Topic: The Religion Thread

[Dilbert7]

I did not simplify.  I clarified.

As by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.  What was the condemnation?  Death.  What kind of death?  The 1st death.  That is why all men are condemned to die the 1st death.  Not all men are condemned to die the 2nd death, because only the unrighteous will die the 2nd death.    

--> Romans 5:18  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;

Romans  8:1  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

All are under condemnation! if you don’t think condemnation referred to the 2nd death, I do not know why do you need Christ for? Since you will still die (the 1st death – barrister condemnation version) anyway!

Condemnation (2nd death being the ultimate) is inherent in every man – inherited by humans from the being contaminated by Adam.

I know JW group did not believe this part. To them, man’s (1st) death is the end of it all.

I did not simplify.  I clarified.

As by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.  What was the condemnation?  Death.  What kind of death?  The 1st death.  That is why all men are condemned to die the 1st death.  Not all men are condemned to die the 2nd death, because only the unrighteous will die the 2nd death.    

All related verses convey that message.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned — ...14 Nevertheless, 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 is a pattern of the one to come. (Rom. 5:12; 14)

This is about physical death.  

Verse 12 says death through Adam.  Verse 14 says death reigned from Adam to Moses.  But Moses will not die the 2nd death, because he was righteous.  Therefore, what death reigned over Moses and reigns over all of us?  The 1st death.

Verse 14 says death reigned "even over those who did not sin by breaking a command."  This clearly refers to the 1st death, since all of us will die the 1st death even if we do not sin.  It cannot refer to the 2nd death, because the 2nd death does not reign over the righteous.

Now, where is your verse?

 

Again, the 1st death is part of the total package of CONDEMNATION of God – but is not the all of it (which you are fond of insisting). Otherwise, What is the sense of Jesus dying to take away that condemnation if condemnation only refer to 1st  death (See above Romans 5:18 and Romans 8:1)

And did you wonder Why Moses will not taste the 2nd death? Is it because he was righteous? Read Romans 8:1 again!

In likeness and in form means that Jesus has the same human body as we do, but is still different from us.  Because in us is the spirit of man, not the fullness of Godhead.  

A sacrificial lamb free from defect simply means hindi pilay, hindi bulag, walang disease, walang spots, etc., but they were not special lambs from heaven.  They were ordinary mortal lambs.  This is just a symbol that represents the absence of sin in the coming Messiah, who will be the new sacrificial lamb of God.  

I will not engage you anymore in this topic – we have different religious perception. But I will offer the readers some perspective on this matter. Again, this is for the readers:

The following materials will tell you that Barrister position and my position seems to be debated upon long ago. See resources below (you may read the totality, but I extracted my take on the topic):

SOURCE 1: http://www.biblebanner.com/ga_art/emoore1.htm

“He took upon himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7)

The divine Word became flesh, but that flesh was not weak and liable to the same weaknesses and lusts that ordinary men develop (Heb. 4:15).

The full discourse is about refuting a teacher (Elmer Moore) equating Jesus humanity with that of man’s humanity (descendants of Adam).


SOURCE 2: http://www.ntslibrary.com/Christology%20The%20Doctrine%20of%20Jesus%20Christ.pdf


She conceived without human or divine fertilization when God the son entered her womb.

Jesus did not go through the process of sperm hitting the egg. Jesus was able to take whatever moment after egg-sperm become life, and was able, without sperm, to place a physical body in the womb of Mary—at the moment of conception. [Sorry evolutionists – this is not for you]

Yes,  Joseph and Mary with their long genealogies and generations are begotten of men! But Jesus is begotten of God!

Then, enter Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and many other cults that would say, “Well, then how could He be the only begotten son of God?” (NOTE: I just higlighted - I did not say this portion!)



SOURCE 3: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1984-1_021.pdf

Jesus who is 'to come' or to 'make appearance', indicating that the one who came as man was pre•existent

'took flesh' to designate the incarnation

incarnation a matter of the Logos having assumed a  human body

difference between 'became flesh' and 'became man' (John 1:14 – And the Word [God – Logos] became flesh.

