Posted on 03/21/2011 10:34:29 AM PDT by count-your-change
It’s the Limbo of the Fathers, and those are indeed demons, working the suburbs of Hell.
And one is getting mashed by the door - I’m sure he had it coming.
Peter at Acts 2:32 said God resurrected Jesus but if you feel this thread to be a waste of your time there are lots of other threads.
One primary lesson from Christ is that He did nothing for Himself, but only in obedience to the Will of the Father. When He sought to perform work, He performed this through God the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the hypostatic union provides outstanding guidance on how every believer is to remain faithful through Him, humble before God.
But they are one and the same, or at least the divine part of Jesus is the same as God. In other words, God took on a human role, but He retained His divine nature. So if God raised Jesus from the dead, He was really just raising His own human body. But His divine consciousness was always involved. To imply that God raised Jesus' soul from the dead is absurd. It was never dead, and there is no difference between the divinity of Christ and God.
And I didn't mean that the thread was a waste of time, just that speculating on these things is just that--speculation.
If you look at 6c, there's a pretty strong correspondence with Psalm 30, one of the Psalms where David speaks about Sheol the same way that Jonah does. David does the same thing in other Psalms that Jonah didn't quote, like Psalm 116:3, and Psalm 86:13. So, unless all of the Psalms with that kind of language are prophetic, or David really did go to Sheol, I think it's poetic language. You can see the same kind of thing in the New Testament, such as when Paul refers to people who are "dead in sin".
Also, in the NT, in Matthew 12:40, Jesus says that as Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days, so he would be in the heart of the earth for 3 days. Now, if Jonah had died in the fish, he would have gone to Sheol just like Jesus, and surely Jesus would have known that. Instead, Jesus is both comparing and contrasting their situations, showing how Jonah was a type prefiguring Christ, but like all types was different and lesser than the antitype that would follow.
It's an absolute giveaway.
Why is it such a big deal to admit to the world that you're a Jehovah's Witness?
I have no trouble admitting my religion; I'm Catholic.
You're a Jehovah's Witness, right?
You don't believe in the divinity of Jesus nor the Trinity.
Do you?
To you and I maybe but not to our friend.
He's a Jehovah's Witness.
They don't believe that Jesus is God.
You are correct - I was careless. I definitely meant to say that the comma should go after the word “today.” And I most definitely disagree with your analysis based on the following:
Deuteronomy 4:39
Deuteronomy 7:11
Deuteronomy 8:1
Deuteronomy 8:19
Deuteronomy 10:13
Deuteronomy 11:26
Deuteronomy 15:15
and
Acts 20:26
Acts 26:2
The Hebrew idiom indicates this is the manner in which a Hebrew intended to convey the fact that something which was about to be said was going to be very solemn or serious. I trust you are as familiar with the Hebrew as you seem to be with the Greek. I am familiar with both. I stand by my position. Yours, however, now seems to be somewhat rather weaker.
Do not badger another poster to answer your question.
Then you take this passage to be an acutal historical narrative, given to us by Christ, to let us have a glimpse of what the afterlife is like? Wow, He gave this to His most hated enemies in the context of a situation that actually began in the 14th chapter? May I perhaps suggest a few inconsistencies with such a postion?
Why was Abraham on the good side of the gulf and not with the rich man on the bad side? You do recall that Abraham was exceedingly wealthy? It appears the only thing that the rich man was guilty of was his being exceedingly rich. Did Jesus lay any specific charges against the rich man? If so, what were they?
What was there about Lazarus that Jesus praised? Was he an especially holy man? It seems to me that Lazarus represents what’s wrong with those of the “hand out, entitlement” crowd. He in my opinion was a “victicrat” always blaming everyone else for his misfortunes. “The rich man is keeping me down, man.” Well, then, why did he stay at his gate hoping to be fed by the crumbs from his table? I believe King David would not have had a fond estimation of Lazarus. Didn’t David say that he was young and he was old, but he never saw the righteous begging bread? Ergo, Lazarus was not righteous in my opinion.
It is very unfortunate that many people believe the same as you that this passage represents what happens in the afterlife. I believe this is the most exquisite example of satire ever to be found in all of literature. He was lashing His enemies with their own words. He put their hypocritical teachings into words and lashed them as if with a whip of scorpions barbs. And it got through to them. Read their reactions to His words. Ouch!
There is so much more to this story, this satire. For example, the great gulf that existed in the land of Palestine between the rulers of the Jews and the common people. No one ever crossed from one side to the other. But, that’s a whole different story concerning the political and social and economic conditions existing in the land at that time under the Roman occupation
You make good points.
From the perspective of what is going to matter in eternity, I prefer focusing on that truth rather than on debating where he was for the prior three days.
AWESOME!
A questioned answered. Thank you for this post. Appreciate your explanation for coma placement with word “today”.
It was driving me nuts
Oh look, a Jehovah’s Witness thread!
There is always another religion on here to bash, isn’t there?
Must be Mormon haters night off. And let’s not forget the Catholic haters either.
What belief system is allowed that won’t be ridiculed?
What ever happened to actual discussion?
Nice monument to the Sola Scriptura, that.
The JW’s rewrote Scripture so that it works better for them.
The main point of this article is that in “amen I say to thee, today thou shalt be with me in paradise” the comma should be in a different place.
Silly as the phrase would sound, the argument can’t be made form the scripture alone since there are no commas anywhere in the original, one way or another.
That no one in the early Church understood the passage in the Jehova’s Witnesses’ way is not an argument penetrating their heads.
Funny that the rest of the Protestant sects don’t own this embarrassment.
Right...tell me something. What grammatical rule allowed the Watchtower to remove the comma? One has to assume that it wasn't done willy-nilly, that heavy textual and hermeneutical reasons underlied that change.
Let's have them!
-Theo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.