves,
and delve deeper.

We could start with the Witch of Endor, who raised Saul from the dead.

We could look at Moses, where St Michael and the devil argued over who
he belonged to after he died.

We could look at Moses again, together with Elijah, who conversed with
Jesus at the transfiguration.

We could look at Paul, who said that to depart from the body is to be
with the Lord. Now some would argue that could still mean soul sleep but
Paul's wording would suggest that when he died he would be with Jesus,
not stuck in the ground for at least 1950 years.

We could look at the thief on the cross, whom Jesus said would be in
Paradise with him.

We could look at the rich man and Lazarus, and whilst I accept this is a
parable, what did Jesus call the place where Lazarus went, it was called
Paradise, and we know the rich man wanted to go back and warn his
friends, so it is obviously somewhere you go if you are in Christ.

But the clincher is in Revelation 6:9-11

https://biblehub.com/revelation/6-9.htm

The souls of those martyred were under the altar. We know this is
before the resurrection because, after asking how long, they were told
until the rest of those who would be martyred joined them.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"John" wrote in message news:qm93to$mvq$1...@dont-email.me...

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> "Timreason" wrote in message news:
> On 22/09/2019 18:29, John wrote:

>>>> Never had you down as believing in soul sleep Tim.
>>>>
>>> Well, I don't, exactly.
>>>
>> What does the Bible teach?

>Certainly not soul sleep

St. Paul does.....{;o;}
"51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised"
1 Cor 15:51-52 (KJV)

> Daniel 12:1-3 (ASV) https://biblehub.com/asv/daniel/12.htm

> 1 Thess 4:14-17 (ASV) https://biblehub.com/asv/1_thessalonians/4.htm

>So what does this mean then Jeff, a bodily resurrection for those that are
>dead?

I would say so...
"The Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of
the archangel, and with the trump of God: and *the dead in Christ shall
rise* first; 17 then we that are alive....."
1 Thess 4:16-17 (ASV)

Jeff...

[Timreason]

I am of course aware of these passages. However, this is an example of
where you are heavily bound by your over-literalism! As John has shown,
the Bible does not teach 'soul-sleep', and the passages you refer to
above were euphemistic or 'poetic' in the way they describe those who
have died.

These are 'heavenly mysteries' that our limited brains could not
comprehend, except in ways expressed allegorically.

My belief explains how a person who dies might immediately find
themselves at the Last Day, *without* 'sleeping through' the intervening
time, and yet also be accessible to people within that intervening time.

My belief is not, IMO, at variance with scripture. Subjectively the
'Last Day' is imminent for ALL of us, whenever it temporally takes
place. But AFTER that, the 'saved' will be in God's kingdom and time
there will be somehow different. Time, as WE experience it, is for this
dispensation and it is so fundamental to our experience that we struggle
to even imagine existence 'outside' time.

That said, these are all 'Angels on a Pinhead'-type arguments, and we're
all probably wrong. But I do believe (1) that upon death the next thing
(subjectively) is the Last Day, and (2) that the 'Communion of the
Saints' means that the departed can pray with us and for us, from their
place with God, irrespective of where we are in time, ourselves.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/09/2019 01:33, John wrote:

>> What does the Bible teach?

> Certainly not soul sleep

Well, the Bible explicitly says that "the living know that they shall
die but the dead know not anything". It also denies that a dead person
can revisit his former haunts and asserts that when a person dies, "in
that very day his thoughts perish". Whether you want to call it "soul
sleep" or not, it is certainly "soul unconsciousness".

> We could start with the Witch of Endor, who raised Saul from the dead.

Or *claimed* to raise Saul from the dead. Don't you think it odd that a
person condemned to death by God should have the power to bring a dead
person down from heaven or up from hell?

> We could look at Moses, where St Michael and the devil argued over who
> he belonged to after he died.

And you'll notice that they disputed over "the body of Moses" - not his
soul, so it would appear that God resurrected Moses' body some time
after his death.

> We could look at Moses again, together with Elijah, who conversed with
> Jesus at the transfiguration.

Exactly how does a resurrected man (Moses) and one who never died
(Elijah) disprove soul-sleep?

> We could look at Paul, who said that to depart from the body is to be
> with the Lord. Now some would argue that could still mean soul sleep but
> Paul's wording would suggest that when he died he would be with Jesus,
> not stuck in the ground for at least 1950 years.

It's a statement commonly misunderstood. In his first letter to the
Corinthians Paul urges them to take action against the man guilty of
immorality and says, "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in
spirit, have judged already."

Did Paul mean that his disembodied ghost had travelled over to Corinth
and taken part in a church board meeting? Yet if "absent in the
body/present in the spirit" in one place is taken to mean that he has
forsaken his body and gone up to heaven in his spirit, why does it not
mean the same thing in the other passage?

> We could look at the thief on the cross, whom Jesus said would be in
> Paradise with him.

A singularly foolish argument. Quite apart from those who gleefully
point out that moving the comma (and there were no commas in Greek)
changes the meaning of what Jesus said, there is the point that when
Jesus met the women after His resurrection He specifically told them
that He had not yet visited heaven. (In fact, traditional theology
claims that He spent the intervening period in Hades, "harrowing hell"!)

How, then, could the thief on the cross have been with Jesus in paradise
"today" if Jesus Himself was not there?

> We could look at the rich man and Lazarus, and whilst I accept this is a
> parable, what did Jesus call the place where Lazarus went, it was called
> Paradise, and we know the rich man wanted to go back and warn his
> friends, so it is obviously somewhere you go if you are in Christ.

You betray your lack of Bible knowledge. Nowhere does it state that
Lazarus was in paradise; the place where Lazarus went was "the bosom of
Abraham" and a document attributed variously to Josephus or Hippolytus
tells us that "the bosom of Abraham" was not paradise but a sort of
waiting room for that place.

> But the clincher is in Revelation 6:9-11

> The souls of those martyred were under the altar.  We know this is
> before the resurrection because, after asking how long, they were told
> until the rest of those who would be martyred joined them.

Elsewhere in Revelation we are told that it was the altar on which
incense was offered. On earth that measured 18"x18"x36", but even if the
heavenl altar was somewhat larger, it was still a pretty confined space
for all those souls who have been martyred.

Of course there is always the question of how many angels or how many
souls can dance on the point of a pin, but even so, being confined in a
dark box on which someone, every so often, lights a fire that emits
choking billows of smoke, is hardly my idea of heaven!

In short, mate, the considered judgement on your arguments has to be
"Could do better". Especially as you are trying to contradict that
explicit statements with which I began this post.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/09/2019 08:23, Timreason wrote:

> That said, these are all 'Angels on a Pinhead'-type arguments, and we're
> all probably wrong.

Indeed.

> But I do believe (1) that upon death the next thing
> (subjectively) is the Last Day, and (2) that the 'Communion of the
> Saints' means that the departed can pray with us and for us, from their
> place with God, irrespective of where we are in time, ourselves.

The "communion of saints" is not a Biblical doctrine - the phrase does
not even occur in the bible - and especially the idea that the dead join
in our prayers and worship. In fact, the Bible explicitly denies it, for
there are two verses which state "the dead praise not the Lord" or "the
grave cannot praise Thee".

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Timreason" wrote in message

Yes!
"13 You don't have to read between the lines of my letters; you can
understand them."
2 Cor 1:13 (MOFF)
Sure can, Paul.
Sadly, myriads defiantly refuse to accept them at their face value.

So I'll be sticking with them, Tim.
Taking literally what the passages teach Almighty God's "FEW" to be saved
[from this Christian dispensation] Elected Saints.

Unless one is not deemed responsibly to either Almighty God or an answer to
Christ for their refusal to accept or having denied his offer of salvation,
then the following applies.

"4 For to him that is joined with all the living there is hope; for a living
dog is better than a dead lion.

5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything,
neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

6 As well their love, as their hatred and their envy, is perished long ago;
neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything that is done under
the sun."
Eccl 9:4-6 (ASV)

Jeff...

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <qm9u5l$afd$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:01:56 +0100:

> On 23/09/2019 01:33, John wrote:
>> We could start with the Witch of Endor, who raised Saul from the
>> dead.
>
> Or *claimed* to raise Saul from the dead. Don't you think it odd that
> a person condemned to death by God should have the power to bring a
> dead person down from heaven or up from hell?

Going over pre-trodden ground I believe it is within the realm of
possibility that God wrought a miracle (a special case) in the case of
Samuel and the witch was just as shocked at what transpired. The
apparition spoke no deceit and was likely speaking the word of God to
Saul who was after all God's anointed.

>> We could look at Moses, where St Michael and the devil argued over
>> who he belonged to after he died.
>
> And you'll notice that they disputed over "the body of Moses" - not
> his soul, so it would appear that God resurrected Moses' body some
> time after his death.

Why is there any need to posit a resurrection? Deuteronomy would have
us believe that "God buried Moses" who died on God's command (he was
physically fit to go on living) and the dispute between Michael and the
devil would well have been over the dead body of Moses. Whatever the
dispute was Deuteronomy says no man knows where the grave is. But the
bodily death of Moses is not disputed.

>> We could look at Moses again, together with Elijah, who conversed
>> with Jesus at the transfiguration.