There is no indication that God fertilized the egg of Mary through the work of either the Father or the Spirit.

humanity of Jesus was not derived from Mary; Mary was just an instrument used by God

The incarnation is a new creation, discontinuous with the old creation of humanity

Jesus 'was man, but not of human seed'

The Logos became a human being though he had no blood relationships with humanity


MY FINAL STATEMENT ON THIS SUBJECT:

Jesus’ took the form (likeness) of a man – but his vessel (body) is not the one coming from Adam (sperm & egg cell fertilization – a miracle / or a divine work of creation, from nothing!).

It is a body provided by no less than God Himself ; different from and is not contaminated by Adam’s humanity! Outwardly, it resembles human (likeness, forms, behavior in many physical aspects) but of different origin & constitution from Adam’s own!

It is a body under His full control – even 1st  death.  His death is not the result of the usual consequences of the CONDEMNATION of GOD (where humans can not make a choice to prevent such death). He can subject His body to no death if He decides to do it - in the same manner that he became flesh without fertilization.

His death (physical death) is His own choosing (as designed in salvation of His elects) – Nobody took His (bodily) life  away from Him – He offered it Himself – the perfect (clean & pure – without ‘sin and Adam weakness’ blemish) sacrifice!

Satan uses Biblical passages – he also uses verses to tempt Jesus – thus, any man can use verses to twist the subject of Jesus’ humanity, to level it to Adam’s humanity!

(Personal note: I will not engage any cults/groups in further blabberies about this topic!)

In likeness and in form means that Jesus has the same human body as we do, but is still different from us.  Because in us is the spirit of man, not the fullness of Godhead.  

Jesus' humanity is traced to Adam.  

16...Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. (Mat. 1:16)

"...which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38)

Luke's purpose in showing the genealogy of Jesus and tracing it to Adam is to show that Jesus did not have a special divine body that came from heaven, but an ordinary human body that was descended from other humans.  Just in case some people entertain other notions.

 

The genealogy was meant for something else – not to prove that Jesus’ humanity is exactly like you and me and everybody else – bearing the CONDEMNATION of GOD!

In fact, there are 2 genealogies (one for Mary, and another for Joseph) – among others, it shows God’s fulfillment of His promise to King David (both ways)! But David knew that the baby of Mary & ‘Joseph’ is different because he acknowledged  that person Jesus as God during his time – not his typical offspring (descendants). To some cultures, genealogies are ways to highlight the importance of the man to whom the genealogies are being attributed to.

Ang problema,  sinulat na nga, wala pa rin.

The problem of Fundamental Christianity about your view is not new!

[Dilbert7]

This one was aimed at religious protesters who made noise about Lady Gaga

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

[Klaus Weasley]

What makes your interpretation of the Bible superior to everyone else's? And what makes you think Christ wasn't referring to people like YOU?

[Dilbert7]

What makes your interpretation of the Bible superior to everyone else's? And what makes you think Christ wasn't referring to people like YOU?

What's up doc?

We are all under CONDEMNATION - did I exempt myself? Is this what you mean?

Or are you rooting for Lady G.?

The documentation above are internet files - I did not say it when it refer to other religious groups. As in audiophiles, to each his own poison!

Did I say my interpretation of the Bible is superior to everyone else? - it just so happen my belief is the same with others who defended the same position?

If there has been no closure before on that debate - neither will it have today!

[sharkey360]

Any comments about this?

David Barton Says Church Law Should Overrule Supreme Court Rulings

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/24/david-barton-says-church-law-should-overrule-supreme-court-rulings-video/

[Klaus Weasley]

[barrister]

The genealogy was meant for something else – not to prove that Jesus’ humanity is exactly like you and me and everybody else – bearing the CONDEMNATION of GOD!

In fact, there are 2 genealogies (one for Mary, and another for Joseph) – among others, it shows God’s fulfillment of His promise to King David (both ways)! But David knew that the baby of Mary & ‘Joseph’ is different because he acknowledged  that person Jesus as God during his time – not his typical offspring (descendants). To some cultures, genealogies are ways to highlight the importance of the man to whom the genealogies are being attributed to.

I was the one who cited both genealogies, so I am very much aware that there are two genealogies.

You only mention one reason for the genealogies --- to trace the Davidic line.  But why did the bible present 2 genealogies that vary from each other?

