Forensic look on the Idea of God

[Philosopher]

Risto,

Good question.

The old testament is composed of two sets of laws. The moral and the ceremonial. The moral law is what most people would call "natural law." Murder, rape, adultery, stealing, lying, etc are natural laws.

The ceremonial laws are exclusively Jewish. They are Jewish customs and feasts. Each people and culture have their own distinct culture and customs and national holidays.

For the Jews, the passover, day of atonement, new year, new moon, kosher foods, unclean animals (pork), Sabbaths, etc are only for the Jews, though the issue of the 7th day Sabbath may need further qualification.

Yet there is a catch: all of the Jewish ceremonial (national) laws of Israel were only appointed by God to serve as a "shadow" or "type." The so called "futurist" argument, whatever that means!

In other words, they all served as a picture of Christ and God's true people, i.e. Christians. Just like foxes serve as an example of sly people; snakes as untrustworthy people; and pigs as human beings who are filthy slobs. The unclean foods represent sinful humans and sinful passions.

In regard to pork and unclean foods, then, they were an example of sin. Pigs, for example, love to be filthy and dirty. Even after bathing them, pigs love to bath in the mire of mud and return to their filth.

So God used this animal as an example of sin, an unclean animal, to serve as an example of human beings: they love their sins (mire) and they return to it (even after repenting from sin) because humans love sin; we all do. Thus, it was forbidden to be eaten in the old testament. But no longer in the new testament.

In the New Testament, unclean foods are pronounced clean in Colossians 2.16 "Let no one, then, judge you in eating, or in drinking, or in a feast, or a new moon, or of Sabbaths, which are a shadow of the coming things, but the body is of Christ."

They are also pronounced clean in 1 timothy 4.2-4 "...to abstain from meats that God created to be received with thanksgiving, by those believing and acknowledging the truth, because every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected, with thanksgiving being received, for it is sanctified through the word of God and intercession."

And in the book of Acts chapter 10, God tells Peter through a vision that unclean foods represent people (part of the shadows of the law), and therefore, are not sinful to eat.

There are many other place but these are suffice.

So pork is perfectly eatable in the New Testament, as is every other animal, because whether we eat this animal or that, they don't make us any more spiritual or righteous in the eyes of God. Food is food.

[makedonin]

Makedonin, your posts become sillier by the day. Why don't you take the time to learn the Bible (and proper Hebrew, Greek, Church History, and Context) before you attack it. Your eternal soul depends on it.

Philosopher, I don't attac anything. I compare. You feel attacked, cause you are emotionally attached to that view. Your subtile threats with the eternal soul and stuff won't work on me.

Read more here Heaven and Hell What does the Bible really teach .

Obviously that is another Christian that does not share your eternal soul view, so who is right here? I know I know, you are the one who is right. In there, you have great amount of work on grammar, Hebrew and Greek. You ought to love it.

Here is something from Oxford. In deed very interesting read: Peter, Paul and Mary from Bart D. Ehrat, on Page 119 about the early beliefs of the Jews you so much hate, of whome the twelve and Jesus were country man.

So to scoff off Matthew on the grounds that he “doesn’t understand Hebrew” is nonsense.

That is only cause you assume that Matthew wrote the gospel! There are many reasons not to accept that view. Most probably it was written by his creed. So it would be argued that those who wrote it were rather those who did not understand Hebrew, the Gentiles you know!

But does it really matter. When you have some prophecies laid for you for some hunderd years, all you have to do is to chery pick them and claim that they were fulfilled.
That how simple it is!

In regard to the claim that Jesus rode both animals, as in Matthew’s Gospel, the original Greek reads “brought the ass and the colt, and did put on them their garments, and set upon them (Matthew 21.7). Most translations have “and set 'him' upon them,” but the word 'him' is not in the original. It could mean him or it could mean “and set
'them' (the clothes) upon them,” as in the verse prior.

Grammatics are interesting stuff.
The Young's Literal Translation is good start for such things like this.
The Literal Translation is unusual in that, as the name implies, it is a strictly literal translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

So the concerning passage woud be:

brought the ass and the colt, and did put on them their garments, and set [him] upon them;
Matthew 21.7

It is more than obvious that the "set upon them" is meant to be "set [him] upon them", which overthrows your argument. He was set on two donkeys according to Matthew.

Than go and cross compare Mt. 21:1-11, Mk. 11:1-11, Lk. 19:29-44, Jn. 12:12-19
Read those passages and try to answear some of the following questions:

1.Did Jesus him self or the two desciples bring the donkey?
2. Was it donkey or a colt, or both of them.
3. What the Pharisees said?
4. Did the stones had to cry out?
5. What did Jesus do when he entered Jerusalem?
etc. etc.

If you are something nearly to honest, you will have to admit that they have contradictions. Those passages are far from accurate.

But that is not that severe, isn't it? Ofcourse not, you can live with that.

As next, I also readed this one here the pain of Christianity.

The author of the link I give you trys to straighten things by saying that Mark 13:28-30 is a fulfilled prophecy. He does prety good job by straightening the misinterpretation of the Greek "genea" which means "generation of about 40 years span, contemporaries", NOT race as many argue. So far he is good, and as lover of grammar apologistic, you can't deny that, can you?

BUT, as typical as any Christian, he abandons ship when arguing that the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds is nothing but a type or shadow thing as you like to call it, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The prophecy has it's own blunders so it can't be true.

(13:24-25) "The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light. And the stars of heaven shall fall"

Of course this is nonsense. The billions of stars will never fall to earth and the moon does not produce its own light. That can be true, if you only divorce reason. Of cousrse, you will apologize that too. With the mighty twist technique, it is all good.

But applying your technique, I can apologize about as any "holy book". How does that serves your goal? Let me tell you, it does not.

Without interpreting and being creative there, the passage plain and simply states that Jesus believed that the End of the World is at rich, which makes your train long gone. Paul have seen things exactly like that too, you can read in Peter, Paul and Mary from Bart D. Ehrat, from Page 120:

In 1 Thess. 4:14–17 Paul does not presuppose that he will be one of the “dead in Christ”; rather, he thinks that he will be one of those “who are living, who remain.” Paul anticipates this end of the age to come within his lifetime.

That train is also gone.

Will you cry out now? I bet you will!

But in any case if you still wait for Jesus, you should go this list of people who claimed to be Jesus, maybe you will find one appropriate for you there. If nothing there, you can drop by to the list of the Messiah claimants, maybe there is something inthere for you.

If not, you can still wait for him, if you have time for such thing.

I will pray for you.

You can do what you will. It is not of my interest.

But be aware, maybe God is hardening my heart for your nonsense, as he did in Exodus 4:21 with the Pharaoh or with the Amalek in Joshua 11:20. Anyways, knowledge is the primary sin of the Eden Garden, isn't it, they wanted knowledge and disobayed God, and I seek knowledge, so I question "his word", which makes me very very bad person, isn't it so? So cause I am such bad person, he hardens my heart to go to my demnation, as some apologists apologizes the Exodus 4:21 and Joshua 11:20.

So what will your prayers accomplish, when God already made his mind about me? He programmed me to seek knowledge, after all he is the maker of all, he hardens my heart not to hear to your "reason" which leads to the conclusion that he made me to condemn me. Ain't that great Christian logic? All that to show his Glory, right!?

And on the End of the day, even you who subjugate your self to some Idea of the God of the Bible can't be certain of his mercy, as he said in Matthew 7:21-23:

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven.

If God command you to commit genocide like he commanded Saul in 1 Samuel 15 and you fail like he did, you will get rejected and become a sinner.

In deed tricky.

Your God is a Jealous God (Exodus 34:14), and jealosy is there when insecurity is there. With a Jealous God you can't be on the safe side.
What is God of the Bible insecure about, is the one million dolar question?

Can you answear it? I know the ansear, let me know if you wonna hear it!

[Philosopher]

Makedonin,

For the life of me, I don't understand you. And I don't mean figuratively. Your English is awful; your cohesion, when writing, is deplorable; you seem to have a schizophrenic style of writing; you write one thing, then another, and then another, wholly unrelated, and wholly without logic and reason.

Sir, you are free to think and believe what you want; Jesus taught "not to cast pearls before swine" and I feel that is exactly what I have been guilty of. But to answer your questions:

The Scriptures are the Word of God, without error, and without contradiction in any point.

You never answered my question. Show me where in the Hebrew Old Testament does an ass and colt, in a particular verse similar to Zechariah 9.9, mean the same animal? Answer me.

Whether Matthew wrote the gospel or not, is not the point. Knowledge of Hebrew is not important since the New Testament writers copied from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Besides, I have already proved that the Hebrew clearly distinguishes between the ass and the colt in Zechariah 9.9. Again, I ask you: Show me where in the Old Testament does an ass and a colt mean the same thing, similar to Zechariah 9.9?

The Stars, Moon, and Sun that are (or were) to be darkened and fall from the heavens is symbolic language, not literal. The moon does not give its light because Christ said that the "Sun will be darkened" which would cause the "moon not to give its light." Did you forget to mention this part?

Christ's prophecy about the "end of the world," is a mistranslation. Christ does not speak of the end of the word but the "full end of the age," the age of the Jewish temple and the age of Judaism, in 70 AD. If you notice Christ predicted the destruction of the temple right before he gave his prophecy of "when shall these things be."

How do you explain Christ predicting the destruction of the Jewish temple forty years before it happened?

The apostles were inquiring of when the temple should be destroyed and the sign of his (Jesus') coming, to accomplish this. The question of the "generation" spoken of, when Christ says "this generation shall not pass away till all these things come to pass," is not an issue of race. The generation he is speaking of is the generation he was living in, the one the temple was to be destroyed. Some Christian thinkers have argued that Christ distinguishes in his prophecy between his return in some future date and that of 70AD; others argue that all was fulfilled in 70AD or so; still others argue that 70AD is a type or shadow of things to come.

There were two animals: one ass and one colt.

I understand Mark, Luke, and John don't mention the ass--but the absence of the ass in these accounts does not mean there was no ass--they just didn't mention it. Did these authors say there was only a colt, and no other animal?

Jesus entered Jerusalem many times; some writers reveal one incident and some others. His ministry was over three years.

The end of the age that Paul anticipates did come in his lifetime. End of the Age does not mean end of the world. It means the end of the age of the temple and earthly Israel.

[makedonin]

Jesus taught "not to cast pearls before swine" and I feel that is exactly what I have been guilty of.

