7 Characteristics of false Teachers

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Viking123,

Truly i tell you, today you will be with me in paradise=error
truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise=correct

I agree with your perspective here. Ethelbert Bullinger also agrees with the NWT and he gives this rendition in his Companion Bible many years before the appearance of the NWT. Jesus' answer is very precise and is a fitting answer to the question and statements of the thief. The thief is awaiting the resurrection when Jesus returns to set up His Kingdom on the earth for the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[makesends]

Viking123 said:
Truly i tell you, today you will be with me in paradise=error
truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise=correct

Greetings again Viking123,

I agree with your perspective here. Ethelbert Bullinger also agrees with the NWT and he gives this rendition in his Companion Bible many years before the appearance of the NWT. Jesus' answer is very precise and is a fitting answer to the question and statements of the thief. The thief is awaiting the resurrection when Jesus returns to set up His Kingdom on the earth for the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor

Why would Jesus say, "I tell you today"? Is it— 'as opposed to tomorrow'? Was he waxing eloquent?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings makesends (and David Lamb).

Why would Jesus say, "I tell you today"? Is it— 'as opposed to tomorrow'? Was he waxing eloquent?

Perhaps before looking at all the details of the incident and reference, I would like to illustrate using a few details from my personal experience. But firstly I would like to state my belief that man is mortal, and apart from the resurrection he returns to the dust.

In 2011 we buried my mother-in-law at the age of 100. She had been a widow for 38 years and was buried next to Joyce's father. Joyce was given the job to add a memorial similar to her father's and with a suitable inscription. She decided to copy the inscription on her father's grave stone and this reads "Now Resting in Hope of the Resurrection". We were told by the Cemetery Supervisors that there had not been any activity in that particular area for many years, except someone had snuck another corpse in the grave. A number of possibilities here.

We saw another funeral quite some distance away in another area. I was not close enough to see whether the Pastor or Reverend sent the soul of the dead to heaven, regardless of whether the individual had been good or bad or was a believer or not. He would not get his fee if he sent him to hell. This seemed to be the experience of my Rural mate who attended many local Church of England funerals.

The relative who conducted our graveside burial spoke of his grandmother's hope in the resurrection at the return of Jesus, when Jesus will return to establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth. His grandfather and grandmother will then be reunited, possibly immediately after being raised and before they are then transported to the Judgement Seat, and if found worthy they will receive eternal life and immortality in the Kingdom.

I suggest that the above is similar to what Paul teaches when he was about to depart from this life:
2 Timothy 4:1,6–8 (KJV): 1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
No mention here of going to heaven when you die. Paul seems to be very confident that he will receive "the crown of righteousness" at the return of Jesus and at the Judgement Seat. He also encourages us, that we will receive the same reward if we are among those that "love his appearing".

Now are these concepts consistent with the thief's question and Jesus' response?
Luke 23:39–43 (KJV adjusted): 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee to day, thou shalt be with me in paradise.
The thief believed the same as Paul concerning the return of Jesus and the Judgement Seat and the reward of everlasting life in the Kingdom, Paradise, Eden restored. Jesus did not say to him: ""You have been a very naughty boy, you will have to wait until I return to find out if you will receive the reward". No, Jesus reassured the thief then and there, on the very day that they both were crucified, that he will be resurrected, and that he will pass the examination of the Judgement Seat, and he will be granted eternal life and a place in the Kingdom, the Paradise of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[makesends]

Greetings makesends (and David Lamb).

Perhaps before looking at all the details of the incident and reference, I would like to illustrate using a few details from my personal experience. But firstly I would like to state my belief that man is mortal, and apart from the resurrection he returns to the dust.

In 2011 we buried my mother-in-law at the age of 100. She had been a widow for 38 years and was buried next to Joyce's father. Joyce was given the job to add a memorial similar to her father's and with a suitable inscription. She decided to copy the inscription on her father's grave stone and this reads "Now Resting in Hope of the Resurrection". We were told by the Cemetery Supervisors that there had not been any activity in that particular area for many years, except someone had snuck another corpse in the grave. A number of possibilities here.

