Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

Do you believe "hell [/hades]" is where the unsaved who die are presently, PRIOR TO when they will be "cast into the lake of fire" at the GWTj (Rev20:11-15), per the following:


Rev 20:13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell [/hades] delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.


Rev 20:14
And death and hell [/hades] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.




It seems the one precedes the other, no?

when you refer to “abrahams spiritual seed” what do you consider that to be? many believers refer to “spiritual israel” of which they believe to be anybody at all on the face of the planet.

Here is your problem.

In revelation I agree. the revelation concerns jesu

But in romans 3. The verb points to the "Righteousness of Christ" not Christ himself.

It reads, even the righteousness of Christ, THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS

The faith in Christ is what grants us the righteousness of Christ.

Not the faith of Christ.

Christ had his faith 2000 years ago when he in faith endured the cross. That does not give us his righteousness.

We are made righteous by our trust in him.

So sometimes we just have to dig a little deeper..

I believe they are in hades.

I believer the lake of fire is hell.

rev 20: 13 and 14 should say Hades not hell.

Hell comes from the word geena or gahenna

Matthew 5:29

If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Hades comes from the greek word ho hades

13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second [d]death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

If you want to use the KJV, feel free.. But you need to dig deeper into it. Because it has some error in it. as all bibles translated in english do

i agree completely. i feel like we are of a generation where everything has been hidden from us and when you consider that we are 2,000 years seperated from the ministry of christ, we have to be diligent in our study. the church frowns on the idea of studying anything outside of the 66 books we have been given and when you talk with believers and reference outside of scripture they immediately refute that information even if it upholds scripture. many times it is these ancient writings that clarify scripture and they should be considered until they disagree with the scripture. at any rate, many of our brethren are standing in the dark because of fear mongering and subversion from the pulpits

These Jews that Joshua led to the Promised Land are confirmed that "They Chose" God to serve over all other choices.
22 And Joshua said unto the people: 'Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve Him.--And they said: 'We are witnesses.'--

Do you believe those in this thread participating are mere "babes" in Christ? I can agree they might still be only drinking milk and haven't reached the stage of eating meat. But I doubt there's new people to the faith in this conversation. Which is why I gave that answer.

I just used that as a general thing. As for there being babes in here. I believe there are some in this chat room who have not even been born again yet. So we must be careful how we phrase things.

But thank you for showing I misunderstood you.. It is always good to understand what others are thinking

I have seen preachers use dictionary's, quotes from ancient Greek writers, ancient Roman writers, Josephus, Didache, etc and then balk at the idea of the oral tradition of Enoch, Jasher and others like Church Fathers. Just tell them what they are, hypocrites. It's interesting when you point it out how quick they become silenced.

Well said brother.
J.

Except you seem to have missed my point here.

What I'm pointing out about the Rev1:1's "OF Jesus Christ" genitive, is that the genitive could either be taken as a subjective genitive or an objective genitive (and I'd said "context" often helps the reader determine which one).

So where you say, "I agree. the revelation CONCERNS [/is ABOUT] Jesus," you may have missed what I was pointing out,

because, although the book IS INDEED *about / concerning* Him, THIS SENTENCE (as it is situated with its surrounding words) isn't merely stating the "revelation [is] ABOUT Jesus Christ," but that this "revelation of Jesus Christ" IS COMING FROM HIS OWN MOUTH (so to speak)... iow, what HE IS SAYING (HIS revelation, to be recorded in that book, etc...).



That's the distinction between a subjective genitive and an objective genitive that the reader often has to ascertain by means of the context (surrounding words and so forth).


Many people read the text of Rev1:1 the way *you* are taking it.

Personally, I believe they are mistaken, but should instead understand it the other way (the way I'm trying to show). So, no... you and I don't seem to "agree" on what that sentence is expressing (it's fine, this is not a complaint / criticism), and I'm just trying to point out the grammatical reasons WHY (why there is even a difference between the TWO DISTINCT interpretations of what v.1 is expressing. It's either a subjective genitive or an objective genitive... but it's a genitive ['OF' Jesus Christ] either way. lol. But having TWO ENTIRELY DISTINCCT ways of reading its intention / meaning / what it's actually intending to convey, see.)


It's like the phrase "love of God"... depending in context, this could be "your love for God," or it could be "God's love" (it's genitive in both cases, so one must ascertain by means of the context which one is intended).


Please DO NOT think I am agreeing with "rogerg's" explanation of this. I'M NOT SAYING WHAT HE IS SAYING!


(I think rogerg joins two distinct parts of distinct clauses [that shouldn't be], and then reads them as though "that [what rg thinks it says] IS THE INTENDED MEANING," whereas it is not. He has simply butchered the sentence. Sometimes we all do this, so I'm not trying to slam him; just trying to point out to you that if you think I'm AGREEING with his explanation and am saying the SAME THING AS HE is, I want to be clear that I am NOT saying that!)