Thank you Sir.... for comparing me with swine. I didn't expect anything better from you.

And yet Jesus went to preach his messages to the greatest of the sinners and swines, didn't he? Without them, christianity would have disappeared like all those exclusive religions for soldiers or rich people.

How ironic and hypocritical of you both to say thing like that.... But only those who don't question your views are good enough not to be swines, ain't I right?

The Scriptures are the Word of God, without error, and without contradiction in any point.

If you say it one more time, you may acctually believe that

Pouring the salt on a wound: Compare Acts 1:18 and Matthew 27:5 answear for your self how Judas Iscariot died.
Did he hang him on a tree or did he burst wide open on the field he bought from the money?
Was he regreting that he betrayed his master, or did he had no regret at all?

There are hunderds of such literal contradicting passages, that you and your fellow apologists have pains apologizing them.

Another pain for you would be 1 Samuel 15:10-11,35 that contradicts 1 Samuel 15:29 if you use KVJ. Naturally other translators (such as you) tried to avoid the obvious contradiction and have chosen words different than in KVJ, and still in context, the contradiction remains. I usually use Young's Literal Translation which as the name implies, is a strictly literal translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. So twist it, turn it, it is obvious literal contradiction in the "inerrant Book". So, tell me, does God repent and changes his mind or does he not?

The very reason that the "perfect inerrant word of God" needs you to apologize it's content is proof that the word is errant.
Please don't cry about it.

Makedonin,
For the life of me, I don't understand you. And I don't mean figuratively. Your English is awful; your cohesion, when writing, is deplorable; you seem to have a schizophrenic style of writing; you write one thing, then another, and then another, wholly unrelated, and wholly without logic and reason.

I admit, my english is not perfect, nor my grammar. I don't even try to make it perfect. As for the schizophrenic style, you made me laugh. I call my style multi-threaded

All those are related things, if you want to see the relation. But I am positive that you understand me, otherwise you ain't gonna be upset like you are and subtil call me swine. I can read through you....

Christ's prophecy about the "end of the world," is a mistranslation. Christ does not speak of the end of the word but the "full end of the age," the age of the Jewish temple and the age of Judaism, in 70 AD. If you notice Christ predicted the destruction of the temple right before he gave his prophecy of "when shall these things be."

I gave you in purpose those passages from a Christian (I assume you can open the link I gave you), he disagree with you. That Christian unwillingly goes in line with what Paul believed (1 Thess. 4:14–17), while he was waiting for Christ to come during his life time.

But hey, not that I expect you to agree with me, that would be laughable expectation.

And for the real God being Jealous. No reasonable man can believe that. Only the Jewish Yahweh can be that, cause he sprung out of the imagination and the need of those Priesterhood creeds in Izrael, who wanted to frighten the Izraelites not to worship other Gods such as Baal and Co. More followers, more glory and more money. It was always about those two, ain't you gonna agree?


Peace be with you dude, have it your way, it is all alright. But read something that does not come from your priest... something reasonable...


PS. don't forget to pray for me, it will make you feel good........ you won't have to feel guilty of throwing perls before a swine....

[makedonin]

When we are at it, I will feel free to post part of the book I mentioned up there:

Paul’s New View of the End of Time

Even as a Pharisee, before his conversion, Paul held to apocalyptic views of the world. Like other apocalypticists, he believed that the present age was dominated by evil forces (such as sin and death, and probably other demonic powers), but that a new age was coming in which God would overthrow evil and bring in a good kingdom where he alone would rule supreme. As with most apocalypticists, Paul probably thought the end of the age was coming very soon. Once he came to believe that Christ was raised from the dead, Paul did not
jettison his apocalyptic expectations. On the contrary, knowing that Jesus had been brought back to life radically confirmed what Paul had already thought, that the end was imminent. But there was one key difference: it would be Jesus himself who brought it.
Like other Pharisees, Paul had thought that the present age would end in a cataclysmic event that would bring this world and all its powers to a crashing halt and usher in the new kingdom. At the end, there would be a resurrection of the dead.
The idea that dead people would be raised from the dead was not shared by all Jews in Paul’s day, or before. In fact, you won’t find the idea of a future resurrection in most of the Hebrew Bible, only in some of the final books to be written. Most of the writers of the Hebrew Bible thought that when people died, either they would cease to exist or they would go on living in some kind of netherworld called Sheol.
The idea that there would be a future resurrection in which dead bodies were brought back to life came into existence only a couple of centuries before Paul and Jesus. It arose among Jews who were trying to explain how this world could be such a cesspool of suffering, even for the people of God, if God was the one who was ultimately in control of it. Their solution was that God might not seem to be in charge of this world, but he ultimately was, and he would demonstrate his control at the end, when all the forces of evil and the people
who sided with them would face judgment for their opposition to God and his purposes—even dead people. At the end of this evil age, the dead would be raised, and those who sided with God would be treated to eternal bliss; those who sided with the powers of evil, and thrived as a result, would be subjected to eternal torment. God would have the last word, and there was nothing anyone could do to stop him. We have seen that this was the teaching of Jesus. It was also the belief of other apocalypticists of his day, including Paul.
Now, if the resurrection was an event that was to happen at the end of the age, what would an apocalypticist such as Paul naturally conclude if he came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead? He would conclude that the resurrection of the end of days had started—which meant he was living at the end of the age, and the whole thing was about to come to a crashing halt. And it was to be brought by Jesus. Why Jesus? Because he was the first one God raised from the dead, to be the leader of all those who now would also be raised. That is why Paul speaks of Jesus as “the first fruit of the resurrection” (see 1 Cor. 15:20, 23). This is an agricultural metaphor: just as when the harvest is ready, the farmer goes out to bring in the “first fruit,” and then the next day goes for the rest, so too with Jesus: he was the first to be raised from the dead, and everyone else would follow. And when would that be? The metaphor suggested it would be right away. (The farmer doesn’t wait years to get the rest of the harvest in, but gathers it in the next day.)
For Paul, the resurrection of the dead was about to occur, and people needed to be ready. No wonder he felt such urgency in his proclamation of the gospel. For Paul, the world was soon to come to a screaming climax and the word needed to
be proclaimed. Everyone needed a chance to be put in a good standing with God, or else they would face judgment when the end arrived.

The End of Time in 1 Thessalonians

One of the most interesting passages in all of Paul’s writings occurs in his first surviving letter, 1 Thessalonians. This is a warm and loving letter (in contrast to Galatians), in which Paul is responding to some of the concerns of his converts in the city of Thessalonica. Among the issues that he addresses is the Thessalonians’ expectation that the end of the age is to come soon. These believers apparently accept Paul’s teaching that Jesus will bring the Kingdom of God to earth any day now. But it obviously hasn’t happened yet, and in the meantime, some of the members of their Christian community have died. This
raises serious concerns among those left behind: have those who have already departed lost out on the glorious kingdom that Jesus is bringing?
Paul writes an intriguing response in which he comforts his readers by telling them not to “grieve as the other people do, since they have no hope.” For, as it turns out, even the dead will inherit the kingdom when Jesus arrives in glory:

For since we believe that Jesus died and arose, so also, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who are asleep [i.e., dead]. For we say this to you by a word of the Lord, that we who are living who remain until the coming of the Lord, will in no way precede those who have slept. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are living, who remain, will be snatched up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord. (1 Thess. 4:14–17)

In no small measure this passage is interesting because in it Paul does not presuppose that he will be one of the “dead in Christ”; rather, he thinks that he will be one of those “who are living, who remain.” Paul anticipates this end of the age to come within his lifetime.
This is the passage that some evangelical Christians point to in support of their view that there will be a future “rapture,” in which believers are taken out of this world before all hell breaks out (the “tribulation”). I should point out that this entire notion of the Christians being taken out of the world is completely absent from the favorite book of futuristically minded Christians of the present day, the book of Revelation. It is striking that this passage in 1 Thessalonians speaks not about a coming tribulation on earth, but only of the end of the age when Jesus returns in glory with his faithful ones. The idea that there will be a rapture followed by a tribulation can only be derived by taking
what Paul says here along with what John says in the book of Revelation and smashing them together as if each were giving one part of a timeline. In other words, it’s a teaching that neither one of them appears to have held.One of the other interesting features of the passage in 1 Thessalonians is that it presupposes a view of the universe that no educated person holds today, namely, that the universe can be conceived of as a house having three “stories.” In the basement is the realm of the dead (below us); where we are now is the realm of the living (on the ground floor); and up above us in the sky (the second floor) is the realm of God and his angels. The idea, then, is that when someone dies, they go down to the place of the dead. Jesus died and went down. Then he was raised up, and he kept going, up to the realm of God. Soon he will come back down, and those who are below us will themselves be raised
up, and we who are here on ground level will also be taken up and live forever in the realm of God.
There is nothing to suggest that Paul meant all this symbolically. He, like most Jews of his period, appears to have thought that God really was “up there.” The same thought lies behind the story of Jesus’ ascension to heaven in Acts 1 and in the intriguing scene in the book of Revelation, where the prophet John sees a “window in the sky” and suddenly finds himself shooting up through it (Rev. 4:1–2). It is hard to know how these authors would have expressed themselves if they knew that in fact there is no “up” or “down” in our universe, but
that there are billions of galaxies, with billions of stars in each of them, all expanding to incredible distances, as they have been for billions of years. Like it or not, we live in a world very different from the one of the authors of the New Testament.
The other important point to stress about Paul’s description about the “return” of Jesus is that he understands—as did all Jewish pocalypticists, so far as we know—that the future resurrection of the dead will be an actual physical resurrection. He does not teach that when you die, your soul goes to heaven, where you lead a bodiless existence for all eternity. No, there will be a future resurrection of the body, in which your physical self is reconstituted, so as to live forever. This view is presupposed in the passage in 1 Thessalonians and is explicitly set forth in another of Paul’s letters, 1 Corinthians, where he vehemently objects to those who find the idea of a bodily existence in the afterlife ridiculous (1 Cor. 15:35–41). For Paul, we will all live in bodies: but they will be perfected bodies, like the body of Jesus after his resurrection, made immortal and no longer subject to pain and death, an “imperishable” body (15:50).

See, I tell you a mystery: we will not all fall asleep [i.e. die] but we will all be changed, in an instant in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will blow and the dead will be raised imperishable; and we will be changed. For this perishable self must be clothed in the imperishable and this mortal self must be clothed in the immortal.