The bodily resurrection of Moses is not needed to explain the
transfiguration either. The gospels only make out that it was Peter and
the fallible disciples that identified the two men in conversation with
Jesus as Elijah and Moses - it is hardly likely that they knew what
Elijah or Moses looked like in order to make that identification.
(unless Elijah and Moses were frequent visitors in Israel that people
could identify them by sight)

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 23/09/2019 01:33, John wrote:
>
>>> What does the Bible teach?
>
>> Certainly not soul sleep
>
> Well, the Bible explicitly says that "the living know that they shall
> die but the dead know not anything". It also denies that a dead person
> can revisit his former haunts and asserts that when a person dies, "in
> that very day his thoughts perish". Whether you want to call it "soul
> sleep" or not, it is certainly "soul unconsciousness".
>
>> We could start with the Witch of Endor, who raised Saul from the dead.

> Or *claimed* to raise Saul from the dead. Don't you think it odd that a
> person condemned to death by God should have the power to bring a dead
> person down from heaven or up from hell?

"Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”

>> We could look at Moses, where St Michael and the devil argued over who
>> he belonged to after he died.
>
> And you'll notice that they disputed over "the body of Moses" - not his
> soul, so it would appear that God resurrected Moses' body some time
> after his death

Indeed, which discounts soul sleep. Presumably it would only be at the
resurrection when Moses would reunite with his God.

>> We could look at Moses again, together with Elijah, who conversed with
>> Jesus at the transfiguration.
>
> Exactly how does a resurrected man (Moses) and one who never died
> (Elijah) disprove soul-sleep?

See above

Paul saying to be with the Lord snipped for brevity but no real argument
with your comments

>> We could look at the thief on the cross, whom Jesus said would be in
>> Paradise with him.
>
> A singularly foolish argument. Quite apart from those who gleefully
> point out that moving the comma (and there were no commas in Greek)
> changes the meaning of what Jesus said, there is the point that when
> Jesus met the women after His resurrection He specifically told them
> that He had not yet visited heaven. (In fact, traditional theology
> claims that He spent the intervening period in Hades, "harrowing hell"!)
>
> How, then, could the thief on the cross have been with Jesus in paradise
> "today" if Jesus Himself was not there?

I deliberately didn't mention the comma. I was linking it to "paradise"
in my next point.

>> We could look at the rich man and Lazarus, and whilst I accept this is
>> a parable, what did Jesus call the place where Lazarus went, it was
>> called Paradise, and we know the rich man wanted to go back and warn
>> his friends, so it is obviously somewhere you go if you are in Christ.
>
> You betray your lack of Bible knowledge. Nowhere does it state that
> Lazarus was in paradise; the place where Lazarus went was "the bosom of
> Abraham" and a document attributed variously to Josephus or Hippolytus
> tells us that "the bosom of Abraham" was not paradise but a sort of
> waiting room for that place.

You're right, and I apologise. I would still suggest that is what
happens when someone dies in the Lord, a kind of paradise (or waiting
room) until the resurrection. I have always read 1 Thessalonians as the
dead in Christ being brought with Jesus and those still living rising to
meet them in the air.

>> But the clincher is in Revelation 6:9-11
>> The souls of those martyred were under the altar.  We know this is
>> before the resurrection because, after asking how long, they were told
>> until the rest of those who would be martyred joined them.
>
> Elsewhere in Revelation we are told that it was the altar on which
> incense was offered. On earth that measured 18"x18"x36", but even if the
> heavenl altar was somewhat larger, it was still a pretty confined space
> for all those souls who have been martyred.
>
> Of course there is always the question of how many angels or how many
> souls can dance on the point of a pin, but even so, being confined in a
> dark box on which someone, every so often, lights a fire that emits
> choking billows of smoke, is hardly my idea of heaven!

So why would John recount this if it wasn't true? There's also the souls
that were too numerous to count in Revelation 7:14 but it depends on
your POV of the great tribulation.

> In short, mate, the considered judgement on your arguments has to be
> "Could do better". Especially as you are trying to contradict that
> explicit statements with which I began this post.

Well to be fair, I would hardly count Ecclesiastes as being a handbook
of God's thoughts. It is the opinion of one man. And if we are to take
the quote as literally as you have, then we simply go back to the ground
and that's it. No eternal life, nothing. The writer says the same fate
awaits all. Ecclesiastes 3:20-21 says the same. although the writer says
he doesn't know if man's spirit ascends upwards.

[John]

I find it somewhat amusing that three sects cling on to Ecclesiastes 9:5
as "proof" about soul sleep.

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not

anything, *neither have they any more a reward*; for the memory of them
is forgotten.

But what did Jesus say "Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me,
and I will give to each person according to what they have done"

So if you want to quote Ecclesiastes 9:5 you also have to accept there
is nothing after this life, you're dead and that's it.

[Madhu]

* Timreason <qm9rsq$u1n$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 08:23:04 +0100:

> That said, these are all 'Angels on a Pinhead'-type arguments, and
> we're all probably wrong. But I do believe (1) that upon death the
> next thing (subjectively) is the Last Day, and (2) that the 'Communion
> of the Saints' means that the departed can pray with us and for us,
> from their place with God, irrespective of where we are in time,
> ourselves.

Don't get me wrong - I come from a long line of practicing ancestor
worshippers who have reconciled ancestor worship even with
reincarnation. But the common OT perception of afterlife is "sleep with
your fathers" - until resurrection and judgment. If this is right then
it is not the departed that one is appealing to and it is not the
departed who are being interceded for or who are are interceding on ones
behalf with God. It is the demons who presided over the lives of those
who have departed who have the independent existence. Paul makes it
clear that if you are not worshipping God then by default you are
worshipping devils and explicitly condemns this sort of fellowship with
the devils

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/09/2019 10:45, Madhu wrote:

> Going over pre-trodden ground I believe it is within the realm of
> possibility that God wrought a miracle (a special case) in the case of
> Samuel and the witch was just as shocked at what transpired. The
> apparition spoke no deceit and was likely speaking the word of God to
> Saul who was after all God's anointed.

Yet in Chronicles it is said that Saul died for his sin of consulting
the medium. Do you really think that God works a miracle in order to
condemn someone to death?

> Why is there any need to posit a resurrection? Deuteronomy would have
> us believe that "God buried Moses" who died on God's command (he was
> physically fit to go on living) and the dispute between Michael and the
> devil would well have been over the dead body of Moses. Whatever the
> dispute was Deuteronomy says no man knows where the grave is. But the
> bodily death of Moses is not disputed.

If Moses was dead then, according to the beliefs of the time, he was in
the devil's power and being held behind the iron bars of Hades or Sheol.
If Moses merely continued dead, then why a dispute? The devil had him
and the devil kept him.

The only grounds for dispute would be in God or Jesus was reclaiming the
body of Moses and removing it from Sheol - which is resurrection.

> The bodily resurrection of Moses is not needed to explain the
> transfiguration either. The gospels only make out that it was Peter and
> the fallible disciples that identified the two men in conversation with
> Jesus as Elijah and Moses - it is hardly likely that they knew what
> Elijah or Moses looked like in order to make that identification.

He he!

However they may have been introduced or they may have overheard
something which gave them a clue as to the visitors' names or, of
course, Jesus may have told them in the morning as they descended the
mountain!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/09/2019 11:41, John wrote:

>> Or *claimed* to raise Saul from the dead. Don't you think it odd that
>> a person condemned to death by God should have the power to bring a
>> dead person down from heaven or up from hell?

> "Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”

If it was an evil spirit masquerading as Saul, what else would you
expect him to say? Furthermore, according to your belief that the dead
go immediately to their eternal reward, should not Samuel have said "by
bringing me *down*?" (I presume that you, like me, regard Samuel as a
true prophet of God and certain to be in the Kingdom.)

> Indeed, which discounts soul sleep.  Presumably it would only be at the
> resurrection when Moses would reunite with his God.

Jude speaks of it as something in the past, not the future.

Interestingly, Origin claimed that Jude was referring to a lost Jewish
book called "The Ascension of Moses" (de Principiis 3.2.1), the title of
which seems to support my understanding that God resurrected Moses and
took him bodily to heaven.

>> How, then, could the thief on the cross have been with Jesus in
>> paradise "today" if Jesus Himself was not there?

> I deliberately didn't mention the comma. I was linking it to "paradise"
> in my next point.

No, and I too regard the comma as a valid but weak argument. As there
are no commas in the Greek original it is just as correct to put the
comma before "today" as it is to put it after. However you have not
addressed my main point, which I have preserved above and which seems to
me unanswerable.

>> You betray your lack of Bible knowledge. Nowhere does it state that
>> Lazarus was in paradise; the place where Lazarus went was "the bosom
>> of Abraham" and a document attributed variously to Josephus or
>> Hippolytus tells us that "the bosom of Abraham" was not paradise but a
>> sort of waiting room for that place.

> You're right, and I apologise. I would still suggest that is what
> happens when someone dies in the Lord, a kind of paradise (or waiting
> room) until the resurrection.  I have always read 1 Thessalonians as the
> dead in Christ being brought with Jesus and those still living rising to
> meet them in the air.

He he. 1 Thessalonians is quite clear that it is both the resurrected
dead and the living who "shall be caught up together with them in the
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air".

However you are correct to point out that the dead in Christ are brought
"with Him", which seems a contradiction unless you understand what is
meant by "spirit" and "soul". Psyche is the individual's mind or
personality and it is that which "returns to God Who gave it" at the
moment of death.

In other words, at the moment of death God takes a snapshot of your
brain (or wherever your personality resides) and stores it safely in
heaven. Like a memory stick or chip, the information is safe but without
a computer (body) it can neither be read nor written. It is, to coin a
phrase, unconscious!

At the Second Coming Jesus brings these "memory sticks" with Him,
resurrects (or rather, recreates) the bodies, no doubt in a new and
improved version, and reinstalls the contents of the relevant memory
chip. Presto - you, real actual you, once more walks on the earth.