Notice the discrepancy between the Matthew and Luke genealogies:

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. (Matt. 1:16)

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Luke 3:23)

Matthew says Joseph was the son of Jacob.  But Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli.  Which one is correct?

Both are correct.  Joseph was the biological son of Jacob.  Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli (the word "son" has a broad meaning in Jewish genealogies).  Therefore, Heli was actually Mary's father.  

The Matthew genealogy traces Jesus to the Davidic line.  The purpose is to show that Jesus is the Messiah, expected to be a descendant and heir of King David, the fulfillment of the promises to David and Abraham.  That is why the gospel of Matthew begins: "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:".

That is why Matthew starts with Abraham and and ends with Jesus --- to show the royal line and the the fulfillment of the promise.

In contrast, the Luke genealogy traces Jesus to the line of Mary.  The purpose is to show the humanity of Jesus.

That is why Luke starts with Jesus, goes though the line of Mary (by way of her father Heli), all the way to Adam --- to show that the earthly body of Jesus is fully human, a descendant of Adam.

You, on the other hand, only explain the purpose of the Matthew genealogy, but you fail to explain the purpose of the Luke genealogy.



==================================

--> Romans 5:18  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;

Romans  8:1  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

All are under condemnation! if you don’t think condemnation referred to the 2nd death, I do not know why do you need Christ for? Since you will still die (the 1st death – barrister condemnation version) anyway!

Condemnation (2nd death being the ultimate) is inherent in every man – inherited by humans from the being contaminated by Adam.

... Again, the 1st death is part of the total package of CONDEMNATION of God – but is not the all of it (which you are fond of insisting). Otherwise, What is the sense of Jesus dying to take away that condemnation if condemnation only refer to 1st  death (See above Romans 5:18 and Romans 8:1)

The 1st death is in all men, that is why all die the physical death.  The 2nd death is not in all men, that is why not all will die the 2nd death in the lake of fire.

If the 2nd death is inherent in all men, why is it that not all will die the 2nd death?

"Judgment came upon all men to condemnation"  --- All men are condemned to the 1st death.  "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" --- No condemnation to the 2nd death if you are in Christ Jesus, because even if you die the 1st death, you will later resurrect to eternal life.  

Mahirap bang intindihin yon?

Without Jesus Christ, there is only the condemnation of death for all of us ---- we won't call it "1st death" or 2nd death" --- just "death," because there would only be one death.

With Jesus Christ came the promise of resurrection.  With the promise of resurrection came the 2 resurrections: the resurrection to eternal life (1st resurrection), and the resurrection to damnation (2nd resurrection).  With the 2nd resurrection came the 2nd death - death in the lake of fire.

Why do we need Jesus Christ?  Because without Him, there is no 1st resurrection, only death.  

Now that Jesus Christ came to resurrect us, does it mean all of us will be resurrected?  No.  Those who follow Him will get the 1st resurrection; those who do not, will get the 2nd resurrection and the 2nd death.  

It's really so simple that I can't see what the problem is.

You have so far failed to refute my position.  All you're doing is repeat what you already said.



==================================

And did you wonder Why Moses will not taste the 2nd death? Is it because he was righteous? Read Romans 8:1 again!

That's easy.

Here's Romans 8:1 again, continued up to verse 4:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Moses will not see the 2nd death, because there is no condemnation for those who are "in Christ Jesus."  How can you be "in Christ Jesus"? E di righteous ka nga dapat.  Notice that Romans 8:4 still requires righteousness according to the spirit, but not righteousness according to the flesh/law.  

Puwede ba yung hindi pa nga incarnated si Jesus Christ noong panahon Moses, sasabihin pa rin nating "in Christ Jesus" si Moses?  Yes.  Even if Christ had not yet incarnated during Moses' time, Hebrews 11 ("The Faith Chapter") says Moses sacrificed "for the sake of Christ," because Moses was looking ahead:  

24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.

... 39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. (Hebrews 11: 24-26; 39-40)

Even if the patriarchs of the Old Testament all had faith, "none of them received what had been promised", because they all died the condemnation of the 1st death.  Why?  Because "God planned something better" --- the 1st resurrection --- so that "only together with us would they be made perfect" when all the righteous resurrect to eternal life.