This was the fervent hope and the urgent proclamation of Paul. His mission was to convince others so that they too could be transformed into imperishable beings when the end of this age came to a grand climax with the appearance of Jesus from heaven. No wonder he saw his mission as so urgent. The end was upon him, and people needed to be told.


Peter, Paul and Mary from Bart D. Ehrat, Page 118-121

It goes well with the topic of the development of the Idea of God. Since I posted the link, it is open to anyone to read the book. Ingormative and dense research of those characters.

[Philosopher]

“Most of the writers of the Hebrew Bible thought that when people died, either they would cease to exist or they would go on living in some kind of netherworld called Sheol.”

Factually incorrect. Never in the Bible has anyone stated that life ceases to exist. People don’t go on living in a netherworld called Sheol forever. It was a temporary place. Sheol is the abode of dead spirits prior to the Resurrection of Christ, since before this time, no person could enter heaven. Christ opened the gates of heaven, which after his resurrection, made it possible for the righteous souls in Sheol to enter in God’s presence. The New Testament states that Christ went to preach the gospel to the spirits in prison (Sheol), after his descension to Sheol.

“The idea that there would be a future resurrection in which dead bodies were brought back to life came into existence only a couple of centuries before Paul and Jesus. It arose among Jews who were trying to explain how this world could be such a cesspool of suffering, even for the people of God, if God was the one who was ultimately in control of it.”

The books of Daniel and Ezekiel were written over 500 years before Paul. Both speak of a resurrection. But this misses the point. Not all of God’s revelations were revealed at once. They were revealed to different prophets at different times. As the Gospel era approached, God began to do away with the shadows of the law (in speech) and to reveal his Coming to the earth. This is why Paul states that this information “was kept hidden in ages past, but is now revealed to us.” Let us not forget also that Enoch, who lived in the days of Adam, was translated out of this world and never saw death. The same applies to Elijah; the concepts of the Resurrection and Heaven date far back, therefore.

“This is an agricultural metaphor: just as when the harvest is ready, the farmer goes out to bring in the “first fruit,” and then the next day goes for the rest, so too with Jesus: he was the first to be raised from the dead, and everyone else would follow. And when would that be? The metaphor suggested it would be right away. (The farmer doesn’t wait years to get the rest of the harvest in, but gathers it in the next day.)”

This is nonsense. The New Testament tells us that one day for God is as thousand years. Our concept of time and place is not God’s. So this is silly.

“These believers apparently accept Paul’s teaching that Jesus will bring the Kingdom of God to earth any day now. But it obviously hasn’t happened yet, and in the meantime, some of the members of their Christian community have died. This raises serious concerns among those left behind: have those who have already departed lost out on the glorious kingdom that Jesus is bringing?Paul writes an intriguing response in which he comforts his readers by telling them not to “grieve as the other people do, since they have no hope.” For, as it turns out, even the dead will inherit the kingdom when Jesus arrives in glory:”

The concept that the dead will inherit the kingdom of God is from the prophets Daniel, Ezekiel, etc. Why don’t you read them? Paul did not teach to any church that the resurrection was “any day now.” Silly.

“In no small measure this passage is interesting because in it Paul does not presuppose that he will be one of the “dead in Christ”; rather, he thinks that he will be one of those “who are living, who remain.” Paul anticipates this end of the age to come within his lifetime.”

This is absolutely and utterly false beyond measure. The expression “we who are living, who remain,” does not mean that Paul would be alive. The expression “we who are living, who remain,” means the body of believers alive in that time when the resurrection happens. We who are living is an expression explaining that the people who are alive when the resurrection occurs will not go ahead of those who are already dead.

If Paul believed that the resurrection is at hand in his lifetime, then why would he write in the same epistle, chapter 5, “ 1But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

So if it comes as a thief in the night, and if as Jesus said, it is not for you to know the times and seasons of his return, then how could Paul claim to know the times and seasons of Christ’s return? Amazing.

“It is striking that this passage in 1 Thessalonians speaks not about a coming tribulation on earth, but only of the end of the age when Jesus returns in glory with his faithful ones. The idea that there will be a rapture followed by a tribulation can only be derived by taking
what Paul says here along with what John says in the book of Revelation and smashing them together as if each were giving one part of a timeline. In other words, it’s a teaching that neither one of them appears to have held.”

Then how do you explain this passage, written by Paul in 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2:

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

“The other important point to stress about Paul’s description about the “return” of Jesus is that he understands—as did all Jewish pocalypticists, so far as we know—that the future resurrection of the dead will be an actual physical resurrection. He does not teach that when you die, your soul goes to heaven, where you lead a bodiless existence for all eternity. No, there will be a future resurrection of the body, in which your physical self is reconstituted, so as to live forever.”

So when you die, your soul does not go to heaven? What about the thief on the cross with Jesus; Jesus told him that “verily, today you will be with me in paradise.” Yet, his flesh was not resurrected yet.
Your authors are confounded and confused beyond measure. Paul is not denying that the soul lives on prior to the resurrection; he is merely saying that there will be a bodily resurrection at some point in the future.

Where you find these aberrant teachers and more importantly, why you turn to them for education, are beyond my capacity to grasp.

[makedonin]

First of all Sheol means simply and plain grave. (click here since you don't know how to open link or just google it, you will see.)

I don't have time to go into debate of all those silly claims you put forward up there, but if heaven is like Paul imagined it, than it's peace is at stake when considering all those Jet Airplanes and all those Satellites up there.

Yet, his flesh was not resurrected yet.
Your authors are confounded and confused beyond measure. Paul is not denying that the soul lives on prior to the resurrection; he is merely saying that there will be a bodily resurrection at some point in the future.

You love to play the game like that "Paul is not denying this or that".

One question, if all souls are to go to paradise, why on earth do you have to resurrect the bodies later on? Don't you see how stupid and double standard that is?

So when you die, your soul does not go to heaven? What about the thief on the cross with Jesus; Jesus told him that “verily, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Who knows who put the words in Jesus mouth. As far as I know, who was there before the cross. His mother, Mary Magdalene and on the other from Arimathea. All other apostel abandoned him. So how do the Matthew, Mark, Luke or John are to know and quote what Jesus said on the Corss?

I tell you, with plenty of imagination.

As next I challenge you to point out where the Soul in the Old Testament is meant as "eternal". I am positive that you ain't gonna find any reference where you can read something like "eternal soul".

Second, the word that is frequently translated as Soul in the OT is NEPHESH. (click here to see all the references of NEPHESH in the OT)

Now read Ezekiel 18:20 in his literal translation:

The soul that doth sin -- it doth die. A son doth not bear of the iniquity of the father, And a father doth not bear of the iniquity of the son, The righteousness of the righteous is on him, And the wickedness of the wicked is on him

in a friendlier version:

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Nephesh is used by Ezekil for Man, as being "cut off" by God. In other words, human who will be killed for his disobedience against God.

What is more interesting that this goes in direct contradiction to the Original Sin doctrine, for it is clearly said:

The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

If that is true, than we can't be quilt or sin cause Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden.

But that is exactly what Paul teaches us. He has clear agenda, that is the perpetuating for the sacrifice of Christ, and giving meaning to it.

Unfortunately for Paul, who was clearly a Diaspora Jew and could not read Hebrew, did not do his homework well.

Another examples that are skimmed by Original Sin propagandists are:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deuteronomy 24:16

or it's reconfirmation:

Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."
2 Kings 14:6

and again Ezekil:

Yet, O house of Israel, you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' But I will judge each of you according to his own ways."
Ezekiel 33:20

As you can see, God claims to be just, thus he will judge each for his own way of life, not for the guilt that some of his forefathers have committed, as Paul claims.

Jeremiah is of the same creed:

29 "In those days people will no longer say,
'The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge.'

30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.
Jeremiah 31:29-30

So, Adam and Eva ate the sour fruit. Tell me are you gonna perpetuate and lie that we are to pay for their disobedience?

Interestingly main biblical texts about the original Sin are found in the works of Paul, in the ICorinthians 15:20-21 and the Romans5:12-2. From the old Testament as support for the original Sin the Psalms 51:5 are seen, but it is not clear if all humans are such. The Author is referring to him self, which makes that source hard to count to a Original Sin doctrine.


So tell me Phile Mou, is this clear and literal contradiction or are you gonna lie again?

If you argue for pro, than you are not worthy to talk with, cause you live to lie.

Next to that. Paul is the one who perpetuated the Original Sin. His Agenda was to put Jesus as the needed tool for our sins.

If we don't believe, we are to suffer eternal damnation, you call it Hell and take pleasure in the thought. By the way, Hell is a transfer of a pagan concept and word to a Christian idiom, used in the KJV for O.T. Heb. Sheol and N.T. Gk. Hades, Gehenna. See more here (click)

A reasonable man would think like this:

Did Jesus really suffer an infinite punishment for our sins? If Jesus was merely being punished for all of the wrongdoing of every person who ever lived on earth based on human standards of punishment and not infinite standards, we'd still have to ask whether he was punished enough. After all, if every person who ever lived deserved to be slapped in the face just one time, then the equivalent of sixty billion slaps would surely amount to more punishment than Jesus physically endured. But if it's true to say that each and every one of us deserved an infinite punishment for our sins, then how much less is it true to say Jesus suffered infinitely for each one of us? More to the point, if we were given a choice to suffer as Jesus did or else be cast in hell for eternity (which would be our infinite punishment), we would all choose to suffer as Jesus did. Jesus didn't suffer forever, nor did he stay dead.
But it is said that Jesus endured more than just physical pain. He also endured the pain of being separated from God. How can we make sense of this claim? If it's merely a metaphor for the mental pain of not sensing God's help when we need it, then we have all felt that pain throughout our lives. Otherwise, it must somehow mean Jesus ceased to be God while on the cross. However, Christians cannot believe that. Because if Jesus in fact ceased to be God, then since Christians believe a triune God exists, that means God also ceased to exist when Jesus ceased to be God.

If the cross was needed to pay the punishment for my sins, then how can God really be a forgiving God? Forgiveness doesn't require punishment. To put it bluntly, if I can't forgive you for striking me on the chin until I return the blow back to you, or to someone else, then that's not forgiveness—that's retaliation, or sweet revenge! Revenge is never an ethical motive for action, even if we are led to take revenge on others sometimes. John Hick said: "A forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment ... is not forgiveness, but merely an acknowledgment that the debt has been paid in full."