> So why would John recount this if it wasn't true?

Why would John recount seeing death riding through the heavenly courts
on a pale horse if it wasn't true? Have you ever heard of symbolism?

> Well to be fair, I would hardly count Ecclesiastes as being a handbook
> of God's thoughts. It is the opinion of one man.  And if we are to take
> the quote as literally as you have, then we simply go back to the ground
> and that's it. No eternal life, nothing.  The writer says the same fate
> awaits all. Ecclesiastes 3:20-21 says the same. although the writer says
> he doesn't know if man's spirit ascends upwards.

That is a good point, except that the same thought is found throughout
the Old Testament and also in the New in the use of the word "sleep" to
describe man's state in death. I listed some of the things the Old
Testament says about the dead - they don't praise God, they don't return
to their dwellings, their thoughts perish. Those statements agree with
what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes and even if you discount Ecclesiastes
for whatever reason, the other statements remain.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/09/2019 15:18, Madhu wrote:

> it is not the departed that one is appealing to and it is not the
> departed who are being interceded for or who are are interceding on ones
> behalf with God. It is the demons who presided over the lives of those
> who have departed who have the independent existence. Paul makes it
> clear that if you are not worshipping God then by default you are
> worshipping devils and explicitly condemns this sort of fellowship with
> the devils

We know who it was that at the beginning deceived our first mother by
telling her "You shall not surely die". The fact of bodily death being
indisputable, the devil has to find another way of persuading and
deceiving us that death is not really death, just an altered form of
existence.

Thus you do not need to have had demons presiding over your life to have
demons impersonating you after your death. Samuel was a prophet of God
and, so far as we know, a good man, yet the devil pretended to be him in
order to torture Saul with the assurance that he would be dead in the
morning.

[Timreason]

On 23/09/2019 15:18, Madhu wrote:
>

Correct practice (by most Christians worldwide) is NOT to *worship* the
saints. They may be petitioned for prayer, and (as in the case of St
Mary) venerated. Let's be clear, veneration is NOT worship. It's extreme
respect and admiration, but not worship.

Veneration of St Mary is entirely scriptural, "Generations will call me
blessed", and indeed they have.

But I do agree that it is vital to reserve *worship* only for God.

Tim.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:

> That is a good point, except that the same thought is found throughout
> the Old Testament and also in the New in the use of the word "sleep" to
> describe man's state in death. I listed some of the things the Old
> Testament says about the dead - they don't praise God, they don't return
> to their dwellings, their thoughts perish. Those statements agree with
> what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes and even if you discount Ecclesiastes
> for whatever reason, the other statements remain.

Fairy nuff, no doubt we will know for sure after we die. Thank you for
your alternative viewpoint. One last thing, and I remembered it when I
was reading your reply, what's your view on 1 Peter 9?

[John]

Sorry, that should read 1 Peter 3:19-20

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/09/2019 19:35, Timreason wrote:

> Correct practice (by most Christians worldwide) is NOT to *worship* the
> saints. They may be petitioned for prayer, and (as in the case of St
> Mary) venerated. Let's be clear, veneration is NOT worship. It's extreme
> respect and admiration, but not worship.

A bit of hair-splitting that probably works for intellectuals (probably
in ivory towers) but which is only vaguely understood - if at all - by
the majority. From peasants in Greece to half-converted peons in South
America and the Catholic part of the population of Ireland, saints and
their images are worshipped, prayed to, regarded as miraculous and
wonder-working - and all told one is left with the conclusion that when
God forbade any sign of reverence, He knew what He was talking about!

> Veneration of St Mary is entirely scriptural, "Generations will call me
> blessed", and indeed they have.

Calling Mary "blessed" is by no means the same as the Mariolatry one
finds in the Catholic and High Anglican churches.

> But I do agree that it is vital to reserve *worship* only for God.

So vital that we ought to accept God's prohibition on *any* sign of
respect for images.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/09/2019 19:43, John wrote:

> Fairy nuff, no doubt we will know for sure after we die. Thank you for
> your alternative viewpoint.

Yes, it is not sensible to be dogmatic about the matter seeing as none
of us know for sure - and all of us will know beyond doubt in a few
short years.

> One last thing, and I remembered it when I
> was reading your reply, what's your view on 1 Peter 9?

I presume it has slipped your mind that there are only five chapters in
1 Peter?

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <qmat8c$7h3$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:52:28 +0100:

> On 23/09/2019 10:45, Madhu wrote:
>> Going over pre-trodden ground I believe it is within the realm of
>> possibility that God wrought a miracle (a special case) in the case of
>> Samuel and the witch was just as shocked at what transpired. The
>> apparition spoke no deceit and was likely speaking the word of God to
>> Saul who was after all God's anointed.
>
> Yet in Chronicles it is said that Saul died for his sin of consulting
> the medium.

It is adduced as an additional specific reason. Transgression of the
word of god is the primary reason and there were multiple
transgressions.

10:13-14 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed
against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he
kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar
spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD:
therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son
of Jesse.

As you know God had Samuel anoint David long before these
events. Nothing can be inferred abotu chronology or effect from this.
The narrative in Chronicles first reports the death in 10:1-6. These
last few lines are editorial commentary by the author of chronicles. In
any case it makes out that God killed Saul (he slew him) (cf. Satan
provoking the census of David w.r.t The Book of Samuel)

> Do you really think that God works a miracle in order to condemn
> someone to death?

Of course. Remember that Saul was already condemned long before this
event. It was God who revoked the holy spirit and sent the evil spirit
instead which tormented Saul and reduced him to his bipolar state. God
would certainly take responsibility for his end and effect Saul's
deathbed repentance. It was Saul who had put out the witches and
familiar spirits from Israel , and he swears on God that he would not
hurt the witch of Endor. He still swears on God - another transgression
of course but one that is made in desperation as God was not answering
him and had cut him off.

This does not mean that Saul does not die for his transgressions - it is
too late for that but it the repentance the relationship between God and
one God's chosen who went astray. God did provide an answer at the end.

>> Why is there any need to posit a resurrection? Deuteronomy would have
>> us believe that "God buried Moses" who died on God's command (he was
>> physically fit to go on living) and the dispute between Michael and the
>> devil would well have been over the dead body of Moses. Whatever the
>> dispute was Deuteronomy says no man knows where the grave is. But the
>> bodily death of Moses is not disputed.
>
> If Moses was dead then, according to the beliefs of the time, he was
> in the devil's power and being held behind the iron bars of Hades or
> Sheol.

Hardly. Deuteronomy makes out that Moses was physically fit to go on
living and the only reason he died was that God demanded it - there is
no hint that Moses was under the power of sheol or under satan's power
rather than God's.

> If Moses merely continued dead, then why a dispute? The devil had him
> and the devil kept him. The only grounds for dispute would be in God
> or Jesus was reclaiming the body of Moses and removing it from Sheol -
> which is resurrection.

Ah this view depends on the fact that a physical body is required for
resurrection. The dispute could have been where to bury the body. In
India and the middle east there have been many disputes over the burial
of bodies. In Moses case I can imagine the dispute was whether the body
should be transported to Israel and buried there (like Jacob's Sarah's
etc.)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/09/2019 04:09, Madhu wrote:

> It is adduced as an additional specific reason. Transgression of the
> word of god is the primary reason and there were multiple
> transgressions.

That is certainly true, but it does not hide the fact that consulting
the witch was an additional sin.

> In
> any case it makes out that God killed Saul (he slew him) (cf. Satan
> provoking the census of David w.r.t The Book of Samuel)

In other words, God was punishing him for what he had done wrong. If
consulting the witch had not been an additional reason for punishment,
why mention it?

>> Do you really think that God works a miracle in order to condemn
>> someone to death?

> Of course. Remember that Saul was already condemned long before this
> event. It was God who revoked the holy spirit and sent the evil spirit
> instead which tormented Saul and reduced him to his bipolar state. God
> would certainly take responsibility for his end and effect Saul's
> deathbed repentance. It was Saul who had put out the witches and
> familiar spirits from Israel , and he swears on God that he would not
> hurt the witch of Endor. He still swears on God - another transgression
> of course but one that is made in desperation as God was not answering
> him and had cut him off.

If, as you say, Saul was already under sentence of death, there was no
need for additional guilt. If acquiring that additional guilt required
God to perform a miracle, that seems extraordinarily perverse!

Incidentally the "evil spirit" from God which so tormented Saul was
really the Holy Spirit, prompting him to repentance - but repentance
would involve giving up the kingship. Saul's refusal to repent turned
the good spirit into one which became a torment.

An additional point is that the reason God refused to answer Saul was
because He could give no other advice or command than what had already
been given and which Saul refused to accept - give up the kingship!

>> If Moses was dead then, according to the beliefs of the time, he was
>> in the devil's power and being held behind the iron bars of Hades or
>> Sheol.

> Hardly. Deuteronomy makes out that Moses was physically fit to go on
> living and the only reason he died was that God demanded it - there is
> no hint that Moses was under the power of sheol or under satan's power
> rather than God's.

The mere fact of dying had transferred him to sheol - which is the
underworld, the abode of the dead. The method or reason for his death is
irrelevant; the equation is simple: you are dead, you are in sheol.

> Ah this view depends on the fact that a physical body is required for
> resurrection. The dispute could have been where to bury the body. In
> India and the middle east there have been many disputes over the burial
> of bodies. In Moses case I can imagine the dispute was whether the body
> should be transported to Israel and buried there (like Jacob's Sarah's
> etc.)