Well, I wasn't taking about "the faith OF Christ [genitive]" as you are defining it in the bold/underlined part.

That's why I brought up Rev1:1 and the TWO DISTINCT WAYS that that genitive could be read (but "context" there tells us WHICH: whether a subjective genitive or an objective genitive; your view or choice [which is a common view] is DIFFERENT from my view regarding v.1, as I do not believe the sentence is just saying "the revelation ABOUT / CONCERNING Jesus Christ," but more like "the revelation of Jesus Christ [COMING FROM HIM / OUT OF HIS MOUTH / HE'S GETTING READY TO SPELL OUT THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THAT BOOK] which God GAVE TO HIM [/unto Jesus] TO SHOW UNTO..." (where it is HE/JESUS that is DISCLOSING the information in it, rather than just being "ABOUT Him" (though the book is indeed about Him also, but THIS SENTENCE isn't expressing that, per the surrounding words of the context of THAT SENTENCE, in particular... v.1)

Again, I am not making the point that rogerg is making.

I hope you've been able to tell that from all of the posts I made to rogerg thus far in this thread.

(I acknowledge it's not always easy to keep track of what member/poster has said which. I get that.)

Which is what I'm asking you to do.

I'm not suggesting we should agree with rogerg's take on it

(I DISAGREE with him, and it's not my point in these recent posts TO SAY that I DO. I do not.)

I am making a point about the grammar, and how the genitive (being the phrase 'of Jesus Christ') can be considered two ways... context often aiding to determine which is the correct one. It doesn't necessarily have to mean "Christ had his faith" (THAT kind / meaning) the way you have expressed it, above. But something else.

Yes, your analysis of Revelation 1:1's genitive construction ("of Jesus Christ") is accurate. A genitive construction can function in multiple ways, depending on the context. In this case, the genitive construction "of Jesus Christ" can be interpreted as either a subjective genitive or an objective genitive.

A subjective genitive typically indicates possession or origin. In this sense, "of Jesus Christ" would indicate that the revelation is coming from Jesus Christ or is related to Jesus Christ in some way.

An example of a subjective genitive would be "John's house," indicating that the house belongs to John.
On the other hand, an objective genitive typically functions as an adjectival genitive, modifying a noun and providing further description or specification.

In this sense, "of Jesus Christ" would specify the type of revelation being discussed – namely, a revelation pertaining to Jesus Christ. An example of an objective genitive would be "the city council meeting," where "city council" is functioning as an adjective describing the type of meeting taking place.
As you noted, context plays a critical role in determining the appropriate interpretation of a genitive construction.

In the case of Revelation 1:1, the context suggests that the revelation is closely tied to Jesus Christ, likely favoring an interpretation of the genitive as subjective. However, readers should always examine the context carefully to ensure that they arrive at the most accurate interpretation possible.
J.

Who is Roger?

I personally do not think it matters.

God inspired the whole word.. While Jesus did state some of the things of revelation. Much of it concerns him.. So if anything, Both cases would be true (Revelation is inspired by God, and is about Christ)

but this still does not solve rom 3


I am not sure what Rogerg is saying, I do not really believe anything he says.

No sure hy you keep being rogerg up.. I am discussing what you have said. not what Rogerg is saying

I am making a point about the grammar, and how the genitive (being the phrase 'of Jesus Christ') can be considered two ways... context often aiding to determine which is the correct one. It doesn't necessarily have to mean "Christ had his faith" (THAT kind / meaning) the way you have expressed it, above. But something else.[/QUOTE]

The point is, We were not given the righteousness of Christ based on the faith OF Christ. But based on faith IN the work of Christ on the cross.

which is what people are saying

I totally disagree with the KJV rendering "of". All it does is as we can see here, add confusion.

The point is, We were not given the righteousness of Christ based on the faith OF Christ. But based on faith IN the work of Christ on the cross.

which is what people are saying

I totally disagree with the KJV rendering "of". All it does is as we can see here, add confusion.[/QUOTE]
No problem-read the ESV.
J.

No problem-read the ESV.
J.[/QUOTE]
I actually read the NKJV, which has corrected the error. But as I said, I do not trust any english interpretation completely..

I actually read the NKJV, which has corrected the error. But as I said, I do not trust any english interpretation completely..[/QUOTE]
The phrase "faith of Christ" has been the subject of much debate among New Testament theologians. The phrase appears in several passages in the New Testament, including Galatians 2:16, Philippians 3:9, and Romans 3:22.

The debate centers around whether the phrase should be translated as "faith in Christ" or "faithfulness of Christ." The Greek phrase "pistis Christou" is ambiguous and can be translated either way.

Those who argue for "faith in Christ" believe that the phrase refers to the believer's faith in Christ, while those who argue for "faithfulness of Christ" believe that it refers to Christ's own faithfulness. The debate transcends denominational categories and theological camps, and there is no clear consensus on the matter. Ultimately, the interpretation of the phrase depends on the context in which it appears and the theological framework of the interpreter.