So, would the God of Bible be just, considering that?

I dare you say yes! Show your lying nature.

Or will you join Martin Luther when he called reason "the Devil's whore"?

Am I still a swine, or you promote me into a Demon?

Where you find these aberrant teachers and more importantly, why you turn to them for education, are beyond my capacity to grasp.

How about Oxford? Is that also out of your grasp?

Or is the church library the only thing you know?

[Philosopher]

Sheol is the Hebrew word meaning “unseen state,” i.e. the place of departed souls, whether good or bad. In Greek, the word is “hades,” meaning the same: the “unseen state.” The word does not mean grave. Whoever told you otherwise, doesn’t know what he or she is writing. It is true, however, that sheol is translated as “grave,” in some English Bible translations, but: there is another Hebrew word for grave—“Qeber.” Sheol does not mean “grave.” It means the place where departed souls go to after death. Grave implies something physical, a place where the flesh is buried.

“One question, if all souls are to go to paradise, why on earth do you have to resurrect the bodies later on? Don't you see how stupid and double standard that is?”

No, I don’t see that because it is not stupid. First of all, not “all souls go to paradise.” Only the saved. Second, to God, no one is dead. All live to him. Did you not read what Christ said to the Pharisees that God is the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live unto Him.” Notice Jesus said “is” not “was.” God is the God of Abraham, not the God who “was” the God of Abraham. All these are alive to God.

Did you never read Revelation 6.9 “And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony that they held, and they were crying with a great voice, saying, ‘till when, O Master, the Holy and the True, dost Thou not judge and take vengeance of our blood from those dwelling upon the land?’ And there was given to each white robes, and it was said to them that they may rest themselves yet a little time…”
Are these people not alive? Yet, they weren’t resurrected yet.

Were not Moses and Elijah alive when they appeared at the transfiguration of Christ in the mountain?

The resurrection accounts are found in Daniel 12:2
“And the multitude of those sleeping (death) in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches—to abhorrence age-during.”

And Ezekiel 37:
1The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, 2And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. 3And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. 4Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. 5Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: 6And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 7So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone."

8And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. 9Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. 10So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. 11Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. 12Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD."

The reason the resurrection is necessary is because right now the departed souls are just spirits and incomplete. God has so ordained that our new bodies be like that of the resurrected body of Jesus Christ. Christ is the “first fruits” of the resurrection; Christ didn’t just rise from the dead as spirit but as a flesh to show that human flesh has conquered the grave, i.e. death and by the resurrection, has regained the power over death and the grave that Satan possessed through Adam’s sin.

“Who knows who put the words in Jesus mouth. As far as I know, who was there before the cross. His mother, Mary Magdalene and on the other from Arimathea. All other apostle abandoned him. So how do the Matthew, Mark, Luke or John are to know and quote what Jesus said on the Cross?”

Well Luke, who records this event, states that “and all his acquaintances stood afar off, and women who did follow him from Galilee, beholding these things.” John’s Gospel, chapter 19. 25-27 tells us that John, the author of the gospel, and one of the original twelve apostles, was there present. There were plenty of witnesses who recorded this event—but since the words of Christ don’t fit your preconviced notions, you would like to abandon them altogether as the products of some lies.

“As next I challenge you to point out where the Soul in the Old Testament is meant as "eternal". I am positive that you ain't gonna find any reference where you can read something like "eternal soul".
Second, the word that is frequently translated as Soul in the OT is NEPHESH. (click here to see all the references of NEPHESH in the OT)”

In regard these claims, I will say this: I never said the “soul in the Old Testament is meant as eternal.” In fact, I don’t even know what that means. What is true is that nowhere in the Bible have people taught that after they die all life ceases. After physical death, there is sheol, i.e. the place of departed souls, good or bad. One’s “soul” cannot die; it is eternal but only in this sense: Christ taught that fear not those who could kill the body but not the soul; but fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in gehenna. Gehenna, a picture and type of “hell,” place of torment for the ungodly, is the final state for the unrighteous souls. The soul is spiritually dead because of sins and is in a place of torment.

In regard to Ezekiel’s prophecies, all that is meant is that the soul that sins spiritually dies, not physically. Disobedience to God brings spiritual death, and if you die in that state, you will go to hell, i.e. a place of eternal torment. But Ezekiel also states that if the wicked soul should repent and turn from his or her wickedness, and become righteous, the soul will live, because God will forgive his or her sins and breathe life into that soul with the Holy Spirit, which will quicken it alive.

“What is more interesting that this goes in direct contradiction to the Original Sin doctrine, for it is clearly said:
Quote:
The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
If that is true, than we can't be quilt or sin cause Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden.”

Makedonin, for a Macedonian, you surprise me. If you actually had any real knowledge of the religion of your forefathers, you would know that “original sin” is not believed on or accepted in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Only the Western Church—Roman Catholics and Protestants—believe in original sin.

Why don’t you know this?

But the doctrine of original sin is more complicated than the way you describe it.

“But that is exactly what Paul teaches us. He has clear agenda, that is the perpetuating for the sacrifice of Christ, and giving meaning to it. Unfortunately for Paul, who was clearly a Diaspora Jew and could not read Hebrew, did not do his homework well.”

Paul could both speak and read Hebrew. Who says otherwise? The New Testament has Paul giving a speech in Hebrew. However, this is irrelevant, because Paul had the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew. So Paul didn’t misunderstand anything. You misunderstand Paul.

“Next to that. Paul is the one who perpetuated the Original Sin. His Agenda was to put Jesus as the needed tool for our sins. If we don't believe, we are to suffer eternal damnation; you call it Hell and take pleasure in the thought.”

Well if Paul perpetuated original sin, then why has the Eastern Orthodox Church, from the very beginning, been opposed to original sin? Paul’s writings have been interpreted by writers to mean original sin, chief among them, St. Augustine.

The Eastern church has taught that the consequences of Adam’s sin is what Paul speaks of—not that we inherit his sin but we inherit the consequences of that sin, a fallen sick world where death exists and humans are liable to greater corruption.

Jesus’ death could atone for the sins of his church because it was his blood that made atonement. In Leviticus 17.11, it states that “it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul…”

I’m not surprised those professors are from Oxford. Oxford theology is about as heretical as it gets.

I get my knowledge directly from the bible, church fathers, reformers, etc; not liberal fanatics.

[Philosopher]

Here is John Gill's explanation of Ezekiel 18:4

Ver. 4. Behold, all souls are mine,.... By creation; they being the immediate produce of his power; hence he is called "the Father of spirits", Heb 12:9, or the souls of men; these he has an apparent right unto; a property in; a dominion over; they are accountable to him, and will be judged impartially by him:

as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; and therefore must be thought to have as great a respect and affection for the one as for the other; for the soul of a son as for the soul of a father; and not deal partially in favour of the one, and cruelly and unrighteously with the other:

the soul that sinneth, it shall die; the soul that continues in sin, without repentance towards God, and faith in Christ, shall die the second death; shall be separated from the presence of God, and endure his wrath to all eternity: or the meaning is, that a person that is guilty of gross sins, and continues in them, shall personally suffer; he shall endure one calamity or another, as the famine, sword, pestilence, or be carried into captivity, which is the death all along spoken of in this chapter; the Lord will exercise no patience towards him, or defer punishment to a future generation, his offspring; but shall immediately execute it upon himself.

and 18.20:

Ver. 20. The soul that sinneth, it shall die,.... This is repeated from Eze 18:4, for the further confirmation of it:

the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; that is, as the Targum paraphrases it,

"the son shall not be punished for the sins of the father, nor shall the father be punished for the sins of the son.''

This is to be understood of adult persons, and of actual sins; for of such only the prophet speaks throughout the whole chapter, or of temporal, and not of eternal punishment:

the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him; he shall be rewarded with temporal good things in this life, according to his righteousness; which, as the Targum says, shall "remain" upon him; see
Ps 112:9; he shall eat of the fruit of his own doings, Isa 3:10; this is true of a man that is evangelically righteous, or is so through the imputation of Christ's righteousness to him; which is upon him as a robe to clothe him, and will always remain on him, being an everlasting righteousness, and will answer for him in a time to come:

and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him; and not another; his sin shall remain on him unatoned for, unexpiated, not taken away or forgiven; the punishment of it shall be on him, and abide upon him.

[Philosopher]

Here is John Calvin's explanation:

Ezekiel still pursues the sentiment which we have explained, namely, that God is a just judge and treats every one according to his conduct; as Paul says, As each has lived in the flesh, so God lays up a reward for him. (Romans 8:13.) But he more clearly refuted the proverb, that the sons should suffer for their fathers’ sins.

He says, then, that each when he comes before God’s tribunal should be judged by his works. As far then as the general sentiment is concerned, it is in accordance with common sense that God should exact punishment of the wicked, and that they should receive the just reward of their works. But in the next clause, the question arises how the Spirit here pronounces that the son should not pay the penalty due to the father, when God so often declares that he visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. (Exodus 20:5.) That sentiment often occurs: but there are two passages peculiarly remarkable, where it is annexed to the second precept of the law, (Deuteronomy 5:9,) and then in that remarkable vision which occurred to Moses, God pronounces the same thing as before, namely, that the iniquity of the fathers should fall upon the sons. (Exodus 34:7.) These passages seem opposed to each other, but it will be easy to remove the contradiction by beginning with the fall of Adam, since if we do not consider the whole race fallen in Adam, we can scarcely extricate ourselves from that difficulty which we often feel as causing pungent scruples. But the principle of one universal fall in Adam removes all doubts.

For when we consider the perishing of the whole human race, it is said with truth that we perish through another’s fault: but it is added at the same time, that every one perishes through his own iniquity. If then we inquire into the cause of the curse which presses upon all the posterity of Adam, it may be said to be partly another’s and partly our own: another’s, through Adam’s declension from God, in whose person the whole human race was spoiled of righteousness and intelligence, and all parts of the soul utterly corrupted. So that every one is lost in himself, and if he wishes to contend with God, he must always acknowledge that the fountain of the curse flows from himself.

For before the child was born into the world, it was corrupt, since its menial intelligence was buried in darkness, and its will was perverse and rebellious against God. As soon as infants are born they contract pollution from their father Adam: their reason is blinded, their appetites perverted, and their senses entirely vitiated. This does not immediately show itself in the young child, but before God, who discerns things more acutely than we do, the corruption of our whole nature is rightly treated as sin. There is no one who during the course of his life does not perceive himself liable to punishment through his own works; but original sin is sufficient for the condemnation of all men.