That is a suggestion that has been put forward by others, but which is
not accepted by the apocryphal book quoted by Jude. Its title, "The
Ascension of Moses" indicates pretty clearly that the dispute was not
about the location of Moses' burial, but about whether sheol could
retain possession of his body.

And yes, resurrection involves the physical body - not in the sense that
the dead body is reanimated (which would involve all the tedious
questions about cremation or being eaten by a tiger) but that a body is
provided.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 23/09/2019 21:28, John wrote:

> Sorry, that should read 1 Peter 3:19-20

I guessed that that was your query but couldn't resist teasing you over
the faulty reference.

The idea that Jesus preached to the spirits of the dead - which lies
behind your question - involves an unacceptable doctrine of a second
chance after death. That is rejected by all Christians (apart from a few
fringe believers unwilling to see anyone lost).

One interpretation would be that Jesus was brought back to life by the
Holy Spirit, the same Spirit by which Christ preached to those now in
the prison house of death - but the preaching took place before their
deaths.

However I must admit that I very much like the suggestion put forward by
Moffat(?) in his translation, that there is a scribal error. Without
looking it up (which is why the question mark on whether it was Moffat
or another translator) it runs like this:

en o kai tois en phulake is what we now have.
en o kai enok tois en phulake is what we should have

Given that there were no spaces between words in the old manuscripts, it
would be only too easy for a scribe's eye to jump over the extra "enok".
If so, then the correct translation would be, "Jesus was brought back to
life by the Spirit by which Enoch preached to the spirits now in prison".

I like it!

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <qmcdjp$8n2$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:37:45 +0100:

> On 24/09/2019 04:09, Madhu wrote:
>
>> It is adduced as an additional specific reason. Transgression of the
>> word of god is the primary reason and there were multiple
>> transgressions.
>
> That is certainly true, but it does not hide the fact that consulting
> the witch was an additional sin.
>
>> In
>> any case it makes out that God killed Saul (he slew him) (cf. Satan
>> provoking the census of David w.r.t The Book of Samuel)
>
> In other words, God was punishing him for what he had done wrong. If
> consulting the witch had not been an additional reason for punishment,
> why mention it?

The chronicler's motives and priestly biases shine through clearly
throughout the chronicles.

>>> Do you really think that God works a miracle in order to condemn
>>> someone to death?
>
>> Of course. Remember that Saul was already condemned long before this
>> event. It was God who revoked the holy spirit and sent the evil spirit
>> instead which tormented Saul and reduced him to his bipolar state. God
>> would certainly take responsibility for his end and effect Saul's
>> deathbed repentance. It was Saul who had put out the witches and
>> familiar spirits from Israel , and he swears on God that he would not
>> hurt the witch of Endor. He still swears on God - another transgression
>> of course but one that is made in desperation as God was not answering
>> him and had cut him off.
>
> If, as you say, Saul was already under sentence of death, there was no
> need for additional guilt. If acquiring that additional guilt required
> God to perform a miracle, that seems extraordinarily perverse!

Nothing perverse. Saul was in need of a message from God and God
arranged for it to be delivered, with the short-lived repentance (cut
off by death)

>> Hardly. Deuteronomy makes out that Moses was physically fit to go on
>> living and the only reason he died was that God demanded it - there
>> is no hint that Moses was under the power of sheol or under satan's
>> power rather than God's.
>
> The mere fact of dying had transferred him to sheol - which is the
> underworld, the abode of the dead. The method or reason for his death
> is irrelevant; the equation is simple: you are dead, you are in sheol.

There is no OT connotation of Satan ruling sheol.

> That is a suggestion that has been put forward by others, but which is
> not accepted by the apocryphal book quoted by Jude. Its title, "The
> Ascension of Moses" indicates pretty clearly that the dispute was not
> about the location of Moses' burial, but about whether sheol could
> retain possession of his body.

Your usual caution against the apocrypha needs to be amplified in this
instance. One copy of the assumption (or testament) of moses I found
prefixes the Conclusion (where the incident occurs) with

<The remainder of this book is non-extant; but a possible
summary has been composed using the surviving fragments, most
which derive from the quotations of various early writers who
had this book still in their possession.>

The theological problem with your reliance on the apocrypha is that this
conflicts with the otherwise unimpeachable view from scripture that
Moses will be resurrected and enter into God's kingdom at the upcoming
resurrection as per God's plan

> And yes, resurrection involves the physical body - not in the sense
> that the dead body is reanimated (which would involve all the tedious
> questions about cremation or being eaten by a tiger) but that a body
> is provided.

Nowadays some would have you believe that every cell in your body is
replaced every few years - there is nothing inherent about the body that
has claim to identity. Given suitable environmental conditions a body
could be created mechanically from genetic information and organic
materials and sustained. I see no need to afford a special status to
the particular remains of an individual as being the basis for his
resurrection. On the downside doing that leads to veneration of
bodyparts as relics and other they become "accursed objects" employed by
demons in demolatry.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <qmce1g$b0l$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:45:04 +0100:

> On 23/09/2019 21:28, John wrote:
>
>> Sorry, that should read 1 Peter 3:19-20
>

> The idea that Jesus preached to the spirits of the dead - which lies
> behind your question - involves an unacceptable doctrine of a second
> chance after death. That is rejected by all Christians (apart from a
> few fringe believers unwilling to see anyone lost).

The way I've seen it put is that the righteous dead who were being held
in sheol were released at this point (the most definitively spurious
aprocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus)

> One interpretation would be that Jesus was brought back to life by the
> Holy Spirit, the same Spirit by which Christ preached to those now in
> the prison house of death - but the preaching took place before their
> deaths.

I've relayed Wayne Grudem's suggestion twice before on ukrc that this
passage refers to the spirit of Christ preaching through Noah to the
generation of the flood - the generation which perished that is now
awaiting final judgment.

http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Christ-Preaching-Through-Noah-I-Peter-3-19-20-in-the-Light-of-Dominant-Themes-in-Jewish-Literature.pdf

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"John" wrote in message news:qma8ht$4o6$1...@dont-email.me...

Which is why I stated what I did first off.

" Unless one is not deemed responsibly to either Almighty God or an answer
to Christ for their refusal to accept or having denied his offer of
salvation, then the following applies."

>So if you want to quote Ecclesiastes 9:5 you also have to accept there is
>nothing after this life, you're dead and that's it.

That is certainly true if one is ignorant of the existence of God, or
never gets to hear of Jesus Christ, as was the case for thousands of years
in the world.

"For where no law is, there is no transgression"
Romans 4:15 (KJV)

Jeff...

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 23/09/2019 21:28, John wrote:
>
>> Sorry, that should read 1 Peter 3:19-20
>
> I guessed that that was your query but couldn't resist teasing you over
> the faulty reference.

I went back to check, because I thought I put 1 Peter 3:9, but then
realised I'd added another 4 chapters!!!

> The idea that Jesus preached to the spirits of the dead - which lies
> behind your question - involves an unacceptable doctrine of a second
> chance after death. That is rejected by all Christians (apart from a few
> fringe believers unwilling to see anyone lost).

It may be that the OT folk, which didn't have Jesus, still needed to
hear the gospel. That wasn't my inference though. I was pointing out
that the people [Jesus] preached to were conscious, at least in spirit.

> One interpretation would be that Jesus was brought back to life by the
> Holy Spirit, the same Spirit by which Christ preached to those now in
> the prison house of death - but the preaching took place before their
> deaths.

There's no suggestion elsewhere that this is true.

> However I must admit that I very much like the suggestion put forward by
> Moffat(?) in his translation, that there is a scribal error. Without
> looking it up (which is why the question mark on whether it was Moffat
> or another translator) it runs like this:
>
> en o kai tois en phulake is what we now have.
> en o kai enok tois en phulake is what we should have
>
> Given that there were no spaces between words in the old manuscripts, it
> would be only too easy for a scribe's eye to jump over the extra "enok".
> If so, then the correct translation would be, "Jesus was brought back to
> life by the Spirit by which Enoch preached to the spirits now in prison".

Hmmmmm I'm not sure how we jump to Enoch preaching to those drowned in
the flood, seeing as he wasn't around at that point. In fact Noah didn't
even know his Great Grandad.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/09/2019 09:46, Madhu wrote:

>> If, as you say, Saul was already under sentence of death, there was no
>> need for additional guilt. If acquiring that additional guilt required
>> God to perform a miracle, that seems extraordinarily perverse!

> Nothing perverse. Saul was in need of a message from God and God
> arranged for it to be delivered, with the short-lived repentance (cut
> off by death)

If God needed to deliver a message to Saul, He would hardly have used
someone He condemned to do so.

>> The mere fact of dying had transferred him to sheol - which is the
>> underworld, the abode of the dead. The method or reason for his death
>> is irrelevant; the equation is simple: you are dead, you are in sheol.

> There is no OT connotation of Satan ruling sheol.

The Old Testament does not say a lot about satan, but the belief that
the dead were captive in sheol is in the Old Testament.

> Your usual caution against the apocrypha needs to be amplified in this
> instance.

Certainly, but nevertheless the book does appear to be the source of
Jude's statement. Just as the quote by an inspired author from the book
of Enoch is taken as validation for that one verse and not the rest of
the book, so the reference (or possibly quotation) from the Ascension of
Moses is taken as validation for that one verse, not for the rest of the
book.

> The theological problem with your reliance on the apocrypha is that this
> conflicts with the otherwise unimpeachable view from scripture that
> Moses will be resurrected and enter into God's kingdom at the upcoming
> resurrection as per God's plan

So far as I know, Scripture says nothing about Moses being resurrected
at the Second Coming, but the fact that he was present on the Mount of
Transfiguration argues that he has already been resurrected. If he was
merely a spirit from the dead, it would put Jesus on a level with the
witch of Endor.

