Can deity die?

[john832]

Without scholarship, you and I would never be able to read this book. They are the ones who put the Greek text into language we can read and comprehend. I can read the Greek but, I would never be skilled enough to translate the text into another language. This takes real scholarship.

There is a vast difference between translating the text and UNDERSTANDING the text. The former comes about from education, the latter comes about by calling and a divine miracle that opens one's mind to the truth.

 

[cjordan38]

uh...power to witness is the same thing as ministering. We all have the ministry of sharing the gospel. The ministry of reconciliation.

Act 1:8
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
later peoples!

You were wording it like everyone has an obligation to go out and be a preacher thats why I said what I said

 

[john832]

Did the thief eventually died ?

When was He resurected ? or was he resurected at all ?

Not yet...

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

When do the dead rise? At the trump of God, the last trump...

1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

But, are the dead already there?

Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Heb 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

They have not received the promise and will not be without us. Dead first and then immediately the living are changed.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

The root of this question is how does one understand what the kingdom is. Since Jesus responded to the thief's request concerning the kingdom by saying "Today you will be with me in Paradise," this tells us there is something about the state of Paradise that is connected with his kingdom. The reason most people do not understand the connection is because they do not understand the biblical concept of the kingdom. When the fundamental principles of one theology and eschatology are flawed this creates difficulties in their application and harmony of scripture.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body I cannot tell; or whether out of the body I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Paradise here is referred to as the "third heaven".

Rev. 2:7 He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Here it goes back and refers to the "tree of life" which is in the garden of Eden. Ummmm - wonder if when "paradise" is used; it is talking about the "new heaven and new earth"? That was the promise made to the thief - he would be in paradise and since the "new heaven and new earth" are future then he is promised a place there. . . .

 

[oldhermit]

The subject in hand has nothing to do with ones credentials. Scholars at times can be biased based on personal beliefs.

Then let me recommend that you present the question of Luke 23:43 to those Greek scholars who are atheists and have no religious ax to grind or theological agenda to put forward. The only thing they are interested in is their reputation as linguistic scholars. Their only agenda is to get it right grammatically. You will find such scholarship on the B-Greek website. The only thing that will keep you from doing that is your fear of exposure.

The Emphasized Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham "...Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise..."
The Concordant Literal New Testament renders it: "...And Jesus said to him, 'Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise...'"
2001 Translation – An American English Bible: "...And [Jesus] replied, `I tell you this today; you will be with me in Paradise....'

These are wrong!

And the footnote for Luke 23:43 in Lamsa's translation admits: "...Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today...."

Then why is this principle never followed anywhere in the NT where the same grammatical structure is found? Why is this insisted upon only in this text?

Yes I know also yes I understand what Hades means, and I understand lots of people think Lazarus parable was literal, if this was the place Jesus was referring to in luke 23:43 could you show me a scripture which then links both the Paradise of Luke 23:43 and that of the Bibles Hades/Hell being the same place please. By doing so is the only way your teaching holds together, from what I know there's no verse that show such a thing, so don't know how you came up with the thought. Many thanks

Son, all you are doing is wasting my time. You have NO understand of the Greek nor do have any regard for the integrity of the grammatical structure of the text. You need to go back the Watchtower you love.

 

[john832]

Then let me recommend that you present the question of Luke 23:43 to those Greek scholars who are atheists and have no religious ax to grind or theological agenda to put forward. The only thing they are interested in is their reputation as linguistic scholars. Their only agenda is to get it right grammatically. You will find such scholarship on the B-Greek website. The only thing that will keep you from doing that is your fear of exposure.

No thanks. I prefer NOT to put my understanding and my future in the hands of unconverted atheists if it is all the same with you.

 

[oldhermit]

There is a vast difference between translating the text and UNDERSTANDING the text. The former comes about from education, the latter comes about by calling and a divine miracle that opens one's mind to the truth.

I understand that John but, you cannot manipulate any text to make it fit you theology. You have to allow the grammatical structure of the text to guide your theology. Any time one has the manipulate the language or syntax of the text to make it fit their theology it is because the plain simple language of the text does not support that theology. It is not the text that needs to change, it is the theology.

 

[oldhermit]

No thanks. I prefer NOT to put my understanding and my future in the hands of unconverted atheists if it is all the same with you.

I like you John but, I think this is just an excuse because you do not want to put this question to the test among those qualified to render a linguistic verdict. You do not want to be wrong.