When men grow up they acquire for themselves the new curse of what is called actual sin: so that he who is pure with reference to ordinary observation, is guilty before God: hence Scripture pronounces us all naturally children of wrath: these are Paul’s words in the second chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians, (Ephesians 2:3.) If then we are children of wrath, it follows that we are polluted from our birth: this provokes God’s anger and renders him hostile to us: in this sense David confesses himself conceived in sin. (Psalm 51:5.)

He does not here accuse either his father or his mother so as to extenuate his own wickedness; but, when he abhors the greatness of his sin in provoking the wrath of God, he is brought back to his infancy, and acknowledges that he was even then guilty before God. We see then that David, being reminded of a single sin, acknowledges himself a sinner before he was born; and since we are all under the curse, it follows that we are all worthy of death. Thus, the son properly speaking shall not die through the iniquity of his father, but is considered guilty before God through his own fault.

Now let us proceed further. When God pronounces that the iniquity of the father returns into the bosom of the son, we must remember that when God involves the son in the same death with the father, he does so principally because the son of the impious is destitute of his Spirit: whence it happens that he remains in the death in which he was born. For if we do not consider any other punishments than those which are openly inflicted, a new scruple will again arise from which we cannot free ourselves, since this inquiry will always recur, how can the son perish by his own fault, if he can produce good fruit and so reconcile himself to God?

But the first punishment with which God threatens the reprobate is that which I have mentioned, namely, that their offspring are destitute and deprived of spiritual gifts, so that they sink deeper and deeper into destruction: for there are two kinds of punishment, the one outward and the other inward, as we express it. God punishes the transgressors of his law by either the sword, or by famine, or by pestilence, as he everywhere denounces: he is also armed with other means of slaughter for executing his wrath, and all these punishments are outward and openly apparent. But there is another sort inward and hidden, when God takes away the spirit of rectitude from the reprobate, when he gives them up to a reprobate mind, subjects them to foul desires, and deprives them of all his gifts hence God is said to cause the fathers’ iniquity to recoil upon the children not only when he outwardly punishes the little ones, but because he devotes a cursed offspring to eternal destruction, through being destitute of all the gifts of the Spirit,.

Now we know that God is the fountain of life, (Psalm 36:9,) whence it follows that all who are separated from him are dead. Now therefore it is evident how God throws the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, since when he devotes both father and son to eternal destruction, he deprives them of all his gifts, blinds their minds, and enslaves all their appetites to the devil. Although we may, in one word, embrace the whole matter of the children suffering for the fathers when he leaves them to simple nature, as the phrase is, since in this way he drowns them in death and destruction.

But outward punishments also follow afterwards, as when God sends lightning upon Sodom many young children perished, and all were absorbed with their parents. (Genesis 19:24.) If any one asks by what right they perished, first they were sons of Adam and so were accursed, and then God wished to punish the Sodomites through their offspring, and he could do so deservedly. Concerning the young who thus perished with their fathers, it is said, happy is he who dashes thy young ones against the stones or the pavement. (Psalm 137:9.)

At first sight, indeed, that atrocity seems intolerable that a child whose age and judgment is thus tender should be so cruelly slain: but as we have already said, all are naturally children of wrath. (Ephesians 2:2.) No wonder, therefore, that God withdraws his favor from the offspring of the reprobate, even if he executes these outward judgments. But how will this now be suitable, shall not the son bear the iniquity of the father? for Ezekiel here speaks of adults, for he means that the son shall not bear his father’s iniquity, since he shall receive the reward due to himself and sustain his own burden.

Should any one wish to strive with God, he can be refuted in a single word: for who can boast himself innocent? Since therefore all are guilty through their own fault, it follows that the son does not bear his father’s iniquity, since he has to bear his own at the same time. Now that question is solved.

[George S.]

""One question, if all souls are to go to paradise, why on earth do you have to resurrect the bodies later on? Don't you see how stupid and double standard that is?”""

""No, I don’t see that because it is not stupid. First of all, not “all souls go to paradise?""

Just as in the lords prayer Thy kingdom come on earth as it's in heaven.Flesh & blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god.Jesus is the first born(the rest are still dead! )
No one ecept jesus christ has received eternal life.God's kingdom is in the future.Heaven is where God is & the earth is his footstool.God will establish his kingdom on earth.He will rule with jesus christ by using love!

[Risto the Great]

Philosopher, please use the quote button .... it is really hard to follow which text is yours sometimes.

I struggle with the following observation on a number of levels:

Did Jesus really suffer an infinite punishment for our sins? If Jesus was merely being punished for all of the wrongdoing of every person who ever lived on earth based on human standards of punishment and not infinite standards, we'd still have to ask whether he was punished enough. After all, if every person who ever lived deserved to be slapped in the face just one time, then the equivalent of sixty billion slaps would surely amount to more punishment than Jesus physically endured. But if it's true to say that each and every one of us deserved an infinite punishment for our sins, then how much less is it true to say Jesus suffered infinitely for each one of us? More to the point, if we were given a choice to suffer as Jesus did or else be cast in hell for eternity (which would be our infinite punishment), we would all choose to suffer as Jesus did. Jesus didn't suffer forever, nor did he stay dead.
But it is said that Jesus endured more than just physical pain. He also endured the pain of being separated from God. How can we make sense of this claim? If it's merely a metaphor for the mental pain of not sensing God's help when we need it, then we have all felt that pain throughout our lives. Otherwise, it must somehow mean Jesus ceased to be God while on the cross. However, Christians cannot believe that. Because if Jesus in fact ceased to be God, then since Christians believe a triune God exists, that means God also ceased to exist when Jesus ceased to be God.

Jesus died on the cross, but he was God .... so he really did not die. He suffered on the cross ... but if he was only human, his pain surely would have been more consequential than someone who was confident of coming back or where he was going. If you are to tell me that God deserted him at his time on the cross, then surely Jesus was not God. I believe the Bogomils placed a similar question on the crucifixion. I genuinely find this difficult to accept.

[Philosopher]

Philosopher, please use the quote button .... it is really hard to follow which text is yours sometimes.

I struggle with the following observation on a number of levels:



Jesus died on the cross, but he was God .... so he really did not die. He suffered on the cross ... but if he was only human, his pain surely would have been more consequential than someone who was confident of coming back or where he was going. If you are to tell me that God deserted him at his time on the cross, then surely Jesus was not God. I believe the Bogomils placed a similar question on the crucifixion. I genuinely find this difficult to accept.

Isaiah 59

1Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Christ’s statement on the cross has been much debated; some are satisfied by the orthodox explantion; others are not.
The orthodox Christian position is that Christ, the sacrifical passover lamb, the promised sufferer of Isaiah 53, who was to bear the sins, not of every human being, but the sins of his Church, his elect, was “separatered” from God, and bearing the sins of his church, God hid face from him. See Isaiah 59.2 above.

Christ’s death on the cross was not just physical; in fact, the physical aspet of it was nothing in comparison to the spiritual component of it; Jesus was bearing the sins of his people and in the process bore the wrath of God for all his people for all eternity, which no human could bear. God’s wrath was poured out on his Son, the God-man.

I might add Christ's cry of being forsaken is the product of Psalm 22 "My God, My God, why dids't thou forsake me."

Here is an in depth position explanation from John Calvin:

46. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried. Though in the cry which Christ uttered a power more than human was manifested, yet it was unquestionably drawn from him by intensity of sorrow. And certainly this was his chief conflict, and harder than all the other tortures, that in his anguish he was so far from being soothed by the assistance or favor of his Father, that he felt himself to be in some measure estranged from him. For not only did he offer his body as the price of our reconciliation with God, but. in his soul also he endured the punishments due to us; and thus he became, as Isaiah speaks, a man of sorrows, (53:3.)

Those interpreters are widely mistaken who, laying aside this part of redemption, attended solely to the outward punishment of the flesh; for in order that Christ might satisfy for us, it was necessary that he should be placed as a guilty person at the judgment-seat of God. Now nothing is more dreadful than to feel that God, whose wrath is worse than all deaths, is the Judge. When this temptation was presented to Christ, as if, having God opposed to him, he were already devoted to destruction, he was seized with horror, which would have been sufficient to swallow up a hundred times all the men in the world; but by the amazing power of the Spirit he achieved the victory. Nor is it by hypocrisy, or by assuming a character, that he complains of having been forsaken by the Father. Some allege that he employed this language in compliance with the opinion of the people, but this is an absurd mode of evading the difficulty; for the inward sadness of his soul was so powerful and violent, that it forced him to break out into a cry.

Nor did the redemption which he accomplished consist solely in what was exhibited to the eye, (as I stated a little ago,) but having undertaken to be our surety, he resolved actually to undergo in our room the judgment of God.

But it appear absurd to say that an expression of despair escaped Christ. The reply is easy. Though the perception of the flesh would have led him to dread destruction, still in his heart faith remained firm, by which he beheld the presence of God, of whose absence he complains. We have explained elsewhere how the Divine nature gave way to the weakness of the flesh, so far as was necessary for our salvation, that Christ might accomplish all that was required of the Redeemer. We have likewise pointed out the distinction between the sentiment of nature and the knowledge of faith; and, there ore, the perception of God’s estrangement from him, which Christ had, as suggested by natural feeling, did not hinder him from continuing to be assured by faith that God was reconciled to him

[makedonin]

Philosopher, I thought you felt guilty about throwing a "pearls" on a swines? I don't come here for a few days, and you spammed the whole place.

Sheol is the Hebrew word meaning “unseen state,” i.e. the place of departed souls, whether good or bad. In Greek, the word is “hades,” meaning the same: the “unseen state.” The word does not mean grave. Whoever told you otherwise, doesn’t know what he or she is writing. It is true, however, that sheol is translated as “grave,” in some English Bible translations, but: there is another Hebrew word for grave—“Qeber.” Sheol does not mean “grave.” It means the place where departed souls go to after death. Grave implies something physical, a place where the flesh is buried.

Please give your sources for where you get the informations. In the way you write, no one can really know what you make up and what is acctually truth.

Lets put some things in forensic perspective.