Very simple.



==================================

I will not engage you anymore in this topic – we have different religious perception.

Agreed.

Nagpapasalamat pa rin ako sa iyo sir, kasi kahit napakahaba ng ating sagutan, naging maginoo pa rin ang ating diskusyon.

At least nakita ng ibang miyembro ang posisyon ng ating dalawang panig, kahit hindi tayo nagkasundo.

[tigkal]

No, hindi pa rin ganon yon.

Kahit kumain sila sa tree of life, hindi pa rin sila katulad ng Diyos Ama.  Unang-una, hindi sila magiging spirit, may physical bodies pa rin sila.  

Akala ko ba pag mamatay tayo maging spirit na din tayo. And mas higher level yung may physical bodies kaysa sa spirit kaya meron spirit possession kasi gusto ng mga spirit na magkaroon ng body

Hindi pa rin ganon.

Adam and Eve were allowed to eat any fruit, except the forbidden fruit.  Therefore, we can assume that before the fall, they were also eating from the tree of life.

Ang sabi ng Diyos tungkol sa forbidden fruit, "when you eat from it you will certainly die."  Hindi sinabing as soon as you eat, you will immediately die; ang sabi lang, you will certainly die.  This means death will be in the future, but will be certain.  At totoo nga ang sabi ng Diyos --- as soon as they ate the forbidden fruit, they became subject to aging and death, and eventually died.

So the purpose of banishment from eden is because tree of knowledge and tree of life combination is not acceptable to the creator? Hmm.. New idea.

How about the tree of life?

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Gen. 3:22)

God did not say they became like God in all aspects.  He simply said said they became "like one of us, knowing good and evil."  So you see, they did not become like God as an all-powerful, all-wise, immortal spirit.  They became like God only in the aspect of knowing the difference between good and evil, nothing more.  But they still had physical bodies, and this time, their bodies are now subject to aging, disease and death.

Yes, they would have lived forever had they been allowed to eat from the tree of life, but they would still have been subject to aging, disease, etc., because they had already eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Kawawa naman sila kung ganon.  Na-stroke na, may Alzheimer's at Parkinson's pa, may rayuma pa, pero hindi mamatay-matay.  

Dahil sa pagmamahal ng Diyos, mas ginusto Niya na mamatay sina Adan at Eba eventually, kaysa magkaroon lang sila ng walang katapusang physical suffering.

Ngayon, pag nakarinig ka ng malalim sa sagot, masasabi mo na yung common answer na sina Adam and Eve daw "died a spiritual death" ay talaga namang sagot ng tamad...  

Akala ko we are like god. with the knowledge naman we can conquer disease. what we cannot conquer right now is aging. yun sana ang maibigay sa tree of life na fruit.

[sharkey360]

Hundreds rally to protest N.C. pastor who called for electrocution of gays

“I figured a way out – a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers – but I couldn’t get it past the Congress,” Worley said during the sermon.

“Build a great big, large fence–50 or 100 miles long–put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. Feed them. And you know in a few years, they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce,” said Worley.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/05/hundreds-rally-to-protest-n-c-pastor-who-called-for-electrocution-of-gays/

Video link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU

[barrister]

So the purpose of banishment from eden is because tree of knowledge and tree of life combination is not acceptable to the creator? Hmm.. New idea.

I'm not a member of any formal religious group, that's why some of my views are unusual.

Ang tendency kasi, pag may religious affiliation ka, basta tatanggapin mo na lang yung aral ng pari o pastor mo, kahit obviously wala namang sense yung aral nila.

Akala ko we are like god. with the knowledge naman we can conquer disease. what we cannot conquer right now is aging. yun sana ang maibigay sa tree of life na fruit.

I assure you, disease will never be conquered by man until the end, no matter how advanced medical science becomes.  We're already so advanced in medical science, pero AIDS, hindi pa rin magamot.  One of these days, man might find a cure for AIDS.  But after that, another new disease will come that will again be incurable.