> Nowadays some would have you believe that every cell in your body is
> replaced every few years - there is nothing inherent about the body that
> has claim to identity.

Exactly. Human identity lies in the non-material part which "returns to
God Who gave it".

> Given suitable environmental conditions a body
> could be created mechanically from genetic information and organic
> materials and sustained. I see no need to afford a special status to
> the particular remains of an individual as being the basis for his
> resurrection. On the downside doing that leads to veneration of
> bodyparts as relics and other they become "accursed objects" employed by
> demons in demolatry.

I agree with you, the more particularly as Christians believe that those
resurrected will have new bodies, not only with any defects repaired -
missing limbs replaced, for example - but young and healthy. I believe
there are two sources for the idea of resurrection.

The first is the actual experience of resurrection, where a dead body
has been apparently reanimated (for example, 2 Kings 13:21 or the story
of Lazarus). Today we know that within about eight minutes of death the
cells in the body begin to die and reanimation is impossible, so these
stories are in fact about a recreation, but people back then would not
have known that.

The second is to emphasise both that the afterlife is a physical, bodily
experience and that the resurrected person is the same person as the one
who died - recognisable to his or her loved ones.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/09/2019 10:20, Madhu wrote:

> The way I've seen it put is that the righteous dead who were being held
> in sheol were released at this point (the most definitively spurious
> aprocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus)

Hardly, when the "spirits in prison" are defined as "those who were
disobedient in the time of Noah".

> I've relayed Wayne Grudem's suggestion twice before on ukrc that this
> passage refers to the spirit of Christ preaching through Noah to the
> generation of the flood - the generation which perished that is now
> awaiting final judgment.

I have no difficulty with that idea.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/09/2019 14:32, John wrote:

> It may be that the OT folk, which didn't have Jesus, still needed to
> hear the gospel. That wasn't my inference though. I was pointing out
> that the people [Jesus] preached to were conscious, at least in spirit.

Certainly - because they were alive at the time of the preaching.

> Hmmmmm  I'm not sure how we jump to Enoch preaching to those drowned in
> the flood, seeing as he wasn't around at that point. In fact Noah didn't
> even know his Great Grandad.

Very true, though if Lamech was in any way typical of the generation
that drowned in the Flood, he was alive before Enoch's departure and
could have heard the patriarch preaching.

Note, however, that although I *like* the suggestion of scribal error,
my main reason for mentioning it is to show that others beside myself
recognise the problems inherent in the idea that Jesus preached to the
spirits of those dead, namely that it requires a doctrine of a
second-chance post mortem.

[Mohammed]

On 23/09/2019 19:35, Timreason wrote:

According to Islam, those that started to worship idols and saints, did
so in a gradual process. First people made statues and symbols serving
as a reminder, then after generations had passed they were being used a
link between them and God, as someone that'll petition for them, take
their prayers up to God so that they are heard/answered. Once another
number of generations had passed, people started to worship those idols
as Gods*. Islam does not take too kindly to any such extreme respect and
admiration where specifically dead entities (idols and symbols are
forbidden) are petitioned for prayers - though I know some groups go
very close to those lines and some within them even transgress.

*Madhu may be able to correct if me I'm wrong. In Hinduism, the idols no
matter what rank they may be given or are perceived to have, they are
seen as lower Gods (by those with the knowledge) to the supreme entity
which is unseen. The idol Gods are seen as a means to achieve a higher
status and reach the point of the unseen, uncreated, supreme God.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <qmf1cv$tbc$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 25 Sep 2019 07:27:44 +0100:

> On 24/09/2019 09:46, Madhu wrote:
>> Nothing perverse. Saul was in need of a message from God and God
>> arranged for it to be delivered, with the short-lived repentance (cut
>> off by death)
>
> If God needed to deliver a message to Saul, He would hardly have used
> someone He condemned to do so.

That is presumptuous to say the least. I'm not sure who you are
referring to as condemned (only Saul figures) but even then "condemned"
is also your own interpretation. God used the circumstances in which
Saul found himself.

>>> The mere fact of dying had transferred him to sheol - which is the
>>> underworld, the abode of the dead. The method or reason for his death
>>> is irrelevant; the equation is simple: you are dead, you are in sheol.
>
>> There is no OT connotation of Satan ruling sheol.
>
> The Old Testament does not say a lot about satan, but the belief that
> the dead were captive in sheol is in the Old Testament.

Where else would they go? Since there is no alternative "captive" is
misleading - nor is there any indication that satan has any control over
their apparently "sleeping" souls. Those are extrabiblical
intertestamentary imaginations with regard to sheol at best - probably
influenced by Greek and Hindu (and possibly Buddhist) accounts of hell.

>> Your usual caution against the apocrypha needs to be amplified in this
>> instance.
>
> Certainly, but nevertheless the book does appear to be the source of
> Jude's statement.

The fragment is missing in the original sources and reconstructed based
on the secondary sources (such as Jude) - I hope you can see the
foundation on which the circular argument rests.

> Just as the quote by an inspired author from the
> book of Enoch is taken as validation for that one verse and not the
> rest of the book, so the reference (or possibly quotation) from the
> Ascension of Moses is taken as validation for that one verse, not for
> the rest of the book.

Indeed. And here you are ignoring the sense in which Jude uses the text.
Jude's purpose in quoting the text was to emphasise that that even
Michael, who was believed to have been invested with the required
authority did not execute judgment on Satan but deferred to God but not
having brought a charge against satan.

This tells you nothing about the reason for the dispute or the
circumstances. Those have been invented by the apocrypha writers and
compilers to the best of their imagination and prejudices. To follow in
their footsteps and to interpret scripture in light of their imagination
would be folly.

>> The theological problem with your reliance on the apocrypha is that this
>> conflicts with the otherwise unimpeachable view from scripture that
>> Moses will be resurrected and enter into God's kingdom at the upcoming
>> resurrection as per God's plan
>
> So far as I know, Scripture says nothing about Moses being resurrected
> at the Second Coming, but the fact that he was present on the Mount of
> Transfiguration argues that he has already been resurrected. If he was
> merely a spirit from the dead, it would put Jesus on a level with the
> witch of Endor.

Scripture does not say Moses visited Jesus. That is an inference which
is unwarranted from the narrative and you cannot make that a basis for
an argument that Moses was resurrected.

"16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some,
Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets."

According to your interpretative-logic this would prove that the bible
confirms reincarnation.

27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me?

27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This
man calleth for Elias.

According to your interpretative-logic this would prove that Jesus was
praying to Elijah to come and save him.

> I agree with you, the more particularly as Christians believe that
> those resurrected will have new bodies, not only with any defects
> repaired - missing limbs replaced, for example - but young and
> healthy. I believe there are two sources for the idea of resurrection.
>
> The first is the actual experience of resurrection, where a dead body
> has been apparently reanimated (for example, 2 Kings 13:21 or the
> story of Lazarus). Today we know that within about eight minutes of
> death the cells in the body begin to die and reanimation is
> impossible, so these stories are in fact about a recreation, but
> people back then would not have known that.

Lazarus did not enter life eternal in the kingdom of god with his
resurrected body and neither did those saints who came out of their
graves at the crucifixion. If he did Lazarus' resurrection would be the
centerpiece of the new testament and not jesus - as the first
resurrection and the firstborn among the children of God.

Lazarus is at best a revival - like the kid that Elijah revived, or the
girl that Jesus revived, or the other kid that Paul revived. This is
not the hope of the resurrection that the bible supplies - even as it
was expressed later by Paul.

> The second is to emphasise both that the afterlife is a physical,
> bodily experience and that the resurrected person is the same person
> as the one who died - recognisable to his or her loved ones.

Despite the evidence about the holes in Jesus' hands, the body is not
(cannot be) the basis for this identity. The body of the newborn is
very different from the body at old age. Identity is not based on the
body but something else. Likewise the resurrection-body is certainly
physical but it is not the basis for identity

[Timreason]

On 25/09/2019 08:04, Mohammed wrote:
> On 23/09/2019 19:35, Timreason wrote:
>> On 23/09/2019 15:18, Madhu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Correct practice (by most Christians worldwide) is NOT to *worship*
>> the saints. They may be petitioned for prayer, and (as in the case of
>> St Mary) venerated. Let's be clear, veneration is NOT worship. It's
>> extreme respect and admiration, but not worship.
>>
>> Veneration of St Mary is entirely scriptural, "Generations will call
>> me blessed", and indeed they have.
>>
>> But I do agree that it is vital to reserve *worship* only for God.
>>
>
> According to Islam, those that started to worship idols and saints, did
> so in a gradual process. First people made statues and symbols serving
> as a reminder, then after generations had passed they were being used a
> link between them and God, as someone that'll petition for them, take
> their prayers up to God so that they are heard/answered. Once another
> number of generations had passed, people started to worship those idols
> as Gods*. Islam does not take too kindly to any such extreme respect and
> admiration where specifically dead entities (idols and symbols are
> forbidden) are petitioned for prayers - though I know some groups go
> very close to those lines and some within them even transgress.
>

I accept there are risks and potential pitfalls for Christians who might
fall into the error of worshipping, say, a statue or revering the thing,
rather than whom it represents. However, most Christians worldwide DO
use symbolism to represent heavenly things, and do revere saints who
have departed this Time-Space world and are with God.