We saw another funeral quite some distance away in another area. I was not close enough to see whether the Pastor or Reverend sent the soul of the dead to heaven, regardless of whether the individual had been good or bad or was a believer or not. He would not get his fee if he sent him to hell. This seemed to be the experience of my Rural mate who attended many local Church of England funerals.

The relative who conducted our graveside burial spoke of his grandmother's hope in the resurrection at the return of Jesus, when Jesus will return to establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth. His grandfather and grandmother will then be reunited, possibly immediately after being raised and before they are then transported to the Judgement Seat, and if found worthy they will receive eternal life and immortality in the Kingdom.

I suggest that the above is similar to what Paul teaches when he was about to depart from this life:
2 Timothy 4:1,6–8 (KJV): 1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
No mention here of going to heaven when you die. Paul seems to be very confident that he will receive "the crown of righteousness" at the return of Jesus and at the Judgement Seat. He also encourages us, that we will receive the same reward if we are among those that "love his appearing".

Now are these concepts consistent with the thief's question and Jesus' response?
Luke 23:39–43 (KJV adjusted): 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee to day, thou shalt be with me in paradise.
The thief believed the same as Paul concerning the return of Jesus and the Judgement Seat and the reward of everlasting life in the Kingdom, Paradise, Eden restored. Jesus did not say to him: ""You have been a very naughty boy, you will have to wait until I return to find out if you will receive the reward". No, Jesus reassured the thief then and there, on the very day that they both were crucified, that he will be resurrected, and that he will pass the examination of the Judgement Seat, and he will be granted eternal life and a place in the Kingdom, the Paradise of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

Still, you do not see the two ways of looking at it, are both true, in their own contexts. From OUR point of view, yes, it is a wait, and we, not thinking of the other point-of-view, would encumber the dead with that same wait. But do we have any way to deny that from God's point-of-view there is no wait? I'm not wise enough to know for sure, yet I am convinced, that when we 'get to Heaven' we will 'look back' and see it 'took no time at all'. Even Enoch will say his many years were here and gone.

I am not saying that the resurrection for the dead will happen before the resurrection for which we wait. I'm saying that there is no sequence, Martin Luther will not be raised before I am raised. He only died before I did.

The CS Lewis Narnia books, particularly the first (The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe), give a pretty good look at the unrelated-ness of our experience of time passage with that of God. I hope you have read them.

The fact that the Scriptures often, maybe even usually, speak from OUR point of view, does nothing to say that the other is invalid. There is MUCH to show that God does us that condescension, because even when he does speak as though it was "instantaneously", we STILL get it wrong, because even that, we hear as relative to time passage.

As for the placement of the comma, (which is not in the Greek), before vs after the word, "today", the language simply makes little sense, if the comma comes after, "today". Why would he say, "I say to you today, [that] you will be with me in Paradise"? It is an unneeded word, if placed there. I doubt Jesus felt particularly verbose at that point in time. Instead he gives the thief hope of immediate life, just as we have. No need for all the temporally-based constructions to be endured "first".

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again makesends,

Still, you do not see the two ways of looking at it, are both true, in their own contexts.

No, I cannot accept the other view as it is based on the theory of immortal souls. Man is mortal and he returns to the dust.

The CS Lewis Narnia books, particularly the first (The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe), give a pretty good look at the unrelated-ness of our experience of time passage with that of God. I hope you have read them.

I am conscious of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", but have not particularly read this or any of his other books or ideas. I would place this in the category of other fantasies such as Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Gulliver's Travels, Santa Claus, Fairies and Harry Potter.

As for the placement of the comma, (which is not in the Greek), before vs after the word, "today", the language simply makes little sense, if the comma comes after, "today".

