Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Texty · 11-07-2003, 11:57 AM

Good posts here from CJD - leaves little to add.

The whole issue of the "soul" being an independent entity and "soul sleep" being a period of inactivity of the soul (which is based on this). It is not the hebrew view. The "soul" or "a living soul" is a product of two components and ceases its integrity at death - period. As shown in my last post and by others on this thread

Jim Larmore · 11-07-2003, 02:16 PM

CJD

One of the most important principles of interpretation is that each parable was designed to teach a lesson of fundamental truth. The details of the parable need not necessarily have significance in themselves, except as "props" for the story. It is not wise to use the details of a "parable" to teach doctrine or turn it into something it wasn't intended to be. In other words , the details of any parable must not be pressed as having a literal meaning in terms of spiritual truth unless the context makes "clear" that such a meaning in intended.

You may ask , why would Jesus introduce figurative illustrations that do not accurately represent truth as set forth in scriptures? I mean the whole Bible says when you die you are asleep. No where does it say you go to heaven or hell when you die. This is one of the only places where those who want to believe a lie will hold onto a few words that SEEM TO SAY that the soul is immortal. Jesus was talking to a bunch of people who believed in a conscience after death so He was meeting them on their own ground and in so doing simply made use of a popular YET ERRONEOUS belief to teach this lesson. The lesson was that the way we live in this life will determine the way we will live in our after life. Nothing else.

Jim Larmore · 11-07-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Jim:

You have to be careful crossing Gospels. What Junior teaches in one is not the same as what he teaches in another.

Causitive Imperfect of the Proto-Canaanite-Hebrew Verb-hwy-truth:

Care to elaborate?

--J.D.

Dr.X
I do cross gospels a lot and I do it intentionally. I know it appears at times that the teachings contradict each other however I see harmony in what Jesus teaches. He plainly called death a sleep when referring to Lazarus' death and He plainly said He would "raise it up the last day" several times to indicate a necesity to resurrect the "sleeping" souls.

I'm not familiar with the "Proto-Cananite-Hebrew Verb you are talking about or was that ed talking? At any rate, the Bible is "fairly" clear on what happens to us when we die. I can give many many texts to support the fact that the soul goes to sleep and true death is not experienced until hell-fire. These texts will come from the entire Bible , NT and OT.

Have a great weekend guy.

Jim

Doctor X · 11-07-2003, 02:41 PM

Quote:

I do cross gospels a lot and I do it intentionally. I know it appears at times that the teachings contradict each other however I see harmony in what Jesus teaches.

You might as well assume Marx agrees with Adam Smith. For example, "how" you get saved is very different in Jn compared with Mk and the rest. You cannot assume agreement between the stories--particularly when Mt and Lk rewrite Mk!

Quote:

I'm not familiar with the "Proto-Cananite-Hebrew Verb you are talking about or was that ed talking?

YHWH . . . according to F. M. Cross and others.

--J.D.

Jim Larmore · 11-10-2003, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
You might as well assume Marx agrees with Adam Smith. For example, "how" you get saved is very different in Jn compared with Mk and the rest. You cannot assume agreement between the stories--particularly when Mt and Lk rewrite Mk!

This sounds as though there is a "GREAT" difference between the way you get saved from one gospel to the other. I have to ask you to give me an example here. I see where in John it says if you "BELIEVE" you will be saved. What is so different in the other gospels?

Doctor X · 11-10-2003, 11:42 AM

Quote:

I see where in John it says if you "BELIEVE" you will be saved.

Then you would be wrong.

From a previous post here:

Quote:

John devotes the encounter between Jesus and Nicode'mus to the inherency of membership. In response to the rather likable Nicode'mus' both complimentary and insightful greeting, Jesus responds with, "'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" (Jn 3.3). The variants accept ανωθεν [anothen.--Ed.]. The ending --θεν [then--Ed.] places the adverb ανω [ano .--Ed.], "above," in the ablative. John is the only text cited to support translating ανωθεν as "again" or "anew;" all others have it signify "from above" with "from heavens" serving as the limit. Textual evidence from John corroborates "from above." Chastising the Pharisees, Jesus proclaims, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world,'" (Jn 8.23). The contrasting terms εκ κατω [ek kato--Ed.] for "from below" and εκ ανω [ek ano --Ed.] for "from above" underscore the inherent distinction between Jesus and the Pharisees. They are not different people, they are a different species. The contrast and context forces the RSV to accept the proper translation of ανω. Translating ανωθεν as "again" or "anew" is unjustifiable, and frankly, unconscionable.