The percentage of Christians who entirely reject symbolism and tradition
is small. Now, they might argue (as Jeff does) that scripture says FEW
will find the 'Narrow Way', and the fact there are (percentage-wise) few
of them means they are right. Of course, that does not necessarily follow.

Anglican Catholics retain some Catholic traditions, but only where they
have basis in scripture and can be supported by scriptural teaching.
Thus, some Roman Catholic traditions and beliefs are rejected. There is
a feeling that the 'Puritans' have thrown out some babies with the
bathwater, by rejecting all tradition.

There is much teaching, in the Anglo-Catholic church I attend, about
specifically avoiding worshipping either objects or the saints they
represent. But the symbolism is there to remind us of heavenly mysteries
and to represent them with physical objects. For example, the use of
candles representing light coming into the world, the way a candle fully
'sacrifices' itself to give light, and so on.

My own view is that symbolism helps some people (me included) but must
come with a heavy warning, that the objects themselves are just wood,
wax, stone, etc., and of themselves are in no way 'special'. However, if
some other Christians do NOT find such things helpful, find them
distracting, or confusing, then OK, they can just do without them.

Basically, I think it is God's will that there are many different
Christian church organisations and ways of doing things, in order to
provide fellowships that suit all sorts of people, since we are all
different.

The danger, IMO, is when any group claims it is "Right", and the others
are therefore "Wrong", and only their way is the "Right" way.

Tim.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:


> So far as I know, Scripture says nothing about Moses being resurrected
> at the Second Coming, but the fact that he was present on the Mount of
> Transfiguration argues that he has already been resurrected. If he was
> merely a spirit from the dead, it would put Jesus on a level with the
> witch of Endor.

But doesn't this discount soul sleep? We know that both Elijah, Moses
and no doubt Enoch are presumably in some sort of Paradise (Abrahams
bosom?), and I would posit along with the rest of God's people.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/09/2019 08:23, Madhu wrote:

> That is presumptuous to say the least. I'm not sure who you are
> referring to as condemned (only Saul figures) but even then "condemned"
> is also your own interpretation. God used the circumstances in which
> Saul found himself.

Anyone practicing necromancy in Israel was subject to the death penalty,
something which Saul had enforced in the early part of his reign but
later gone lax on.

> Where else would they go? Since there is no alternative "captive" is
> misleading - nor is there any indication that satan has any control over
> their apparently "sleeping" souls. Those are extrabiblical
> intertestamentary imaginations with regard to sheol at best - probably
> influenced by Greek and Hindu (and possibly Buddhist) accounts of hell.

It is not "extra-biblical"; see for example Ezekiel 32:18ff for a
graphic lament involving Egypt and pharaoh going down into "the pit".

> The fragment is missing in the original sources and reconstructed based
> on the secondary sources (such as Jude) - I hope you can see the
> foundation on which the circular argument rests.

No, it is based on a book by Origen called "de Principiis" (I referred
to this in a previous post) which says, "We have now to notice,
agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how the opposing powers, or
the devil himself, contends with the human race, inciting and
instigating men to sin. And in the first place, in the book of Genesis,
the serpent is described as having seduced Eve; regarding whom, in the
work entitled The Ascension of Moses (a little treatise, of which the
Apostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel Michael, when
disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that the
serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of Adam and Eve’s
transgression."

> Indeed. And here you are ignoring the sense in which Jude uses the text.
> Jude's purpose in quoting the text was to emphasise that that even
> Michael, who was believed to have been invested with the required
> authority did not execute judgment on Satan but deferred to God but not
> having brought a charge against satan.

I agree, but nevertheless it also tells us something about Moses.

> This tells you nothing about the reason for the dispute or the
> circumstances. Those have been invented by the apocrypha writers and
> compilers to the best of their imagination and prejudices. To follow in
> their footsteps and to interpret scripture in light of their imagination
> would be folly.

If an inspired writer accepts the account as true, I see no reason to
differ from him.

> Scripture does not say Moses visited Jesus. That is an inference which
> is unwarranted from the narrative and you cannot make that a basis for
> an argument that Moses was resurrected.

On the contrary, Scripture says exactly that. See Matthew 17:3 or Mark 9:4.

> Lazarus did not enter life eternal in the kingdom of god with his
> resurrected body and neither did those saints who came out of their
> graves at the crucifixion. If he did Lazarus' resurrection would be the
> centerpiece of the new testament and not jesus - as the first
> resurrection and the firstborn among the children of God.

We don't know what happened to the saints who came out of their graves,
unless Paul's mention of "leading captivity captive" refers to them.
However Lazarus was indeed resurrected and although he doubtless died
again, his restoration to life was a miniature prefiguring of the great
Resurrection.

> Despite the evidence about the holes in Jesus' hands, the body is not
> (cannot be) the basis for this identity. The body of the newborn is
> very different from the body at old age. Identity is not based on the
> body but something else. Likewise the resurrection-body is certainly
> physical but it is not the basis for identity

To a certain extent you are correct. As I often used to tell my older
members, "I won't recognise you in heaven." When they looked shocked I
explained - to their satisfaction - that they would look young and fit,
no longer gray-haired or bald or wrinkled.

However I have no doubt that my wife and I will recognise our son who
died at the age of 20. I am also sure that we will recognise each other,
having known each other when we were young and beautiful 50 years ago!

Identity is based in the non-material part which "returns to God", but
as we cannot see a soul, the physical appearance is an important way by
which we humans recognise each other.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/09/2019 12:18, John wrote:

> But doesn't this discount soul sleep? We know that both Elijah, Moses
> and no doubt Enoch are presumably in some sort of Paradise (Abrahams
> bosom?), and I would posit along with the rest of God's people.

I have no doubt that the three you mention are in heaven (Abraham's
Bosom was merely a parable used by Jesus, not a description of reality).
However unless you can present proof that either your Uncle George was
taken up into heaven in a fiery chariot or else was resurrected after
his burial, I see no reason to believe that he is among those present
bodily in heaven.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/09/2019 08:04, Mohammed wrote:

> According to Islam, those that started to worship idols and saints, did
> so in a gradual process. First people made statues and symbols serving
> as a reminder, then after generations had passed they were being used a
> link between them and God, as someone that'll petition for them, take
> their prayers up to God so that they are heard/answered. Once another
> number of generations had passed, people started to worship those idols
> as Gods*.

That sounds a likely progression - and should be a warning to us about
disobeying the Second Commandment in even the slightest particular.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <qmghve$2i1$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:16:48 +0100:

> On 25/09/2019 08:23, Madhu wrote:
>> Where else would they go? Since there is no alternative "captive" is
>> misleading - nor is there any indication that satan has any control over
>> their apparently "sleeping" souls. Those are extrabiblical
>> intertestamentary imaginations with regard to sheol at best - probably
>> influenced by Greek and Hindu (and possibly Buddhist) accounts of hell.
>
> It is not "extra-biblical"; see for example Ezekiel 32:18ff for a
> graphic lament involving Egypt and pharaoh going down into "the pit".

What is extra-biblical is that satan is made out to be the ruler of the
"sleeping" souls of sheol. This corresponds to Yama, the God of the
dead (sometimes the spirit of the first man). [The harrowing of hell
even parallels a buddhist account of the descent of Avalokiteshwara, I
remember reading something on sacred-texts.com which seems to have been
taken down - within a decade of the death of its founder]

[n.b I'd be more inclined to accept your arguments re Saul and Samuel if
Saul had sought other gods (which would have been in line with the
Chronicler's usual refrain) or used witchcraft to summon up someone
other than Samuel or if the apprition had promised Saul victory - and
lead him to his death through deceit (like the lying spirit) rather
than confirm God's plan for Saul]

>> The fragment is missing in the original sources and reconstructed based
>> on the secondary sources (such as Jude) - I hope you can see the
>> foundation on which the circular argument rests.
>
> No, it is based on a book by Origen called "de Principiis" (I referred
> to this in a previous post) which says, "We have now to notice,
> agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how the opposing powers, or
> the devil himself, contends with the human race, inciting and
> instigating men to sin. And in the first place, in the book of
> Genesis, the serpent is described as having seduced Eve; regarding
> whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moses (a little treatise,
> of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel
> Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses,
> says that the serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of
> Adam and Eve’s transgression."

Origen's description does not go beyond what is found in Jude with
respect to what the dispute was about - or whether it was about
resurrection. Resurrection of Moses is not indicated either here or in
Jude - and the necessity of the original body cannot be presumed -
either for resurrection or "assumption into heaven".

>> Indeed. And here you are ignoring the sense in which Jude uses the text.
>> Jude's purpose in quoting the text was to emphasise that that even
>> Michael, who was believed to have been invested with the required
>> authority did not execute judgment on Satan but deferred to God but not
>> having brought a charge against satan.
>
> I agree, but nevertheless it also tells us something about Moses.

>> Scripture does not say Moses visited Jesus. That is an inference which
>> is unwarranted from the narrative and you cannot make that a basis for
>> an argument that Moses was resurrected.
>
> On the contrary, Scripture says exactly that. See Matthew 17:3 or Mark
> 9:4.

I'll retract my previous unconditional statement that it was not Moses
and Elijah who appeared at the transfiguration.

> We don't know what happened to the saints who came out of their
> graves, unless Paul's mention of "leading captivity captive" refers to
> them. However Lazarus was indeed resurrected and although he doubtless
> died again, his restoration to life was a miniature prefiguring of the
> great Resurrection.

But this is not the sense in which Jesus' resurrection prefigures the
upcoming resurrection. AFAICS There is only one documented resurrection
of this type in the bible and that is of Jesus. The uniqueness of
Jesus' resurrection lies in it being different from all those other
revivals. Otherwise you may as well subscribe to the view that Jesus
will rule for 40 years at the second coming and then die and be buried
in a grave next to Muhammed.