It makes perfect sense and is supported strongly by the context. Perhaps you reject or do not understand what I stated. A popular statement by one of our speakers is "every word of God is important" and then he concentrates on a particular word in a verse. I consider that the particular view based upon "today" that I have presented is correct based upon the mortality of man, the Resurrection, the Judgement Seat, and the reward of the faithful with immortality in the 1000 year Kingdom upon the earth. I consider that your view is based on immortal souls and going to heaven immediately after death.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
As for the placement of the comma, (which is not in the Greek), before vs after the word, "today", the language simply makes little sense, if the comma comes after, "today".

It makes perfect sense and is supported strongly by the context. Perhaps you reject or do not understand what I stated. A popular statement by one of our speakers is "every word of God is important" and then he concentrates on a particular word in a verse. I consider that the particular view based upon "today" that I have presented is correct based upon the mortality of man, the Resurrection, the Judgement Seat, and the reward of the faithful with immortality in the 1000 year Kingdom upon the earth. I consider that your view is based on immortal souls and going to heaven immediately after death.

In other words, by your own words, you are admitting to eisegeses. You are interpreting, based on something besides Sola Scriptura.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again makesends,

In other words, by your own words, you are admitting to eisegeses. You are interpreting, based on something besides Sola Scriptura.

Looking at wiki: Eisegesis "is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.
Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective.
Although the terms eisegesis and exegesis are commonly heard in association with Biblical interpretation, both (especially exegesis) are used across literary disciplines."

makesends said:
As for the placement of the comma, (which is not in the Greek), before vs after the word, "today", the language simply makes little sense, if the comma comes after, "today".
Trevor: I strongly object to your claim that Bullinger's placement of the comma makes little sense, as it agrees perfectly with the request by the thief, and the answer is not only a very fitting answer, but the word "today" is a remarkable addition by Jesus, giving great comfort to the dying thief who was crucified with Jesus (Galatians 2:20). So my understanding of this is based FIRSTLY on the context and appropriateness of the request and the superlative answer and judgement by Jesus. Your assessment seems to be based upon a magic cupboard.

As far as immortal souls are concerned, how do you understand the function of an immortal soul in the following examples:
An 80 y.o. woman has a stroke and retains most physical abilities, but loses the power of speech. She is able to live at home with her son's primary care and her sister's occasional care. After 4 years her abilities start to fade, and she is admitted to a rest home. Is the immortal soul disconnected from the brain, or does the immortal soul lose the power of speech and later start to fade?

A man nearly 80 y.o. needs to be resuscitated and his doctors warn his wife that due to the circumstances he may lose some aspects of his mental and physical capabilities. Does the immortal soul diminish in its interaction with the brain?

A 55 y.o. man starts to lose some vision and especially peripheral vision. He is diagnosed to have a tumour in a specific part of the brain. He is operated upon, removing the tumour and most of his vision is restored. What happened to the function of the immortal soul, before and after the operation?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Hazelelponi]

Greetings again makesends,

Looking at wiki: Eisegesis "is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.<a href="Eisegesis - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.
Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective.
Although the terms eisegesis and exegesis are commonly heard in association with Biblical interpretation, both (especially exegesis) are used across literary disciplines."

makesends said:
As for the placement of the comma, (which is not in the Greek), before vs after the word, "today", the language simply makes little sense, if the comma comes after, "today".
Trevor: I strongly object to your claim that Bullinger's placement of the comma makes little sense, as it agrees perfectly with the request by the thief, and the answer is not only a very fitting answer, but the word "today" is a remarkable addition by Jesus, giving great comfort to the dying thief who was crucified with Jesus (Galatians 2:20). So my understanding of this is based FIRSTLY on the context and appropriateness of the request and the superlative answer and judgement by Jesus. Your assessment seems to be based upon a magic cupboard.

As far as immortal souls are concerned, how do you understand the function of an immortal soul in the following examples:
An 80 y.o. woman has a stroke and retains most physical abilities, but loses the power of speech. She is able to live at home with her son's primary care and her sister's occasional care. After 4 years her abilities start to fade, and she is admitted to a rest home. Is the immortal soul disconnected from the brain, or does the immortal soul lose the power of speech and later start to fade?

