Where was Jesus for the three days between his death and resurrection?

[Mem]

AMEN.

But If we are absent from the body now, we will be present with the Lord.
As His redeemed child.

2 Corinthians 5:8 KJV
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Yep, but not playing badminton with Saint Peter. All the faithful are in the home team dugout and letting everyone one else have their time at bat. Hopefully they don't sign on to bat for the other team because the (our) pitcher will strike them out every time. But the faithful team gets a homerun every time because we have a pinch hitter.
In the big inning!

 

[Magenta]

Psalm 92:6-7

 

[Mem]

Can it be argued that if we're "with the Lord" and the Lord is omnipresent...then are we also omnipresent?

 

[Magenta]

Proverbs 9:10 plus Matthew 10:28

 

[Cameron143]

What did you guys make of the translation of Matt 16:25?

 

[posthuman]

Matthew 12:40 - "For as [hosper - 'exactly like'] Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

The body of Jesus lay dead in the tomb during that time.

If it is exactly like Jonas, what was the state of his body for three days and three nights?

 

[posthuman]

You mean as some people do. I believe people exist after death, but not physically. Their body rots. The
spirit returns to God. They sleep, just as Jesus says, though some deny this. I have been told that "sleep"
is a metaphor for watchful, wakeful awareness. How ridiculous is that? I realize there are a gazillion nuances
in how we differ in what we believe, but when I am told things like sleep means being awake, I cannot help
thinking it just preposterous and beyond the pale. No word is used as a metaphor for its opposite meaning.

Yes, the body is dead when the spirit departs from it. our language may be insufficient - certainly our experience is - to describe what it is like for the spirit while the body is dead.

"perchance to dream"

 

[Magenta]

What did you guys make of the translation of Matt 16:25?

Plainly speaks of losing life... for those who do not submit to God. Just as do many other Scriptures which
pit life against death, not meaning the first death, since we all die that one (but not so the second).

For instance:
James 5:19-20
Proverbs 10:2b

I started a panel with those verses now...

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this:
Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

Righteousness brings deliverance from death.

So many verses speak to this, life vs death, and not the first death, but too many say the second death is not death. Do they think
God changed His mind about allowing sinners to live forever in their state of sin? That goes against what happened in the Garden.

 

[Mem]

What did you guys make of the translation of Matt 16:25?

For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

The instinct of self-preservation is inherent to all creatures and just as strong in man so it would take a lot of faith in Christ not to try and save oneself and to trust one's life to Him, but that's exactly how we find life, and the former is how we lose it.

 

[Magenta]

So much for "the soul cannot die." Scripture refutes such a position. The soul of man is not immortal
as many wish to believe, have been falsely taught, and hopelessly cling to. God alone is immortal.

 

[Cameron143]

Plainly speaks of losing life... for those who do not submit to God. Just as do many other Scriptures which
pit life against death, not meaning the first death, since we all die that one (but not so the second).

For instance:
James 5:19-20
Proverbs 10:2b

I started a panel with those verses now...

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this:
Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

Righteousness brings deliverance from death.

So many verses speak to this, life vs death, and not the first death, but too many say the second death is not death. Do they think
God changed His mind about allowing sinners to live forever in their state of sin? That goes against what happened in the Garden.

I got that understanding from the video. His understanding is to not only lose, but destroy.
My question was...does he have the individual destroying his own soul?

 

[Magenta]

I got that understanding from the video. His understanding is to not only lose, but destroy.
My question was...does he have the individual destroying his own soul?

That depends on whether or not you believe a person is responsible for the choices they make. God says they are.

There are probably other verses that say the same thing, or along the same lines.

Even for believers, such as being destroyed for a lack of knowledge, and not having because they do not ask.

The person is responsible.

PS~ I am not sure which video you mean... the second one? I have not watched either fully.

I may watch more of the second one . I sped his speech up to 1.5 .

I am not that interested in what Bart has to say. Scholars, heh.

 

[Cameron143]

That depends on whether or not you believe a person is responsible for the choices they make. God says they are.

There are probably other verses that say the same thing, or along the same lines.

Even for believers, such as being destroyed for a lack of knowledge, and not having because they do not ask.

The person is responsible.

PS~ I am not sure which video you mean... the second one? I have not watched either fully.