Since we are not told what happened to the saints, it would be wrong to
accord an outcome that puts them above Jesus.

[Madhu]

* Mohammed <qmf3h7$114a$1...@gioia.aioe.org> :
Wrote on Wed, 25 Sep 2019 08:04:09 +0100:

> According to Islam, those that started to worship idols and saints,
> did so in a gradual process. First people made statues and symbols
> serving as a reminder, then after generations had passed they were
> being used a link between them and God, as someone that'll petition
> for them, take their prayers up to God so that they are
> heard/answered. Once another number of generations had passed, people
> started to worship those idols as Gods*. Islam does not take too
> kindly to any such extreme respect and admiration where specifically
> dead entities (idols and symbols are forbidden) are petitioned for
> prayers - though I know some groups go very close to those lines and
> some within them even transgress.
>
> *Madhu may be able to correct if me I'm wrong. In Hinduism, the idols
> no matter what rank they may be given or are perceived to have, they
> are seen as lower Gods (by those with the knowledge) to the supreme
> entity which is unseen. The idol Gods are seen as a means to achieve a
> higher status and reach the point of the unseen, uncreated, supreme
> God.

There is room for all views. Here is one nice sounding view

http://www.krishnamurthys.com/profvk/gohitvip/1202.html

For all the talk about abstractions and the formless notion of the
supreme brahman the proffesors exist and function in this world which is
ruled by the prince of the world and serve him. (My own school isn't
advaita vedanta but is a theistic school which affirms a personal God so
I never fell for the advaita reasoning, but I've seen all the advaita
professors, despite their doctrines to the contrary are practitioners of
tantra-worship which then explains the immediate source of their power
and influence)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/09/2019 05:19, Madhu wrote:

> What is extra-biblical is that satan is made out to be the ruler of the
> "sleeping" souls of sheol.

Actually, he isn't! In the "Acts of Pilate", which seens to be the
source for the "Harrowing of Hell" idea, satan and the ruler of Hades
are two distinct individuals. Satan brings the prisoners down to Hades
(personified) and it is Hades who acts as gaoler to keep them bound in
darkness.

> This corresponds to Yama, the God of the
> dead (sometimes the spirit of the first man). [The harrowing of hell
> even parallels a buddhist account of the descent of Avalokiteshwara, I
> remember reading something on sacred-texts.com which seems to have been
> taken down - within a decade of the death of its founder]

Yes, despite its popularity in Mediaeval times, I do not regard the
"Harrowing of Hell" as either Biblical or Christian.

> [n.b I'd be more inclined to accept your arguments re Saul and Samuel if
> Saul had sought other gods (which would have been in line with the
> Chronicler's usual refrain) or used witchcraft to summon up someone
> other than Samuel or if the apprition had promised Saul victory - and
> lead him to his death through deceit (like the lying spirit) rather
> than confirm God's plan for Saul]

Hmmm. I would dispute that death in battle was God's plan for Saul.
God's plan was originally that he would rule righteously and justly over
Israel. When he failed to obey God, the plan then changed to a return to
private life while David did the ruling.

I have already pointed out that God refused to speak to Saul because He
had nothing new to say to him. That is why I deny that the witch of
Endor had anything to do with God: a) if she had been carrying God's
message she would have reiterated his need to repent and abdicate; b) if
God refused to speak to Saul by legitimate means, is is conceivable that
a witch could force God to speak by the means He had forbidden and
condemned?

> Origen's description does not go beyond what is found in Jude with
> respect to what the dispute was about - or whether it was about
> resurrection. Resurrection of Moses is not indicated either here or in
> Jude - and the necessity of the original body cannot be presumed -
> either for resurrection or "assumption into heaven".

If a body is not involved, then it is not resurrection - and again, if a
body is not involved, what is "assumed" into heaven? In what way would
an "assumption" differ from the common fate of the spirit returning to
God Who gave it?

> But this is not the sense in which Jesus' resurrection prefigures the
> upcoming resurrection. AFAICS There is only one documented resurrection
> of this type in the bible and that is of Jesus. The uniqueness of
> Jesus' resurrection lies in it being different from all those other
> revivals. Otherwise you may as well subscribe to the view that Jesus
> will rule for 40 years at the second coming and then die and be buried
> in a grave next to Muhammed.

Certainly Jesus' resurrection was different, in that it led to eternal
life. I repeat that it was a prefiguring of the great Day of
Resurrection when all the righteous dead will be raised to eternal life.

> Since we are not told what happened to the saints, it would be wrong to
> accord an outcome that puts them above Jesus.

Even if the speculation is correct - that these resurrected saints
accompanied Jesus to heaven - how does that put them above Jesus?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/09/2019 05:25, Madhu wrote:

> I never fell for the advaita reasoning, but I've seen all the advaita
> professors, despite their doctrines to the contrary are practitioners of
> tantra-worship which then explains the immediate source of their power
> and influence)

Oh dear. I presume you mean "power over their followers" as I don't
think that sex gives you spiritual or magical power.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <qmhspj$85h$2...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 26 Sep 2019 09:27:32 +0100:

Tantra isn't synonymous with sex and there are "orthdox" versions of it
- I was only using it to indicate goal-directed worship and practices

[Michael J Davis]

Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> opined

Has anyone listened to "In our time" (Radio 4) this week?

It's on "The Rapture". I was interested to hear of the origins of this
theory, by a guy who was one of the founders of The Brethren. Sensible
discussion I thought. nedd to listen to it again, though!

Mike
--
Michael J Davis

<><
Grace is when God gives us what we don't deserve
Mercy is when God doesn't give us what we do deserve
<><

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/09/2019 16:45, Michael J Davis wrote:

> Has anyone listened to "In our time" (Radio 4) this week?

No.

> It's on "The Rapture". I was interested to hear of the origins of this
> theory, by a guy who was one of the founders of The Brethren. Sensible
> discussion I thought. nedd to listen to it again, though!

It is extreme (and unwarrented) literalism over Jesus warning about two
women grinding at the mill, one taken the other left, plus a rather
dodgy interpretation of Daniel 9.

[John]

Two questions

I accept it is a parable, but why would Jesus depict that situation if
the reality is soul sleep?

What makes you think Moses went to heaven? I'm not all that convinced
Elijah went there even with what it says in 2 Kings 2, because Jesus
said in John 3:13 "No one has ascended into heaven except he who
descended from heaven, the Son of Man" ESV.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/09/2019 14:47, John wrote:

> I accept it is a parable, but why would Jesus depict that situation if
> the reality is soul sleep?

Why would Jesus describe crops yielding 100% when the reality is more
like 20-30%? He was making a point, not stating doctrine.

> What makes you think Moses went to heaven?  I'm not all that convinced
> Elijah went there even with what it says in 2 Kings 2, because Jesus
> said in John 3:13 "No one has ascended into heaven except he who
> descended from heaven, the Son of Man" ESV.

If Elijah, Enoch and Moses were translated or resurrected, where do you
think they went? Mars? Not much of a reward for being close to God!

I believe the statement you quote was either mangled by St John as he
compressed it for his gospel, or a crucial phrase was omitted. Jesus is
making the point that He is the only source of information about
heavenly things, despite those who have ascended into heaven, because
they have not returned whereas He *has* descended and can now speak
about heavenly things.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <qmtpfk$h4q$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 30 Sep 2019 21:44:37 +0100:

> I believe the statement you quote was either mangled by St John as he
> compressed it for his gospel, or a crucial phrase was omitted. Jesus
> is making the point that He is the only source of information about
> heavenly things, despite those who have ascended into heaven, because
> they have not returned whereas He *has* descended and can now speak
> about heavenly things.

Yet he expressly did not speak about Elijah or Moses (or even Abraham)
being resurrected or translated. There were enough opportunities for
him to clarify the status of Elijah (who was to have come in the form of
John the baptiser)

His comment about Abraham would only seem to imply that Abraham "lives"
becuse Abraham lives in the resurrection (when it happens) - this is
interpreted as Abraham enters eternal life in contrast to those who are
dead (who enter the second death)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/10/2019 04:01, Madhu wrote:

> Yet he expressly did not speak about Elijah or Moses (or even Abraham)
> being resurrected or translated. There were enough opportunities for
> him to clarify the status of Elijah (who was to have come in the form of
> John the baptiser)

When He referred to the Elijah/John the Baptist equivalence, He was
referring to the prediction in Malachi 4. Whether Malachi ever really
expected Elijah to be resurrected and to reappear is not certain; my
opinion is that it was to be someone doing the same task of calling
Israel back to God as was done by Elijah. "In the spirit and power of
Elijah", to coin a phrase.

> His comment about Abraham would only seem to imply that Abraham "lives"
> becuse Abraham lives in the resurrection (when it happens) - this is
> interpreted as Abraham enters eternal life in contrast to those who are
> dead (who enter the second death)

The comment concerning Abraham is taken by Christians to imply that
Abraham a) "saw My day" in prophesy, and b) Jesus existed before Abraham
was born. There has never been any suggestion that Abraham was
resurrected or translated.

[celia]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 9:50:07 PM UTC+1, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> Why would Jesus describe crops yielding 100% when the reality is more
> like 20-30%? He was making a point, not stating doctrine.
>

Jesus often exaggerated to make a point but here he was being observant.
If each grain of wheat produced a single ear of wheat you would be correct
but because of tillering grain crops don't work like that. If conditions are
good a single grain will produce more than one tiller, perhaps six or seven,
and each of those tillers has the potential to produce an ear of wheat.
I never thought that my time at the Grassland Research Centre would bear
theological fruit but sometimes the conditions just come together.