A man nearly 80 y.o. needs to be resuscitated and his doctors warn his wife that due to the circumstances he may lose some aspects of his mental and physical capabilities. Does the immortal soul diminish in its interaction with the brain?

A 55 y.o. man starts to lose some vision and especially peripheral vision. He is diagnosed to have a tumour in a specific part of the brain. He is operated upon, removing the tumour and most of his vision is restored. What happened to the function of the immortal soul, before and after the operation?

Kind regards
Trevor

The soul is not immortal - our souls and the fates thereof are in God's hand, when we die, our souls return to God who created us while our bodies go to the graves to do that whole dust to dust thing...

"and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." Ecclesiastes 12:7

Though our souls are not immortal, they do outlast our bodies by however long God created them to survive, and upon our death they do return to God.

When our bodies die, the soul does not. As our bodies lose the ability to function we simply stop being able to express what our souls might like to express because of physical failure, not because someone's soul stopped functioning.

At the resurrection, we will be given glorified bodies.

 

[makesends]

Greetings again makesends,

Looking at wiki: Eisegesis "is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.<a href="Eisegesis - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.
Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective.
Although the terms eisegesis and exegesis are commonly heard in association with Biblical interpretation, both (especially exegesis) are used across literary disciplines."

Yes, that supports what I said. Yet you yourself demonstrated your own presupposition by saying your use of that passage is "based upon the mortality of man, the Resurrection, the Judgement Seat, and the reward of the faithful with immortality in the 1000 year Kingdom upon the earth." —all of which are according to your particular presuppositions. If you want to show otherwise, you must either demonstrate how the verse in immediate and larger context MUST mean the verbose, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.”, or go back to those presuppositions upon which you said you base your interpretation, and prove that every one of them means what you think they mean. With the eloquent use of "today" —an unnecessary word in the context of his immense suffering— you continue to defend a presupposed notion, not only against Orthodoxy but against good reason. Your explanation does nothing to help.

makesends said:
As for the placement of the comma, (which is not in the Greek), before vs after the word, "today", the language simply makes little sense, if the comma comes after, "today".
Trevor: I strongly object to your claim that Bullinger's placement of the comma makes little sense, as it agrees perfectly with the request by the thief, and the answer is not only a very fitting answer, but the word "today" is a remarkable addition by Jesus, giving great comfort to the dying thief who was crucified with Jesus (Galatians 2:20). So my understanding of this is based FIRSTLY on the context and appropriateness of the request and the superlative answer and judgement by Jesus. Your assessment seems to be based upon a magic cupboard.

So let's look at your explanation, here. How does this placement give great comfort to the thief, if it means Jesus 'is saying today' that some fine day in the distant future the thief will be with Christ in paradise? Because that Jesus in his agony went to the trouble to wax eloquent talking to just unworthy him? Seems to me a lot more comfort to be gained by the fact that 'this very day' he will be with Christ in paradise. —Not that the thief's comfort is at issue here, to prove anything, but your argument is shredded if his comfort is the argument.

And what is this 'magic cupboard' reference?

As far as immortal souls are concerned, how do you understand the function of an immortal soul in the following examples:
An 80 y.o. woman has a stroke and retains most physical abilities, but loses the power of speech. She is able to live at home with her son's primary care and her sister's occasional care. After 4 years her abilities start to fade, and she is admitted to a rest home. Is the immortal soul disconnected from the brain, or does the immortal soul lose the power of speech and later start to fade?

A man nearly 80 y.o. needs to be resuscitated and his doctors warn his wife that due to the circumstances he may lose some aspects of his mental and physical capabilities. Does the immortal soul diminish in its interaction with the brain?

A 55 y.o. man starts to lose some vision and especially peripheral vision. He is diagnosed to have a tumour in a specific part of the brain. He is operated upon, removing the tumour and most of his vision is restored. What happened to the function of the immortal soul, before and after the operation?