In the Hebrew Bible, Sheol (שאול) is the "abode of the dead," the "underworld," "the common grave of mankind" or "pit." It is said to be the destination of both the righteous and the unrighteous dead, as described in Book of Job (3:11-19). "Sheol" is also depicted as a comfortless place beneath the earth, beyond gates, where both slave and king, pious and wicked must go after death to sleep in silence and oblivion in the dust (Isa. 38:18; Ps. 6:5, 88:3-12; Job 7:7-10, 3:11-19; Gen. 2:7, 3:19).

The concept of Sheol seems to have originated from the ancient Sumerian view that after one dies, no matter how benevolent or malevolent he or she was in life, one is destined to eat dirt to survive in the afterlife. Sheol is sometimes compared to Hades, the gloomy, twilight afterlife of Greek mythology. In fact, Jews used the word "Hades" for "Sheol" when they translated their scriptures into Greek (see Septuagint). The New Testament (written in Greek) also uses "Hades" to mean the abode of the dead. Western Christians, who do not share a concept of "Hades" with the Eastern Orthodox, have traditionally translated "Sheol" (and "Hades") as "Hell." Unlike hell, however, Sheol is not associated with Satan.

By the first century, Jews had come to believe that those in Sheol awaited the resurrection of the body either in comfort or in torment. This belief is reflected in the later Jewish concept of a fiery Gehenna, which contrasts with Sheol.

Source

Or

The Hebrew wordsheol , used in the Old Testament, has the same meaning ash a des , one of the three Greek words translated “hell” in the New Testament.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary explains the meaning of both words: “The Greek word Hades . . . is sometimes, but misleadingly, translated ‘hell’ in English versions of the N[ew] T[estament]. It refers to the place of
the dead . . . The old Hebrew concept o the place of the dead, most often What you refer to as "unseen state" is the the meaning of Hades:
called Sheol . . . is usually translated as Hades, and the Greek term was naturally and commonly used by Jews writing in Greek” (1992, Vol. 3, p. 14, “Hades, Hell”).
Both sheol and hades refer simply to the grave. A comparison of anOld Testament and a New Testament scripture conrm this. Psalm 16:10 says, “For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your
Holy One to see corruption.” In Acts 2:27, the apostle Peter quotes this verse and shows that it is a reference to Jesus Christ. Here the Greek word hades is substituted for the Hebrew sheol.

Where did Christ go when He died? His spirit returned to God (Luke 23:46; see “The Spirit in Man” on page 14). His body was placed in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. The two passages, in Psalms and Acts, tell us Jesus’ fesh did not decay in the grave because God resurrected Him.
Many scriptures that use the termh ell in the King James Version are simply talking about the grave, the place where everyone, whether good or evil, goes at death. The Hebrew wordsh eol is used in the Old Testa-
ment 65 times. In the King James Version it is translated “grave” 31 times, “hell” 31 times and “pit”—a hole in the ground—three times. The Greek word hades is used 11 times in the New Testament. In the
King James translation, in all instances but one the termh a des is translated “hell.” The one exception is 1 Corinthians 15:55, where it is translated “grave.” In the New King James Version, the translators avoided miscon- ceptions by simply using the original Greek wordh a des in all 11 instances.
Source

So, Sheol is a developing concept, nothing new from the bible.
~oOo~

No, I don’t see that because it is not stupid. First of all, not “all souls go to paradise.” Only the saved. Second, to God, no one is dead. All live to him. Did you not read what Christ said to the Pharisees that God is the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live unto Him.” Notice Jesus said “is” not “was.” God is the God of Abraham, not the God who “was” the God of Abraham. All these are alive to God.

Did you never read Revelation 6.9 “And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony that they held, and they were crying with a great voice, saying, ‘till when, O Master, the Holy and the True, dost Thou not judge and take vengeance of our blood from those dwelling upon the land?’ And there was given to each white robes, and it was said to them that they may rest themselves yet a little time…”
Are these people not alive? Yet, they weren’t resurrected yet.

Were not Moses and Elijah alive when they appeared at the transfiguration of Christ in the mountain?

Here is something to that:

To understand this scripture, one must remember the context. John was witnessing a vision while he was “in the Spirit” (Revelation 4:2).Under inspiration he was seeing future events depicted in symbolism. The fifth seal fisfgurative of the Great Tribulation, a time of world turmoil preceding Christ’s return. In this vision, John sees under the altar the martyred believers who sacrifced their
lives for their faith in God. These souls figuratively cry out, “Avenge our blood!” This can be compared to Abel’s blood metaphorically crying out to God from the ground (Genesis 4:10). Though neither dead souls nor blood can actually speak, these phrases figuratively demonstrate that a God of justice will not forget the evil deeds of mankind perpetrated against His righteous followers.
This verse does not describe living souls that have gone to heaven. The Bible confrms that“noone has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven [Jesus Christ]” (John 3:13). Even righteous King David, a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22), was described by Peter as being “dead and buried” (Acts 2:29), not alive in heaven or some other state or location (verse 34).
Source

As you can see all those things are controversial and subject of faith and belief. Those verses and scriptures can be interpreted as one wants, and all those Christianities do exactly that...

But there can be no evidence of what so ever that those words and claims are true.

Second, such things are claimed in other religions.
You go and discard them with out trying to consider if they are true. I can bet on it, that if you go with the same criticizm that you apply on other faiths and find them false, and apply that amount of criticizm on your own, you will discard it too.
~oOo~

The reason the resurrection is necessary is because right now the departed souls are just spirits and incomplete.

Where does it stands that it is so. I have never read such thing before.

God has so ordained that our new bodies be like that of the resurrected body of Jesus Christ. Christ is the “first fruits” of the resurrection; Christ didn’t just rise from the dead as spirit but as a flesh to show that human flesh has conquered the grave, i.e. death and by the resurrection, has regained the power over death and the grave that Satan possessed through Adam’s sin.

First of all, the the word for the grave here is Hades which is the cognate for Sheol.

Second, the first fruit that was resurrected was to be followed by others. Paul believed such thing, he estimated that this will happen during his life time.
Yet that train is long gone. You apologized this witht the tousand year is one day for God.

But Paul did not see this as happening some 2000 or 3000 year after.

In 1 Thess. 4:13-17 he was asked about those who died, and he comforts them that they are not forgotten. But the stunning thing is that Paul does not presuppose that he will be one of the “dead in Christ”; rather, he thinks that he will be one of those “who are living, who remain.” Paul anticipates this end of the age to come within his lifetime.

It is all over... if you are honest about it.....
~oOo~

Well Luke, who records this event, states that “and all his acquaintances stood afar off, and women who did follow him from Galilee, beholding these things.” John’s Gospel, chapter 19. 25-27 tells us that John, the author of the gospel, and one of the original twelve apostles, was there present. There were plenty of witnesses who recorded this event—but since the words of Christ don’t fit your preconviced notions, you would like to abandon them altogether as the products of some lies.

First of all, Luke or John have not recorded any event. Someone did it in their name some 70 to 100 years after those events.

Second, don't you see that those two accounts contradicts them. Luke says that all of them stood afar. John says that he and another one where there! No mention of the others who stood afar!

If we apply Biblical meassurement on Biblica iniquities that Jesus supplied us:

10"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? Luke 16:10-11

what would we conclude about the accounts you provided above?

They fail on small things. Are they to be accounted and considred true for a larger things?
A honest reasonable man can't avoid concluding that they are not to be trusted with what they said.

In regard these claims, I will say this: I never said the “soul in the Old Testament is meant as eternal.” In fact, I don’t even know what that means.

For not knowing what that means, you surelly use that word easy when threatening to my eternal soul in the previous posts:

Makedonin, ... Your eternal soul depends on it. I will pray for you.

Is that an obvious lie by you. First you talk about my eternal soul, than you claim you don't know what that is.

If I meassure you with Biblical meassurement such as:

whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. Luke 16:10

I would say, you have been caught several times to be dishonest with very little things, thus are we to trust you that you ain't dishonest with the big things?
~oOo~

What is true is that nowhere in the Bible have people taught that after they die all life ceases.
After physical death, there is sheol, i.e. the place of departed souls, good or bad.

In regard to Ezekiel’s prophecies, all that is meant is that the soul that sins spiritually dies, not physically. Disobedience to God brings spiritual death, and if you die in that state, you will go to hell, i.e. a place of eternal torment.

But Ezekiel also states that if the wicked soul should repent and turn from his or her wickedness, and become righteous, the soul will live, because God will forgive his or her sins and breathe life into that soul with the Holy Spirit, which will quicken it alive.

Let us look into this:

A soul, in Scripture phraseology, means an animal, or creature, or life; a breathing creature, originally designed to live by breathing ; whether such creature be living or dead.

Nephesh and psuche, the Hebrew and Greek words for soul, are translated both life and creature when applied to beasts. Moses uses nephesh, chay, chayiah, and chayim, to express animal life and creature; and these words are generally translated soul, life, living, lives, and creature. The very first time that the word nephesh, or soul, occurs, is in Gen. 1 : 20 ; it reads, literally, " And the Elohim said, the waters shall produce abundantly the creeping living soul," (or creature,—sheretz chayiah nephesh.) In the 21st verse, we find, " kal nephesh chayiah eramshat," every living soul or creature creeping. The 24th verse reads, " Let the earth bring forth the (nephesh chayiah,) living soul, or living creature after its kind, eattle, and creeping (chay) creature, and beast of the earth." In the 25th verse, " And every cluiy," every creature. Again, in the 30th verse, " And to every thing creeping upon the earth, which (has) in it a living soul; (ulekel rumesh ol earetz asher tm nephesh chayiah.'' In Gen. 2: 19, these living souls are brought before Adam, " and whatsoever he named, every living soul, (nephesh chayiah) that was the name of it."