Celia

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <qmv2ca$jol$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 1 Oct 2019 09:22:34 +0100:

I was thinking of Mark 12:26 (Luke 20:37) which is sometimes interpreted
as saying that Abraham is alive and kicking right now.


(Mark)
12:26 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?
12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

(Luke)
20:37 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.

20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/10/2019 06:33, Madhu wrote:

> I was thinking of Mark 12:26 (Luke 20:37) which is sometimes interpreted
> as saying that Abraham is alive and kicking right now.

Hardly, when Jesus specifically says, "And as touching the dead, that
they rise; have ye not read etc." Far from indicating the Abraham was
presently alive, Jesus was seeking to prove that Abraham was dead but
would be resurrected.

> 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

So long as your soul is preserved - albeit in an unconscious state - you
are not truly dead.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/10/2019 06:12, celia wrote:

> Jesus often exaggerated to make a point but here he was being observant.
> If each grain of wheat produced a single ear of wheat you would be correct
> but because of tillering grain crops don't work like that. If conditions are
> good a single grain will produce more than one tiller, perhaps six or seven,
> and each of those tillers has the potential to produce an ear of wheat.
> I never thought that my time at the Grassland Research Centre would bear
> theological fruit but sometimes the conditions just come together.

Thanks. No knowledge is ever wasted.

Just doing some quick research, in America they reckon that 40lbs of
wheat sown should produce 60 bushels. In Canada an acceptable yield is
37.5 bushels. What the yield is in Palestine I do not know but I gravely
doubt that it is better than those figures.

On the American figure - and assuming 60lbs of wholemeal flour per
bushel of wheal (the only figure I could find) - that would give a
return of 90lbs per lb sown.

So I still maintain that 100-fold increase is not realistic.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <qmgi34$2i1$2...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:18:46 +0100:

> I have no doubt that the three you mention are in heaven (Abraham's
> Bosom was merely a parable used by Jesus, not a description of
> reality). However unless you can present proof that either your Uncle
> George was taken up into heaven in a fiery chariot or else was
> resurrected after his burial, I see no reason to believe that he is
> among those present bodily in heaven.

apologies for a wikipedo cutpaste. wikipedia turned up this text - which
may be of interest -on Lazarus and Dives (along with a bunch of other
theories)

Drioux: a parable against the Sadducees

An alternative explanation of the parable is a satirical parable against
the Sadducees. One writer to identify the Sadducees as the target was
Johann Nepomuk Sepp.[19] The arguments in favour of identification of
the Rich Man as the Sadducees are (1) the wearing of purple and fine
linen, priestly dress,[20] (2) the reference to "five brothers in my
father's house" as an allusion to Caiaphas' father-in-law Annas, and his
five sons who also served as high priests according to Josephus,[21] (3)
Abraham's statement in the parable that they would not believe even if
he raised Lazarus, and then the fulfillment that when Jesus did raise
Lazarus of Bethany the Sadducees not only did not believe, but attempted
to have Lazarus killed again: "So the chief priests made plans to put
Lazarus to death as well" (John 12:10). This last interpretation had
wide circulation in France during the 1860s-1890s as a result of having
been included in the notes of the pictorial Bible of Abbé Drioux.(1846)


[19] Sepp Thaten und Lehren Jesu: mit ihrer weltgeschichtlichen
Beglaubigung 1864

[20] "Whittaker, H.A. Studies in the gospels. Biblia, Staffordshire
1984, 2nd Ed. 1989 p. 495".

[21] Friedrich Gustav Lisco, (trans. Patrick Fairbairn) The parables of
Jesus: explained and illustrated 1853 p. 343 "Many expositors have
thought they discovered, in this story, a real history, and referred it
to the family of Annas and his son-in-law, Caiaphas,"

[celia]

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 10:20:06 AM UTC+1, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On the American figure - and assuming 60lbs of wholemeal flour per
> bushel of wheal (the only figure I could find) - that would give a
> return of 90lbs per lb sown.
>
> So I still maintain that 100-fold increase is not realistic.
>

Just for the fun of being argumentative I'd say that for an individual grain
of wheat your figures suggest that it is possible as that would be the yield
for a field and as Jesus observed (Luke 8:4-15) growing conditions are not
ideal for all the individual grains sown.

Celia

[celia]

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:00:05 AM UTC+1, Madhu wrote:

> apologies for a wikipedo cutpaste. wikipedia turned up this text - which
> may be of interest -on Lazarus and Dives (along with a bunch of other
> theories)
>
> Drioux: a parable against the Sadducees

I've never heard that interpretation before; thank-you.

Celia

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/10/2019 19:50, celia wrote:

> Just for the fun of being argumentative I'd say that for an individual grain
> of wheat your figures suggest that it is possible as that would be the yield
> for a field and as Jesus observed (Luke 8:4-15) growing conditions are not
> ideal for all the individual grains sown.

Indeed. Many years ago we visited Palestine in the spring for the first
time - previous visits had all be early summer - and were astonished at
the riot of wild flowers everywere. Beautiful.

We visited Shiloh, which at that time had not yet been land-grabbed by
the Israelis. Some Arab had ploughed the rocky soil and in one place
there was a single furrow, about 30 feet long, jammed into the space
between two rocks. At one end if bifurcated like the letter 'Y' because
of another rock in the way. Seeing that made me understand Jesus'
parable better - the sower broadcasting his seed over a collection of
similar furrows and it was inevitable that some would fall in shallow
soil, some among thorns (of which there are plenty!) and some on the
path, but only a little in the good ground where it could grow.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"celia" wrote in message news:

>Just for the fun of being argumentative

Which sadly is not a Scriptural example or a faithful role for any true and
conscientious, humble "Daughter of Sarah".

St. Paul declares:
"3 Tell older women to live their lives in a way that shows they are
dedicated to God...... 4 In this way they will teach young women to show
love to their husbands and children,
5 to use good judgment.......Also, tell them to teach young women *to be
homemakers*, to be kind, and to *place themselves under their husbands'
authority*. Then *no one can speak evil* of God's word."
Titus 2:3-5 (GW)

Jeff...
"12 I never let women teach men or lord it over them. Let them be silent in
your church meetings.
13 Why? Because God made Adam first, and afterwards he made Eve.
14 And it was not Adam who was fooled by Satan, but Eve, and sin was the
result. 15 So God sent pain and suffering to women when their children are
born"
1 Tim 2:12-15 (TLB)

[celia]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 9:30:07 PM UTC+1, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> "celia" wrote in message news:
> >Just for the fun of being argumentative
>
> Which sadly is not a Scriptural example or a faithful role for any true and
> conscientious, humble "Daughter of Sarah".
>

You mean you don't enjoy a good argument on occasion?
There's always a subtext. By saying 'just for the fun' etc. I was signalling
to Kendall that I was pursuing the topic further not in order to be antagonistic
towards him but for the pleasure of exploring the subject.
He understood this and together we learned from the text.
What is your motive for saying the above (numerous times)?
Do you ever explore a subject in order to learn something new? Or do you
always seek to reinforce your point of view?
The Bible is a 'living word' it does not give us the same message from the
same passage each time we read it, we can, for example, say the Lord's Prayer
every day and each day see something new in it. By repeating the same texts
on the same subjects you come across as not learning anything new despite
diligent Bible reading. Does God never speak to you through the Bible and
give you something worth sharing that was initially given for you to learn?

Celia

[Timreason]

IMO Jeff might benefit greatly from being more open to explore the
writings of other believers who do not come from a Christadelphian
background. Matthew Henry might be a commentator Jeff could read, for
example.

It is dangerous to close one's mind and not be open to the Holy Spirit's
leading. But then, if one doesn't believe that the Holy Spirit is God...

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/10/2019 22:05, celia wrote:

> There's always a subtext. By saying 'just for the fun' etc. I was signalling
> to Kendall that I was pursuing the topic further not in order to be antagonistic
> towards him but for the pleasure of exploring the subject.

Indeed - and I trust I responded in the same spirit. The good old
hypo-thesis, anti-thesis leading to syn-thesis and having a good time
along the way.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Timreason" wrote in message news:

>IMO Jeff might benefit greatly from being more open to explore the writings
>of other believers who do not come from a Christadelphian background.

Jeff already benefits more then all of you, by sustaining himself beyond
all others, with concentrating with the in-depth infallible writings of
Christ and his personally ordained Apostles.

>Matthew Henry might be a commentator Jeff could read, for example.

I already read from the best 'commentators' Almighty God has arranged for
the ultimate benefit of his dedicated Saints.......{;o;}

>It is dangerous to close one's mind and not be open to the Holy Spirit's
>leading.

Then why do you people keep refusing to follow it's lead?
"8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel
contrary to and different from that which we preached to you, let him be
accursed (anathema, devoted to destruction, doomed to eternal punishment)!

9 As we said before, so I now say again: If anyone is preaching to you a
gospel different from or contrary to that which you received [from us], let
him be accursed (anathema, devoted to destruction, doomed to eternal
punishment)!
Gal 1:8-9 (AMP)

Thus ignoring the Spirit's Word and substituting the 'Devil's' ideas and
doctrines of men, which are against the very teachings of Christ and the
Holy Spirit endorsed Apostles of Almighty God, is a complete
no-brainer......{;o;}

Jeff...
The excellent Bible Readings for Today.
1 Chronicles.....22.
Ezekiel..............32.
Ephesians............3-4.

[celia]

Quite so.

Celia