Ha! Why would you go to the trouble of writing about 3 different but similar cases by old people whose minds don't work well? I could talk that talk more clearly than you! What about the poor fellow born with only a shadow of brain, who cannot hear, cannot see, cannot make sense of anything he feels, and is not aware of a world outside what little mind he has? "Even what he has will be taken from him" makes a person no less what he was when he his thinking was more 'with it'. What makes you think any of us are in and of ourselves anything sentient, compared to the wisdom, purposes and mercy of God? We are only any of us what God purposes (and will accomplish) concerning us.

It is dangerous to think like that. If you measure a person by his cogency, you will have to live up to that standard. But we are only what God has determined concerning us.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Hazelelponi and Greetings again makesends,

When our bodies die, the soul does not.

I suggest you are confusing the two different words "soul" and "spirit". Our soul dies.

Yes, that supports what I said. Yet you yourself demonstrated your own presupposition by saying your use of that passage is "based upon the mortality of man, the Resurrection, the Judgement Seat, and the reward of the faithful with immortality in the 1000 year Kingdom upon the earth." —all of which are according to your particular presuppositions.

Yes, that is part of the reason why I understand this passage to support the moving of the comma. Do you reject this theology? I suppose you answer this by saying that my view is "against Orthodoxy", as if Orthodoxy does not allow my view and almost demands the thief going to Paradise on that very day.

If you want to show otherwise, you must either demonstrate how the verse in immediate and larger context MUST mean the verbose, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.”

Let us look at the passage again and see whether my perspective can be substantiated from the immediate context.
Luke 23:39–43 (KJV adjusted): 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee to day, thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Looking at what the thief actually says:
the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
Now how did this thief, seeing next to him a dying man, suddenly deduct this? We are not told but it could have been some previous contact, or even his own deductions from the Scripture. No matter how he came to this conclusion, the thief had a stronger faith than many at that time, many who thought that this was the end of Jesus.

And the thief was not just speaking of the immediate circumstances, that Jesus had a rough time in his trial, because his next word is:
Lord
He recognised Jesus as the Messiah, the One who had a future role:
remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom
And that this future role would be to Judge and gather those that would participate in the Kingdom. As such, the thief believed in the resurrection of Jesus, and requested as such his own resurrection. This is my tentative explanation of the thief's belief and forms the basis of Jesus' reply.

With the eloquent use of "today" —an unnecessary word in the context of his immense suffering— you continue to defend a presupposed notion, not only against Orthodoxy but against good reason.

You seem to dismiss the word "today" almost completely, as if Jesus is only waxing eloquent.

your argument is shredded if his comfort is the argument

Jesus gives a direct and comforting answer to the thief's request.

Ha! Why would you go to the trouble of writing about 3 different but similar cases by old people whose minds don't work well?

I was trying to examine how an immortal soul would work in the light of our experience of old age. Is it the controlling mechanism of our brain?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again makesends,

And what is this 'magic cupboard' reference?

I had a bit more spare time and decided to add a few things. You were online just before I posted the previous post so I hastened to complete it. A minor correction. I should have said "magic wardrobe":

The CS Lewis Narnia books, particularly the first (The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe), give a pretty good look at the unrelated-ness of our experience of time passage with that of God. I hope you have read them.

Wiki: "The youngest, Lucy, visits Narnia three times via the magic of a wardrobe in a spare room."
You seemed to place a great deal of weight on this and other Narnia fantasies.

With the eloquent use of "today" —an unnecessary word in the context of his immense suffering

How does this placement give great comfort to the thief, if it means Jesus 'is saying today' that some fine day in the distant future the thief will be with Christ in paradise?

You seem to be fixed in denial as to what I consider to be simple and clear and I doubt that my latest post will alter your stance on this. Perhaps the return of Jesus to establish His Kingdom on the earth is not central to your theology, and this is what you are suggesting when you speak of my views are against "Orthodoxy". And what is "Orthodoxy"? An immortal soul going to heaven when you die? The Australian Church of England Archbishop some time ago was so convinced of immortal souls going to heaven when you die, that he stated that he did not believe in the resurrection of the body. If you are already in Paradise why do you need a body?

An additional thought, Jesus is directly answering the "when" in the request of the thief, by a much better "today". A decision now, not then, when Jesus returns. Yes, great comfort to the dying thief.