How can I be so sure?  Because it is already prophesied in the Book of Revelation:

7 When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” 8 I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth. (Rev. 6: 7 & 8 )

They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want. (Rev. 11:6)

6 Out of the temple came the seven angels with the seven plagues. ... 8 ... and no one could enter the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed. (Rev. 15:6; 8 )

So you see, even in the end times, may disease pa rin.  "Plague" pa nga, e.

Akala ko ba pag mamatay tayo maging spirit na din tayo. And mas higher level yung may physical bodies kaysa sa spirit kaya meron spirit possession kasi gusto ng mga spirit na magkaroon ng body

No, hindi ganon sa bibliya.  Sa bible, pag namatay, patay.  Walang consciousness.  Lahat ng mga tao na namatay, patay pa rin hanggang ngayon.

Yan ang isang example ng conventional na aral ng religious groups.  Pag namatay, magiging conscious spirit daw agad.  Pero hindi ganon ang nasa bible.  Ano ang nangyayari pag namatay ang tao?  

- The body dies and returns to dust; the spirit goes back to God:  "and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (Eccles. 5:7)

- The spirit goes back to God, but the dead remain unconscious:  "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing" (Eccles. 9:5)

- No human has ever resurrected as a conscious spirit until now, because that is yet to happen in the future:  "51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (1 Cor. 15:51 & 52)

- The resurrection will happen in the future --- "at the last trumpet."  When will the last trumpet come?  After the Great Tribulation in the Book of Revelation, at the seventh trumpet.  The Great Tribulation in Revelation has not yet come, so nobody has become a conscious spirit until now.    

- E bakit yung magnanakaw sa krus, kakasamahin daw sa paraiso?  Bakit yung lolo mo, nagmumulto?  That's another long topic.  




=================================



I can understand the confusion, especially if you're Catholic.  I used to be a devout Catholic myself.  

Sa Katoliko, may mga tao na raw ngayon sa langit.  In fact, ang dami na nga raw santo sa langit ngayon.  Si Mama Mary, nasa langit na raw... believe it or not, siguradong sigurado silang nasa langit na si Mama Mary, may date pa kung kailan daw napunta sa langit ---- August 15, the Feast of the Assumption.  

[dpogs]

hmmm...

how about the instance between beggar Lazarus and rich man having conversation. rich man in fire lazarus in bossom of God.

[barrister]

hmmm...

how about the instance between beggar Lazarus and rich man having conversation. rich man in fire lazarus in bossom of God.

That was merely a parable.  

Around 2,000 years after Abraham's death, Jesus declared that not a single human has ever gone to heaven:

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven —the Son of Man. (John 3:13)

Therefore, Abraham could not have been in heaven at the time Jesus said that.

If Lazarus and Abraham were already in heaven at the time Jesus was speaking, then it means nauna pa sila  kay Kristo.  That would be contrary to the very basic principle that Christ is always first.  

That is why Christ is the first to resurrect from physical death.  In the bible, that's called the "firstfruits," and that's a very important biblical principle:

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (1 Cor. 15: 20-23)

Christ is the firstfuits of those who have died.  Abraham and Lazarus could not have gone to heaven earlier than Christ.  

All who are "in Christ" will go to heaven.  But that has not yet happened ---  "But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him."  

Christ first.  Then, when He returns (in the last days, as described in Revelation), all who are in Him will be made alive at the same time.  Hindi yung una-una.

Kaya wala pa sa langit sina Abraham at Lazarus, kasi hindi nga una-na.  Bakit ganon yung kuwento ni Jesus sa Luke 16?  Kasi nga parable lang yon.


=================================


And it's not "bosom of God."  The verse says "Abraham's bosom":

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; (Luke 16:22)

What is the meaning of the term "Abraham's bosom"?

  

[dpogs]

where is Jesus for 3 days during His death?

[JT]

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven —the Son of Man. (John 3:13)

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (1 Cor. 15: 20-23)

Christ is the firstfuits of those who have died.  Abraham and Lazarus could not have gone to heaven earlier than Christ. 

All who are "in Christ" will go to heaven.  But that has not yet happened ---  "But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him." 

Christ first.  Then, when He returns (in the last days, as described in Revelation), all who are in Him will be made alive at the same time.  Hindi yung una-una.