No problem with the NKJV-

The New King James Version (NKJV) and the King James Version (KJV) are both highly respected translations of the Bible, but they differ in certain aspects. The NKJV was published in 1979 and aims to maintain the literary style of the KJV while improving readability and incorporating newer manuscript discoveries. Some key points regarding the NKJV compared to the KJV include:
Translation philosophy: The NKJV follows a complete equivalence approach, whereas the KJV tends toward a thought-for-think approach

Textual basis: The NKJV includes the Alexandrian manuscripts, while the KJV exclusively relied on the Textus Receptus

Readability: The NKJV is considered easier to read due to its updated vocabulary and phrasing

Accuracy: Both translations strive for accuracy, but the NKJV is sometimes considered more precise in rendering certain Greek words and phrases

Ultimately, the choice between the NKJV and the KJV comes down to individual preference, readership needs, and theological convictions. Neither translation is inherently inferior to the other, although some
individuals may find one more suitable for their purposes than the other.
It is important to note that the reliability of the Bible does not depend on the particular translation chosen. All reputable translations aim to convey the original meaning of the biblical texts as accurately as possible. Therefore, choosing between the NKJV and the KJV should not affect one's understanding of the Christian faith or the authority of the Bible.
J.

I'm not "kjv only" (if you perhaps thought so??) Just to be clear. = )



I'm often found perusing all of the versions, such as here (many, there): https://biblehub.com/parallel/revelation/20-13.htm , lol

But what I like to try to always do is look at the Greek.



But my point was (in that post), that any given individual using the word "hell" MAY not have *intended* it in the way your ears *heard* it (or thought they'd meant); they could have meant it in the way that Rev20:13 uses the word in some translations (the kjv, for one).
Just sayin'. Sometimes asking, can clarify their [that person's] intended meaning.

The phrase "faith of Christ" has been the subject of much debate among New Testament theologians. The phrase appears in several passages in the New Testament, including Galatians 2:16, Philippians 3:9, and Romans 3:22.

The debate centers around whether the phrase should be translated as "faith in Christ" or "faithfulness of Christ." The Greek phrase "pistis Christou" is ambiguous and can be translated either way.

Those who argue for "faith in Christ" believe that the phrase refers to the believer's faith in Christ, while those who argue for "faithfulness of Christ" believe that it refers to Christ's own faithfulness. The debate transcends denominational categories and theological camps, and there is no clear consensus on the matter. Ultimately, the interpretation of the phrase depends on the context in which it appears and the theological framework of the interpreter.

No problem with the NKJV-

The New King James Version (NKJV) and the King James Version (KJV) are both highly respected translations of the Bible, but they differ in certain aspects. The NKJV was published in 1979 and aims to maintain the literary style of the KJV while improving readability and incorporating newer manuscript discoveries. Some key points regarding the NKJV compared to the KJV include:
Translation philosophy: The NKJV follows a complete equivalence approach, whereas the KJV tends toward a thought-for-think approach

Textual basis: The NKJV includes the Alexandrian manuscripts, while the KJV exclusively relied on the Textus Receptus

Readability: The NKJV is considered easier to read due to its updated vocabulary and phrasing

Accuracy: Both translations strive for accuracy, but the NKJV is sometimes considered more precise in rendering certain Greek words and phrases

Ultimately, the choice between the NKJV and the KJV comes down to individual preference, readership needs, and theological convictions. Neither translation is inherently inferior to the other, although some
individuals may find one more suitable for their purposes than the other.
It is important to note that the reliability of the Bible does not depend on the particular translation chosen. All reputable translations aim to convey the original meaning of the biblical texts as accurately as possible. Therefore, choosing between the NKJV and the KJV should not affect one's understanding of the Christian faith or the authority of the Bible.
J.[/QUOTE]
I read the NKJV because My dad gave me a NKJV study bible when I was 17, It replaced my KJV that I used as a kid. And because when I read anything else. it appears odd to me.

Again, Whether we translate it the faith of Christ or the faithfulness of Christ. it does not make sense.

Lets look at the passage

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by "faith in Jesus Christ", "faith of Jesus Christ", or "the faithfulness of Christ" for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

1. Notice in vs 26, Him that believe is translated that way in both the KJV and NKJV
2. The subject of the whole passage is the righteousness of Christ
3. Vs 22 says this subject is given through faith to those who believe
4. Vs 24 says we are justified freely through grace
A. we see in Romans 3 and 5. Gal 2 and 3, says we are justified by (through) faith
B. Eph 2 says we are saved by this same grace, again through faith.
5. so when we look at all the evidence. faithfulness of Christ and faith of Christ do not fit. it does not fit the context. nor what is being said. so to attempt to use either of these two possible interpretation would be faulty

So lets confuse the world.. because a word was mistranslated?

thats all I am saying.

If someone questions me about it, I would say the same thing.. Look up the word as origionally written.. to see what is said.