Nicode'mus wonders how he can become born from above. Verse 4 reads, "Nicode'mus said to him, 'How is a man being an old man able to be given birth to, not being able to go to the womb of his mother a second time and to be given birth to?'" Clearly he cannot. He cannot change his nature. "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the wind [Spirit!--Ed.] is wind.'" (Jn 3.6). Men, then, are either born ανωθεν, inherently chosen, or they are not. Kesus knows who the chosen are (Jn2.23-25). He gives them the ability to discover their birthright. The blind young man did not miss the mark, he just could not see it. Outer appearances do not reflect inner truth, for the blind young man and a Samaritan whore are chosen while the respected and influential Nicode'mus is not.

Author wishes to remain anonymous

--J.D.

Jim Larmore · 11-12-2003, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Then you would be wrong.
-+-J.D.

Then why does it say in Jn 3:16 just a few verses later "That whosoever believes" should not PERISH but have everlasting life, if the membership was already chosen from above?
I believe Jesus is trying to show that we have to accept the plan of salvation and in so doing must allow the "changing" influence of the Holy Spirit to make us " New Creatures". Paul also says this in his statements concerning "dying to the old self" and becoming a new creature. The word WHO SO EVER means anyone can take advantage of this.

Light · 11-14-2003, 02:54 AM

And yet we all walk upon the Waters of Creation already.

Do you not know this?

11-14-2003, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I see where in John it says if you "BELIEVE" you will be saved. What is so different in the other gospels?

To 'believe' is to 'be-lief' is to 'be willing' and to search the scriptures to increase belief is to deny this willingness to be-lief and possess that life. Hence Jn.5:39-40: "[you] Search the scriptures in which you think you have eternal life [because] they testify on my behalf. Yet you are unwilling [be-lief] to come to me to possess that life.

So, reading scriptures is evidence of unbelief and studying sciptures is more like evidence of Luciferian illumination that encourages this search for eternal life. The difference here is that when we are not reborn we may, or may not, read the scriptures, if we are born from below we will study the scriptures in search of eternal life and if we have been born from above we can write our own scriptures.

Texty · 11-14-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Amos wote .......
So, reading scriptures is evidence of unbelief and studying sciptures is more like evidence of Luciferian illumination that encourages this search for eternal life.

Your eloquence does not make up for your mis-use of scripture Amos. 2Tim3:14ff clearly declares the abiding principle many decades into the Christian era.

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Its not that the scriptures were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation or that they will either even tho' that may be true in both cases but rather that it is true TODAY and every other day we decide to take hold of the promise.
IT IS A PRESENT CONTINUOUS (and conditional!) PROMISE. in contrast with the Pharisees who thought they HAD eternal life (already)

11-14-2003, 02:54 AM	#38
Light Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Here, There & Everywhere Posts: 1,253	Heaven? Where? And yet we all walk upon the Waters of Creation already. Do you not know this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-07-2003, 11:57 AM	#31
Texty Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: England Posts: 16	Good posts here from CJD - leaves little to add. The whole issue of the "soul" being an independent entity and "soul sleep" being a period of inactivity of the soul (which is based on this). It is not the hebrew view. The "soul" or "a living soul" is a product of two components and ceases its integrity at death - period. As shown in my last post and by others on this thread

11-07-2003, 02:16 PM	#32
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	CJD One of the most important principles of interpretation is that each parable was designed to teach a lesson of fundamental truth. The details of the parable need not necessarily have significance in themselves, except as "props" for the story. It is not wise to use the details of a "parable" to teach doctrine or turn it into something it wasn't intended to be. In other words , the details of any parable must not be pressed as having a literal meaning in terms of spiritual truth unless the context makes "clear" that such a meaning in intended. You may ask , why would Jesus introduce figurative illustrations that do not accurately represent truth as set forth in scriptures? I mean the whole Bible says when you die you are asleep. No where does it say you go to heaven or hell when you die. This is one of the only places where those who want to believe a lie will hold onto a few words that SEEM TO SAY that the soul is immortal. Jesus was talking to a bunch of people who believed in a conscience after death so He was meeting them on their own ground and in so doing simply made use of a popular YET ERRONEOUS belief to teach this lesson. The lesson was that the way we live in this life will determine the way we will live in our after life. Nothing else.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.