 

[oldhermit]

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body I cannot tell; or whether out of the body I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Paradise here is referred to as the "third heaven".

Rev. 2:7 He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Here it goes back and refers to the "tree of life" which is in the garden of Eden. Ummmm - wonder if when "paradise" is used; it is talking about the "new heaven and new earth"? That was the promise made to the thief - he would be in paradise and since the "new heaven and new earth" are future then he is promised a place there. . . .

How do you think this passage overturns Jesus statement to the thief?

 

[peacefulbeliever]

This is all based on speculation. If one assumes he did not go to paradise. then you would be right.

But we should not base our theology on assumptions..

Again, For Jesus to say today, meaning I am telling you today. Not that literally today. Would make no sense. He would be adding a word which

1. Would cause confusion (as we see proved here)
2. Does not add to anything he said (he could have plainly left the word today out)

now for a flawed person like me, adding words which do not need to be added, I can see it. But for the son of man himself to do this. I can not see it.

How in the world is it an assumption that Jesus nor the thief went to paradise that day? Scripture is plain - Jesus had to spend three days in the ground, etc.

I didn't say that Jesus was not speaking to him "to day" (that day) - he was and did - "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom"; - IOW - The thief asked to be with him when he came into his kingdom which must refer to "paradise" because of how Jesus answered - I promise you today, that you will be with me in paradise.

Where the comma is placed is causing the confusion. I'm sorry but I don't see a word added?

Oh well. . . .we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I understand that John but, you cannot manipulate any text to make it fit you theology. You have to allow the grammatical structure of the text to guide your theology. Any time one has the manipulate the language or syntax of the text to make it fit their theology it is because the plain simple language of the text does not support that theology. It is not the text that needs to change, it is the theology.

It goes with grammer.

The literal translation is or should be "on this day"

It is not in the noun form. Thus it is not the subject of the verb, Thus he is not saying, I tell you (verb) today (subject of the verb)

It is in its adverbial form. Meaning it is explaining the subject noun (paradise)

On this day (adverb)

you will be (eimi, also in verb form, thus literally translate you will exist, or be)

with me in paradise (subject of the verbs today you will exist)

Thus it can ONLY be translated this way

 

[eternally-gratefull]

How in the world is it an assumption that Jesus nor the thief went to paradise that day? Scripture is plain - Jesus had to spend three days in the ground, etc.

It is an assumption because you assume that while his body was in the ground, He was alseep, or his soul or spirit had no consciousness. Sorry, there is no proof of this

I didn't say that Jesus was not speaking to him "to day" (that day) - he was and did - "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom"; - IOW - The thief asked to be with him when he came into his kingdom which must refer to "paradise" because of how Jesus answered - I promise you today, that you will be with me in paradise.

Where the comma is placed is causing the confusion. I'm sorry but I don't see a word added?

Oh well. . . .we will just have to agree to disagree.

Which part of the kingdom?

John said the kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus said he came to bring the kingdom. The kingdom of God is today, It started when he said "It is finished"

 

[NWL]

Then let me recommend that you present the question of Luke 23:43 to those Greek scholars who are atheists and have no religious ax to grind or theological agenda to put forward. The only thing they are interested in is their reputation as linguistic scholars. Their only agenda is to get it right grammatically. You will find such scholarship on the B-Greek website. The only thing that will keep you from doing that is your fear of exposure.

These are wrong!

So at one end your saying I'm wrong since Bible translators render the verse with the comma before and then when I show you scholars who've translated my way you simply say I'm wrong? That's kind of one sided isn't it, who's being biased now.

As John said, in that field scholars will not admit things or even think twice about something because of reproach it might bring to their name, much like when a scientist believe's in God it worsens their reputation in the field of science, in the field of biblical linguistics scholars won't speak truthfully to simply keep their reputation, all men are imperfect.

Then why is this principle never followed anywhere in the NT where the same grammatical structure is found? Why is this insisted upon only in this text?

Because context never contradicts it, context it key my friend everyday phrases do not have to be excatly the same, this was true in Jesus day to.

Son, all you are doing is wasting my time. You have NO understand of the Greek nor do have any regard for the integrity of the grammatical structure of the text. You need to go back the Watchtower you love.