And btw, when I mentioned someone being resuscitated, that was me, a year ago. The other two were also family members. My experience reminded me strongly of death and resurrection, not immortal souls. My supposed immortal soul did not visit heaven, or in my case hell. I was completely unconscious and my mental recovery and adjustment was slow over a number of days. Some aspects of this reminded me of my two mental breakdowns over 40 years ago, when bits and pieces of stable memory and character click back into place.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[makesends]

Greetings again makesends,

I had a bit more spare time and decided to add a few things. You were online just before I posted the previous post so I hastened to complete it. A minor correction. I should have said "magic wardrobe":

Wiki: "The youngest, Lucy, visits Narnia three times via the magic of a wardrobe in a spare room."
You seemed to place a great deal of weight on this and other Narnia fantasies.

Not sure what you mean. It is not the fantasies, but the parallels that Lewis incorporates, such as, in this case, the irrelevance of time passage in one world compared to the time passage in another. Another one is the idea of God not being tame. Lewis understood human thought very well. I use his mention of things because what he says is better said, and usually better understood, than what I say.

You seem to be fixed in denial as to what I consider to be simple and clear and I doubt that my latest post will alter your stance on this.

Now this is curious. I can find no translation that disagrees with me, and you say I am in denial?

Perhaps the return of Jesus to establish His Kingdom on the earth is not central to your theology, and this is what you are suggesting when you speak of my views are against "Orthodoxy". And what is "Orthodoxy"? An immortal soul going to heaven when you die? The Australian Church of England Archbishop some time ago was so convinced of immortal souls going to heaven when you die, that he stated that he did not believe in the resurrection of the body. If you are already in Paradise why do you need a body?

You relate my agreement with all these translations to me supposedly not thinking Jesus' return is significant? Where do you come up with these? Orthodoxy, per Wikipedia: "Orthodoxy is adherence to correct or accepted creeds" If your doctrine is not in keeping with what is generally accepted, it is an outlier, and therefore to be suspected, unorthodox. And I'm the one in denial? —really?

An additional thought, Jesus is directly answering the "when" in the request of the thief, by a much better "today". A decision now, not then, when Jesus returns. Yes, great comfort to the dying thief.

You are still wrong. Jesus is not saying, "Today I am deciding". In fact, that decision was made before the foundation of the world.

And btw, when I mentioned someone being resuscitated, that was me, a year ago. The other two were also family members. My experience reminded me strongly of death and resurrection, not immortal souls. My supposed immortal soul did not visit heaven, or in my case hell. I was completely unconscious and my mental recovery and adjustment was slow over a number of days. Some aspects of this reminded me of my two mental breakdowns over 40 years ago, when bits and pieces of stable memory and character click back into place.

Who you are does not depend on YOU. And your impressions through your experience of being unconscious carry no weight as to the truth. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. But maybe I should throw against your anecdotal evidence the many stories by those who claim to have died and gone to Heaven or Hell.

Who says you were dead? It doesn't seem to me that God said it.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again makesends,

It is not the fantasies, but the parallels that Lewis incorporates, such as, in this case, the irrelevance of time passage in one world compared to the time passage in another.

I know CS Lewis is well respected, but I consider that God has appointed the various times relevant to our experience. He appointed when Jesus would appear in his first ministry, and has appointed a day when Jesus will return to establish his Kingdom for the 1000 years. I consider "time travel" outside of these revealed occasions, and very questionable or even impossible and parallel to HG Wells The Time Machine.

Now this is curious. I can find no translation that disagrees with me, and you say I am in denial?

I do not consider ANY translation as a final authority on the meaning of a particular word, phrase or verse. I accept their scholarly ability, but after carefully considering a verse and its context, then use Lexicons, Word Dictionaries and various Commentaries to help.

You relate my agreement with all these translations to me supposedly not thinking Jesus' return is significant?

I consider the popular concept of immortal souls going to heaven when you die effectually denies the necessity of the return of Jesus and the resurrection. At least the emphasis and anticipation of what should happen is altered.