We now appeal to the candid :—If nephesh chayiah, in the quotations we have given, must necessarily mean a living creature ; and if, in the very first place of its occurrence, Moses applies it to the very lowest order of animal existence, to the sheretz, which must mean some reptile produced by the waters, having a creeping motion ; and, as appears from Lev. some reptile, or amphibious creature, that the Israelites were forbidden to eat, how can it ever mean an abstract, immortal intelligence, -that can be separated from the creature, and yet be
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If souls are a part of God, or if they are immaterial spirits, then they are not begotten by their fathers, but are separately originated. But yet the Bible fourteen times expressly declares, that " souls came out of the loins(testicals) of their fathers," and " that they were born of their fathers in the land;" not in heaven. Gen. 12: 5, " And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot, his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan." That " souls were born in their father's house." Exodus 12: 19, and Numb. 15: 30. In Gen. 46: 18, "These are sons of Zilpah, and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls." Verse 26, " All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins." Exo. 1:5, " All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob, were seventy souls." See also, Gen. 46: 15, 22, 25, 27- Now I ask, did Abraham, Lot, and Jacob, beget these souls ? or, if those seventy " immortal souls" came down from heaven, how came they in Jacob's loins ? Say, rather, that Adam was created with a pro-creative faculty, and as God caused the " earth to bring forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit whose seed toas in itself, after his kind," so man was made with the power to produce his like. Could these seventy souls that came out of the loins of mortal Jacob, be immortal ghosts ? For how can flesh beget spirit ? For " that which is born of the flesh is flesh," and not spirit, therefore to possess that spiritual, incorruptible, immortal nature, the peculiar privilege of the righteous ; " Ye must be born again," of the Spirit, and by a resurrection from the dead, or ye cannot inherit an everlasting kingdom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In these places, nephesh chayiah is translated living creature, and once life, although living soul occurs sometimes in the margin of the best Bibles. Why should it mean a different thing when applied to men ? Fifteen times chayim, lives, is rendered living, or creature. See Ezek. 1 : 5, 13, 15, 19, 22 ; 3: 13; 10: 15, 17, 20. Gen. 3: 14, "Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy chay." 20, " And Adam called his wife's name chayah, life, because she was the mother of all chay." The Septuagint has zoe, life, for chavah ; and zonton, living, for chay.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Numb. 31: 19 ; 35 : 11, 15, 30; Deut. 27: 25 ; Josh. 20 : 3, 9 ; 1 Sam. 22 : 22 ; Prov. 28: 17. We give a few as they stand.

Here nephesh is translated person, without any note in the margin ! Numb. 31: 19, " Whosoever hath killed any nephesh.'' Why have the translators striven to blot out the evidence that these passages afford of the nature and mortality of the soul of man ? And why do learned sectarians cling so closely around the King's version, which they know is thus so glaringly and shamefully corrupted ? Is it because they are aware that a new and correct version of the original text would overturn all their creeds ? We call upon the lovers of truth to choose between Creedism and Christianity. Ye cannot at the same time serve God and Mammon. If you are determined to cleave to the loaves and fishes, and the popularity of sectarianism, we pray you, for consistency sake, to abjure the name of Christian, and fight under your own appropriate colors.

Numb. 35: 11 ; " That the slayer may flee (to the city of refuge) which killeth any nephesh, at unawares.'' 15th ver. " That every one that killeth any neplwsn, at unawares, may flee thither." 30th ver. " Whosoever killeth any nephesh, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses." Deut. 27 : 25, " Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent nephesh." 1 Sam. 22 : 22, " I have occasioned the death of all the nephesh of thy father's house." Prov. 28 : 17, "A man that doeth violence to the blood of any nephesh, shall flee to the pit; let no man stay him." If the soul has blood, and may be slain, what becomes of its boasted immortality ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He, the soul, or man, touch the uncleanness of man .... when He knoweth it, He shall be guilty. Or, if a nephesh swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good .... when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty." Here the soul hearing, touching, having lips, is identified by the personal pronouns to be the identical man. Could a ghost do these things ? Lev. 6: 2, " If a nephesh, (soul, or man,) sin ... . and lie unto his neighbour, &c in any of all these that a Man doeth . , . .

then he shall restore." The same person called a soul in the second verse is called a man in the third. Ezek. 18 : 4, " The soul (the man,) that sinneth, (he) shall die." Can an immortal, never-dying soul, die ? Yet the 13th verse asks concerning him that commits abominations, " Shall he live ? he shall not live : he hath done all these abominations ; he shall surely die ; his blood shall be upon him." But a ghost has no blood, so the soul is the mortal man, that sinning and not repenting, shall die, and remain dead forever. Six times in this chapter is a soul called a man. See also, Ezek.14: 14, 18 ; 3 : 19,21; 33 : 5, 9 ; Exod. 12 : 4, 15, 19 ; 31:14; Lev. 18 : 22, 29 ; 7 : 25 ; 16 : 29 ; 17 : 12-15 ; 22: 3; Numb. 15 : 30, 31.

Source Page

So, Eze 18:4,20 will be translated as:

The soul (Nephesh) who sins is the one who will die.

According to that, when a "living soul" dies, it ceases to exist.

The later Ideology of the Sheol as place of where the dead lived is derived from the Sheol>Grave>Pit, where all go, thus a sealed place where the dead "living souls"> "nephesh hayyah" were burried.
That is why everybody, saint or sinner go there.

The soul (Nephesh) is also seen as the life in the blood:

`Only, be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood [is] the life (Nephesh), and thou dost not eat the life (Nephesh) with the flesh;
24thou dost not eat it, on the earth thou dost pour it as water;
Deut. 12:23-24
~oOo~
for the life (Nephesh) of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar, to make atonement for your souls (Nephesh); for it [is] the blood which maketh atonement for the soul.
Lev 17:11

This was the reason why they were performin sacrifices, to pay out their Sin through the offered life, blood. Obviously they did not see the blood of Human different as the blood of Animal.

Basically, sacrifice life for life! Cause of this blood nephesh connection, we read in Genesis 4:10 how the Abel's blood is crying from the ground.

Interestingly enough, it is argued that psyche in Greek meant just as nephesh meant in Hebrew:

The Greek term psuche is the only Greek word used for soul. It comes from psucho, to breathe; to blow ; its primary meaning is the breath, a living being, any animal that lives by breathing; the soul. Life is a secondary and an accommodated use of the term. Moses wrote in Hebrew, " andman became nephesh cluiyiah," -which Paul translates into Greek, 1 Cor. 15 : 45, " The first made, Adam was made into psuc/ten zosan, a living soul," or creature. Again, Ps. 16: 10, David wrote, " For thou wilt not leave my nephesh in sheol .'" which Peter translates, Acts 2: 27, " Thou wilt not leave my psuehe in hades." Thus then we have inspired authority for making psuehe equal to nephesh. In Exo. 4 : 19, it reads, "The Lord said unto Moses, Go, return in Egypt, for all the men are dead which sought thy nephesh." Compare Mat. 2 : 20 : " Arise, and take the young child and his mother, ard go into the land of Israel, for they are dead which sought the young child's psuche." As these texts correspond, so psuche, here, means the same as nephesh, there.
Source Page 37

But all that is a long story... Only the later acceptance of the Platonic philosophy and view lead to the modern view of psyche as soul i.e. spirit or gost.

Makedonin, for a Macedonian, you surprise me. If you actually had any real knowledge of the religion of your forefathers, you would know that “original sin” is not believed on or accepted in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Only the Western Church—Roman Catholics and Protestants—believe in original sin.

Why don’t you know this?

But the doctrine of original sin is more complicated than the way you describe it.

So Paul didn’t misunderstand anything. You misunderstand Paul.

First of all, that religion of my forefathers have made them slaves. They wre adherent to some religion, and wanted to be part of some church, so that they even devided up and went brother against brother. That certainly ain't good thng to be adherent to some institution that makes you hate your brother and makes you kill them. How was it, the fruits of the tree talk volumens about the acctual tree. All those Christian creeds and churches did great damage to Macedonians in general, so what to think about the origin of them? Nothing good.
Second of all, the claim that only the West Church is adherent is maybe official status, but not what is practiced in Eastern Churches. I have had my arguments with priest, and more or less they see it that Paul is adherent to the original Sin doctrine.

Let us see what Paul has to say about it in Romans 5:
As any good Jew (I know you hate them) and how was it shown above, Paul sees the blood as the one which will buy our sins out:

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!
Rom 5:9

That is why Jesus is compared to a Lamb too. The Blood is the life, the Nephes, which is many times translated as Soul.
Than Paul goes on to make his case:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
Rom 5:12-20

What Paul basically says here is that, Adam did sinned, thus all sinned, and that is why all die, cause the payment for Sin is death. So if Eastern Tradition is not acknowledging this, than it is lying out of some reason.

To make long story short, I will sum up all that was posted up here:

• Nephesh, which is used in Gen 1 equal for creatures, beast and man. No distinction is made. Man is no different than a animal. It means life, maybe breath, later seen as residing in Blood.
• And when "adam" had eaten of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, "the Lord God" said, "Behold, the-man has become like one of US (in original Yahveh Elohim), to know good and evil" (3:27). Since God told him explicitely not to eat from it, but he did, so it happened that he disobayed God. But that is only the part of the Sin thing. Now that Adam knew what good and evil is, he had to be morally measured with God, he will be held to account all his moral iniquities.
• Since Nephes, the crature, which later became the life, was thought to reside in Blood, Jews performed sacrifices, as said to them by Leviticus, see above.
• Nephesh, as a life, living creature, could have been killed, such as in Ezekil, that you so much misinterpret. That is why Deutronomy is full with Laws that require that the living Soul > Nephes is put to death! The payment for Sin and iniquity is death.
• Paul comes on the stage, he is a good Jew, he believes in the Nephesh thing, the Nephes rezidence in the Blood, thus he sees Jesus as the perfect sacrificion.
• But he has a problem if he want's to justify his belief that Jesus is the sacrificion Lamb for all, so he makes the mistake and claims that all are sinners by only one man, so it is logical to see the redemption through one man.
• And still he ignores the Law that states, that each will die for his own sin, as for example Ezikel says!

I would conclude, you misunderstand Paul, not I!

Gehenna, a picture and type of “hell,” place of torment for the ungodly, is the final state for the unrighteous souls. The soul is spiritually dead because of sins and is in a place of torment.

The Gehenna is indeed is some kind of comparation, but in Jesus time it ws a real place.

The word derives from the Hebrew: גי(א)-הינום Gêhinnôm (also Guy ben-Hinnom (גיא בן הינום) meaning the Valley of Hinnom's son. The valley forms the southwest border of ancient Jerusalem that stretches from the foot of Mt. Zion to the Kidron Valley. It is first mentioned in Joshua 15:8. Originally it referred to a garbage dump in a deep narrow valley right outside the walls of Jerusalem where fires were kept burning to consume the refuse and keep down the stench. It is also the location where bodies of executed criminals, or individuals denied a proper burial, would be dumped. In addition, this valley was frequently not controlled by the Jewish authority within the city walls; it is traditionally held that this valley was used as a place of religious child-sacrifice to Moloch by the Canaanites outside the city (comp. Jer. 2: 23).