I do know a bit of Greek, enough to get me by, it would be foolish of me to claim the things I do if I had no understanding of the things I say would I now. Also forgive me if you think I'm wasting your time, I truly believe myself to be a Bible Student, if you honestly think what your claiming is a bible "truth" then please show me the two verse I asked for which show paradise is the same place as Hell.

The truth of the matter is there is no such scripture, I believe you aren't humble enough to accept that fact but will probably run and keep saying I'm trying to waste your time, when I'm truly not trying to.

So please if you able to show me.

 

[john832]

I like you John but, I think this is just an excuse because you do not want to put this question to the test among those qualified to render a linguistic verdict. You do not want to be wrong.

Think what you will, I have been wrong on much and have corrected my view more often than I can count. I just do not trust my theology to atheistic "scholars".

Here is the source of understanding...

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

[hopesprings]

Uh, who do you suppose was still in heaven? The Father...

except Jesus said he would raise himself from the dead. now how is that possible if he was completely non-existent/unconscious in the grave?
a non-existent/unconscious person cannot will or think or do anything, can they? they are...what's that...non-existent.

 

[hopesprings]

How in the world is it an assumption that Jesus nor the thief went to paradise that day? Scripture is plain - Jesus had to spend three days in the ground, etc.

I didn't say that Jesus was not speaking to him "to day" (that day) - he was and did - "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom"; - IOW - The thief asked to be with him when he came into his kingdom which must refer to "paradise" because of how Jesus answered - I promise you today, that you will be with me in paradise.

Where the comma is placed is causing the confusion. I'm sorry but I don't see a word added?

Oh well. . . .we will just have to agree to disagree.

so God was dead in the ground for three days?
that makes a lot of sense

i thought Jesus was in the grave just like Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days?
was Jonah dead in the belly of the whale?

 

[oldhermit]

Think what you will, I have been wrong on much and have corrected my view more often than I can count. I just do not trust my theology to atheistic "scholars".

Then at least trust it to the unmanipulated grammar of the text. Trust in that!

Here is the source of understanding..
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Spirit NEVER defies the language of the text. After all He is the one who inspired it. He des not set himself against it.

 

[iamsoandso]

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body I cannot tell; or whether out of the body I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Paradise here is referred to as the "third heaven".

Rev. 2:7 He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Here it goes back and refers to the "tree of life" which is in the garden of Eden. Ummmm - wonder if when "paradise" is used; it is talking about the "new heaven and new earth"? That was the promise made to the thief - he would be in paradise and since the "new heaven and new earth" are future then he is promised a place there. . . .

yes pardes gan "garden of Eden",,and then translated to paradise in the n.t..,,,,,,In (gen.2;8) the man he formed from the dust he placed in "pardes gan/garden of Eden",,,then the woman was made on the 7th day in the garden of Eden (gen.2;22) then they ate the fruit and were driven out of "paradise,pardes gan"(gen. 3;23-24),,back into the earth.

 

[notuptome]

so God was dead in the ground for three days?
that makes a lot of sense

i thought Jesus was in the grave just like Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days?
was Jonah dead in the belly of the whale?

If Jesus is God and He is then He can and must be in both places at the same time. God's habitation is eternity as in all of eternity all the time, past and future without end.

Surely Jonah was dead and God gave him life again. The hard headed little Jew still was angry that God spared Nineveh.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[oldhermit]

So at one end your saying I'm wrong since Bible translators render the verse with the comma before and then when I show you scholars who've translated my way you simply say I'm wrong? That's kind of one sided isn't it, who's being biased now.

Are these the same witless scholars who insist upon putting the indefinite article before theos in the last clause of John 1:1 or the same ones who translate Theos in Heb. 1:8 as the subject rather than a predicate? If this is the kind of scholarship on which you are relying, you definitely need to trade up.

I do know a bit of Greek, enough to get me by, it would be foolish of me to claim the things I do if I had no understanding of the things I say would I now. Also forgive me if you think I'm wasting your time, I truly believe myself to be a Bible Student, if you honestly think what your claiming is a bible "truth" then please show me the two verse I asked for which show paradise is the same place as Hell.

Then this means you are without excuse because you should know better.

The truth of the matter is there is no such scripture, I believe you aren't humble enough to accept that fact but will probably run and keep saying I'm trying to waste your time, when I'm truly not trying to. So please if you able to show me.

If you knew any Greek at all you should know that Hell or lake of fire and Hades are not from the same word and do not refer to the same place. Look at Rev. 20:14.