I may watch more of the second one . I sped his speech up to 1.5 .

I am not that interested in what Bart has to say. Scholars, heh.

I'm referring to the second video. His initial argument is that the word means destroy, as in no longer exists. His first example is Matt 10:28 I believe where Jesus says fear Him who can destroy both body and soul.
He subsequently mentions Matt 16:25 with the same word destroy being employed for lose and soul where life is used. By his reasoning, a person destroys their own soul or saves their own soul by destroying it.

 

[Magenta]

I'm referring to the second video. His initial argument is that the word means destroy, as in no longer exists. His first example is Matt 10:28 I believe where Jesus says fear Him who can destroy both body and soul.
He subsequently mentions Matt 16:25 with the same word destroy being employed for lose and soul where life is used. By his reasoning, a person destroys their own soul or saves their own soul by destroying it.

Apollumi does mean destroy utterly, or to the uttermost, but the context determines whether it is meant
literally or figuratively. The second part is easier to understand in terms of people giving up much in putting
to death the deeds of the flesh, for in so doing, they are assured their life in Christ. What do you make of it?

In that same vein, people who want to (or do) cling to their old life destroy themselves and their hope in Christ.

 

[Cameron143]

Apollumi does mean destroy utterly, or to the uttermost, but the context determines whether it is meant
literally or figuratively. The second part is easier to understand in terms of people giving up much in putting
to death the deeds of the flesh, for in so doing, they are assured their life in Christ. What do you make of it?

In that same vein, people who want to (or do) cling to their old life destroy themselves and their hope in Christ.

My point is, in one case it must mean one thing. In another something else.
Another equally sincere person could say we should let the Bible define itself. Thus, if it need be mean one thing in this case, it is defining how it is used in the other.

 

[Mem]

My point is, in one case it must mean one thing. In another something else.
Another equally sincere person could say we should let the Bible define itself. Thus, if it need be mean one thing in this case, it is defining how it is used in the other.

Referring back to my baseball of life analogy where everybody gets a chance at bat where each has a choice between having Jesus, the merciful Player, go to bat for them (grace) or to have Jesus, the just Player, pitch to them (the law). Do you see how either choice would affect the outcome of each individual? One choice will find himself a loser, destroyed, at the end of the game and the other will find that he is a winner, triumphant.

Peter took Jesus aside and said, "Lord, this should not happen to you..." after Jesus got done telling them He would die and be raised again. As if Jesus needed instruction that there was no need for Him to do all that. Did Peter have a 'better' way in mind?

 

[Cameron143]

Referring back to my baseball of life analogy where everybody gets a chance at bat where each has a choice between having Jesus, the merciful Player, go to bat for them (grace) or to have Jesus, the just Player, pitch to them (the law). Do you see how either choice would affect the outcome of each individual? One choice will find himself a loser, destroyed, at the end of the game and the other will find that he is a winner, triumphant.

Peter took Jesus aside and said, "Lord, this should not happen to you..." after Jesus got done telling them He would die and be raised again. As if Jesus needed instruction that there was no need for Him to do all that. Did Peter have a 'better' way in mind?

I like baseball and I like analogies, but I'm not making the connection. Sorry.

 

[Mem]

I like baseball and I like analogies, but I'm not making the connection. Sorry.

The Pitcher strikes out the player that wanted take a go at His pitches, even after hearing of, or even seeing for himself, the Pitchers stats as a perfect pitcher, and even when he also had the choice, with the stats given as a perfect hitter, of having Him as a pinch hitter. Who then is held responsible provided these options were given before he/she goes up to the plate?

 

[Cameron143]

The Pitcher strikes out the player that wanted take a go at His pitches, even after hearing of, or even seeing for himself, the Pitchers stats as a perfect pitcher, and even when he also had the choice, with the stats given as a perfect hitter, of having Him as a pinch hitter. Who then is held responsible provided these options were given before he/she goes up to the plate?

Sorry I need the Crayola version. How does that relate to the same terms being used to mean different things in different scriptures?

 

[Mem]

Sorry I need the Crayola version. How does that relate to the same terms being used to mean different things in different scriptures?

I'll just leave the topic with that destroys and destroyed are the same terms but not the same tense.