Rabbinic tradition

The rabbinic tradition draws a distinction between Sheol and Gehenna or "Gehinnom." Originally, Judaism described life after death as a bleak underworld named Sheol, which was known as the common pit or grave of humanity. However, with the influence of Persian thought and the passing of time, the notion of "hell" crept into Jewish tradition and became associated with the Biblical word Gehinnom or Gei Hinnom (the valley of Hinnom (Joshua 15:8, 18:16; II Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31; Nehemiah 11:30). This view of hell was allegedly imported into Judaism from Zoroastrianism, and it appears to have supplanted the earlier concept of Sheol (mentioned in Isaiah 38:18, Psalms 6:5 and Job 7:7-10).

Jews who embraced this view of hell included the group known as the Pharisees. The larger, dogmatically conservative Sadducees maintained their belief in Sheol. While it was the Sadducees that represented the Jewish religious majority it was the Pharisees who best weathered Roman occupation, and their belief in Zoroaster's heaven and hell was passed on to both Christianity and Islam (in which heaven is referred to as Jannah).

In subsequent centuries, rabbinic literature expounded on Gehenna as a place (or state) where the wicked are temporarily punished after death. The godly, meanwhile, await Judgment Day in the bosom of Abraham. “Gehenna” is sometimes translated as "hell," but the Christian view of hell differs from the Jewish view of Gehenna. Most sinners are said to suffer in Gehenna no longer than twelve months, but those who commit certain sins are punished forever.[1]

New Testament

Gehenna is often mentioned in the New Testament of the Christian Bible as the place of condemnation of unrepentant sinners. For example, in the Book of Matthew, 23:33, Jesus observes,

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

Jesus used the word gehenna, not hell, and his audience understood gehenna was an allegorical phrase likening the fate of the "generation of vipers" to that of garbage; the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has a footnote after the word hell reading:

w Greek Gehenna

The King James Version of the Bible speaks of “hellfire” and of being “cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." The original Greek scriptures of the New Testament actually used the word gehenna, which tended to become hell in English.

It is said that the garbage dump of Gehenna was full of rotting garbage, which sent up a stench that could be smelled for miles. There are stories of fires that were kept burning via the adding of brimstone (sulfur). Hackett explains, "It became the common lay-stall garbage dump of the city, where the dead bodies of criminals, and the carcasses of animals, and every other kind of filth was cast."

Source

In Mark 9:47-48, for example, Jesus specifcally refers to Gehenna and what took place there. But without a proper historical background, many people draw erroneous conclusions as to what He said.
Notice His words: “It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell [gehenna] fire— where ‘their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’” Any inhabit- ant of Jerusalem would have immediately understood what Jesus meant, since Gehenna—the Valley of Hinnom—was just outside the city walls to the south. Without this understanding, people commonly end up with several misconceptions about this verse. Some believe the “worm” is a reference to pangs of conscience that condemned people suffer in hell: “‘The worm that dieth not’ was nearly always interpreted figuratively, as meaning the stings of envy and regret” (Walker, p. 61). Many believe that the phrase “the fireis not quenched” is a reference to everburning fires that torture the damned.
This scripture has been notoriously interpreted out of context. Notice that the phrase “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” appears in quotation marks. Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 66:24. A proper
understanding of His statement begins there.The context in Isaiah 66 refers to a time when, God says, “all fesh shall come to worship before Me” (verse 23). It is a time when the wicked will be no more. What will have happened to them? In verse 24 we read that people “will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind” (NIV). Notice that in this verse Jesus notes that the bodies affected by the worms aredea d . These are not living people writhing in fire. When Jesus returns, He will fight those who resist Him (Revelation 19:11-15). Those who are slain in the battle will not be buried; their bodies will be left on the ground, where scavenging birds and maggots will consume their fesh.
According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980), the original Hebrew word translated “worm” in Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:47-48 means “worm, maggot, [or] larvae.”

Neither Isaiah nor Christ is talking about immortal worms. The vermin of which they speak, maggots, would not diewh ile maggots because, sustained with fesh to eat, they would live to turn into fies. The fies
would then lay eggs that hatch into more maggots (the larvae of fies), perpetuating the cycle until there is nothing left for them to consume.
This background information helps us better understand Jesus Christ’s words. In His day, when the bodies of dead animals or executed criminals were cast into the burning trash heap of Gehenna, those bodies would be destroyed by maggots, by the fires that were constantly burning there or by a combination of both. Historically a body that was not buried, but was subjected to burning, was viewed as accursed.

What does Jesus mean in Mark 9:48 when He quotes Isaiah in saying, “the fire is not quenched”? With the preceding background we can understand. He means simply that the fire will burn until the bodies of the wicked are consumed. This expression, used several times in Scripture, refers to fire that consumes entirely (Ezekiel 20:47). An unquenched fire is one that has not been extinguished. Rather, it burns itself out when it consumes everything and has no more combustible material to keep it going.

Source

That Explaination of Gehenna goes more hand in hand with what is said above about the Soul > Nephes, the sacrificion of Blood for redemption and how Paul have seen Jesus ans the ultimative redemption sacrifice.


PS. I know that you will hang to your version. It is all OK, I don't expect you or anyone to accept my view.

Since this was for me a waste of time, I will refrain from responding to your later posts. Do what you will, it is your life. I will do as I please in mine.

[Philosopher]

Makedonin,

This is probably the last time I'm going to have any discussion with you on matters of religion; it is unfruitful and a waste of time for both us; since you gave your final response, I, too, will render mine:

SHEOL, HADES, PARADISE AND GEHENNA
Dr. Robert A. Morey states, [from his book, 'Death and the Afterlife', Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Mn, 1984, p. 72-93]:

SHEOL

The Hebrew word Sheol is found 66 times in the Old Testament. While the Old Testament consistently refers to the body as going to the grave, it always refers to the soul or spirit of man as going to Sheol....
THE LEXICOGRAPHICAL MATERIAL

Brown, Driver and Briggs...A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament... define Sheol as: "the underworld... whither man descends at death" (p. 982). They trace the origin of Sheol to either sha-al, which means the spirit world to which mediums directed their questions to the departed, or sha-al, which refers to the hollow place in the earth where the souls of men went at death.

Langenscheidt's Hebrew/English Dictionary to the Old Testament (p. 337) defines Sheol as: 'netherworld, realm of the dead, Hades.' The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia in Vol. IV, p. 2761, defines Sheol as 'the unseen world, the state or abode of the dead, and is the equivalent of the Greek: Hades.'

Keil and Delitzsch state that 'Sheol denotes the place where departed souls are gathered after death; it is an infinitive form from sha-al, to demand, the demanding, applied to the place which inexorably summons all men into its shade.'

The lexicographical evidence is so clear that the great Princeton scholar, B. B. Warfield, stated that with modern Hebrew scholars, there is no 'hesitation to allow with all heartiness that Israel from the beginning of its recorded history cherished the most settled conviction of the persistence of the soul in life after death...The body is laid in the grave and the soul departs to Sheol.'

George Eldon Ladd in The New Bible Dictionary (p. 380), comments:
'In the Old Testament, man does not cease to exist at death, but his soul descends to Sheol.'

Modern scholarship understands the word Sheol to refer to the place where the soul or spirit of man goes at death. None of the lexicographical literature defines Sheol as referring to the grave or to passing into nonexistence.



SHEOL AND THE GRAVE
The KJV translates Sheol as 'hell' 31 times, 'grave' 31 times, and 'pit' three times. Because of this inconsistency of translation, [objectors to a conscious afterlife] have taught that Sheol means the grave....
[But Sheol] cannot mean the grave.
First, exegetically speaking, the initial occurrence of Sheol in the Old Testament cannot mean the grave. The word Sheol is first found in Gen 37:35. After the brothers had sold Joseph into slavery, they informed their father that Joseph had been killed and devoured by a savage beast. As Jacob held the bloodied and tattered remains of Joseph's coat in his hands, he declared:
'A wild beast has devoured him: Joseph has surely been torn to pieces.' (v. 33)
As a result of the shock of the death of Joseph, Jacob cried:
'Surely I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my son.'
(v. 35, lit. Heb.)
There are several things about this first occurrence of Sheol which should be pointed out.
1. Jacob assumed that his son was still alive and conscious after death and that he would eventually reunite with his son after his own death. The German commentator Lange comments:
'One thing is clear: [Joseph's death] was not a state of non-being....Jacob was going to be with his son; he was still his son; there was yet a tie between him and his son; he is still spoken of as a personality; he is still regarded as having a being somehow and somewhere.'
2. Whatever else Sheol may mean, in this passage it cannot mean Joseph's grave, for Jacob believed that Joseph had been devoured by an animal and had no grave. Since Joseph had no grave, it is impossible for Jacob to be referring to being buried in a common grave with his son.
3. According to the context, Jacob is clearly speaking of reuniting with his favorite son in the underworld, here called Sheol. He even speaks of 'going down' to reunite with his son, because it was assumed that Sheol was the place of departed spirits, probably a hollow place in the center of the earth.

Third, in the Septuagint, Sheol is never translated as mneema, which is the Greek word for grave. It is always translated as Hades which meant the underworld. kever is never translated as Hades just as Sheol is never translated as mneema. Fourth, kever and Sheol are never used in Hebrew poetic parallelism as equivalents. They are always contrasted and never equated. kever is the fate of the body, while Sheol is the fate of the soul...

In regard to the return of Christ and Paul's letter. 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 states:

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

"The day of Christ" was not at hand for Paul, until the "man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." He wrote to the church at Macedonia not to be afraid as if the day of Christ was near--Paul is saying it's not.

Also Paul wrote in 2 Thessaolians chapter 5:

But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.

2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

This doesn't sound like Paul knew the times and seasons of His return.

The expression "we who are alive," means the people then living, i.e. the church, and the point was that the people then living would not proceed those already dead.

Christ himself taught in Acts 2:

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

If the times and the seasons was not a knowledge God gave to his disciples, why would Paul claim to know it?

In regard to the comparison of Revelation to the blood of Abel crying out, nice try, but poor analogy.

How do you explain this: Matthew 17

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

6 And when the disciples heard [it], they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

Sure looks like Moses and Elijah were alive, though physically dead.

Gehenna is from the old testament. Christ used it as analogy for place of burning, i.e. hell.

As for the rest of your points, I feel I have already refuted you enough to last a thousand years; it would be a waste of yet more of my time.