Orthodoxy, per Wikipedia: "Orthodoxy is adherence to correct or accepted creeds" If your doctrine is not in keeping with what is generally accepted, it is an outlier, and therefore to be suspected, unorthodox. And I'm the one in denial? —really?

As I belong to a fairly marrow group, often labeled as a cult, we have the view that Orthodoxy is part of the Apostate Church that the Apostles prophesied would appear. I usually associate "Orthodoxy" with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, then the Roman Catholic Church, but rarely think of this as extending to the Church of England, Presbyterianism, Baptists etc. Possibly you include all of these.

You are still wrong. Jesus is not saying, "Today I am deciding". In fact, that decision was made before the foundation of the world.

But God has not directly told which of us will definitely be in the Kingdom. You may have been told, but I have not. We wait for the Judgement Seat at the return of Jesus. Jesus told the thief before he died.

But maybe I should throw against your anecdotal evidence the many stories by those who claim to have died and gone to Heaven or Hell.

I have heard a few reports, not personal contacts, and in comparison I was unconscious. I am very skeptical, or rather in complete denial of any such claim.

Who says you were dead? It doesn't seem to me that God said it.

I consider a person is dead if he stops breathing and his heart stops. At least he needs resuscitation. I think they have about 8-10 minutes before some brain damage occurs due to lack of oxygen. So yes, actual death is later, but the various stories of those who claim to have visited heaven or hell seem to have been only in this short period. Some who have made various claims may have been unconscious or dreaming but they could have been still breathing and heart working.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Mr GLee]

It is not that difficult to understand that your god cannot do anything when people do things against his will.

Can God faithfully work to create another creator that has no beginning is without mother or father, no genealogy, no beginning of Spirit life or end thereof?

Faith is a work

We are saved by his grace through his work of faith or called a labor of His eternal love .

In Hebrew 6 in respect to the better thing that acompanies salvation. He promises he will not forget the good works of faith we can perform according to the power of "Let there be" and "it was good"

Hebrew 6:9;10 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

Faith as Power without Christ's works is dead

 

[Carbon]

Can God faithfully work to create another creator that has no beginning is without mother or father, no genealogy, no beginning of Spirit life or end thereof?

Faith is a work

We are saved by his grace through his work of faith or called a labor of His eternal love .

In Hebrew 6 in respect to the better thing that acompanies salvation. He promises he will not forget the good works of faith we can perform according to the power of "Let there be" and "it was good"

Hebrew 6:9;10 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

Faith as Power without Christ's works is dead

Ummm, what?

 

[Mr GLee]

As I belong to a fairly marrow group, often labeled as a cult, we have the view that Orthodoxy is part of the Apostate Church that the Apostles prophesied would appear. I usually associate "Orthodoxy" with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, then the Roman Catholic Church, but rarely think of this as extending to the Church of England, Presbyterianism, Baptists etc. Possibly you include all of these.

Neither the Eastern Orthodox Churches, or the Roman Catholic Church.

They can be likened to pattern of the Pharisees with Sadaucesss two sects that put there differences aside . Same law of the fathers oral tradtion of mankind .

Neither has saving grace the full price of salvation

 

[Mr GLee]

Ummm, what?

Let there be faith or power and it was god

Faith is a work of Christ not of our own self.

 

[David Lamb]

Let there be faith or power and it was god

Faith is a work of Christ not of our own self.

What do you mean by "Let there be faith or power and it was god"? God is faithful and God is powerful, but faith and power aren't God.

 

[David Lamb]

Can God faithfully work to create another creator that has no beginning is without mother or father, no genealogy, no beginning of Spirit life or end thereof?

Faith is a work

Faith isn't a work in the bible, where faith is contrasted with works:

“"knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Ga 2:16 NKJV)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Eph 2:8-9 NKJV)

 

[makesends]

What do you mean by "Let there be faith or power and it was god"? God is faithful and God is powerful, but faith and power aren't God.

I think it was a typo —good, not god.