Kaya wala pa sa langit sina Abraham at Lazarus, kasi hindi nga una-na.  Bakit ganon yung kuwento ni Jesus sa Luke 16?  Kasi nga parable lang yon.

While it is clear in the bible that Jesus was the first fruit, resurrected from the dead and went to heaven. And Abraham and Lazarus could not have gone to heaven earlier than Christ.

Is it possible that they have already gone to heaven after Christ?

Can someone shed some light as to who are these people mentioned in Revelation 6:9-11(NKJV) "Fifth Seal The Cry of the Martyrs":

"When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.  And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed."

Clearly this event was taking place in heaven nor these people are sleeping since they cry in a loud voice and yet there are still people on earth.

Revelation also mentions about the Elders.  Could it be that these are Abraham and early fathers of Faith as mentioned in Hebrew 11?

[Nelson de Leon]

While it is clear in the bible that Jesus was the first fruit, resurrected from the dead and went to heaven. And Abraham and Lazarus could not have gone to heaven earlier than Christ.

Is it possible that they have already gone to heaven after Christ?

Yun din ang alam ko. Luke 23:43 re rebels/criminals crucified:

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

So either paradise is heaven or Abraham's bosom?

[dpogs]

whether it is heaven or abraham's bosom... it is clear that Jesus goes to paradise kasama ang isang nakapako sa krus...

"... today you will be with me in paradise."

asan si Kristo nang 3 araw habang wala siya?

[barrister]

Yun din ang alam ko. Luke 23:43 re rebels/criminals crucified:

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

So either paradise is heaven or Abraham's bosom?

I won't answer "Abraham's bosom" yet.  Hihintayin ko munang aminin ni sir dpogs na hindi niya alam kung ano ang meaning ng "Abraham's bosom."  



================================


As for Luke 23: 42-43, this is a very advanced topic.  Ako pa nga mismo ang unang nagbigay ng hint:

- E bakit yung magnanakaw sa krus, kakasamahin daw sa paraiso?  Bakit yung lolo mo, nagmumulto?  That's another long topic.  

Hindi na lang ako nag-elaborate kasi mahaba, at baka walang intersado.  Kasi nga medyo complex na ang topic na ito.  Yung mga simple nga, hindi pa ma-gets, e.    But anyway...

First, let's examine Luke 23: 42-43:

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (New International Version)

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. (King James Version)

The King James Version and the New International Version are very popular translations of the bible.  Unfortunately, both have translation errors in Luke 23:43.  And that is the source of the confusion.

Compare:

1. Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.
2. Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.

You drastically change the meaning when you change the placement of the comma.  In #1, the word "today" refers to "you will be with me in paradise."  In #2, the word "today" refers to "truly I tell you."

The original Greek text did not use commas.  Any comma placed by the translator is an interpretation based on his own understanding, requiring an addition of something that wasn't in the original.

A literal translation without commas would read:

and Jesus said to him verily I say to thee to-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise

Placing the comma before "to-day" leaves us with an awkward sentence construction.  A more logical placement of the comma after "to-day" (with complete punctuation) would read as follows:

and Jesus said to him, 'Verily I say to thee to-day, with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'

However, this matter cannot be resolved with the difference between awkward and logical sentence construction.  The more solid argument is that placing the comma after "to-day" seems to be the correct translation, since that would make the verse coincide with other parts of the bible.

Remember that Jesus was dead and buried for 3 days, and ascended to heaven 40 days later.  If we accept the wrong translation with the improper placement of the comma, that would make Christ a liar, because He and the thief were not together in paradise on the same day of their crucifixion.

Hence, the CLNT (Concordant Literal New Testament) renders Luke 23:43 as follows:

43 And Jesus said to him, "Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise."

And that's the more accurate rendition of the verse.

[Nelson de Leon]

Hence, the CLNT (Concordant Literal New Testament) renders Luke 23:43 as follows:

43 And Jesus said to him, "Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise."

Which is the more accurate rendition of the verse.

1. So what was the original transcript, in greek?
2. kung walang comma sa greek, how come naging mas-accurate ang CLNT kung may commas din ang CLNT version...?

[barrister]

  

1. So what was the original transcript, in greek?

Yes, the New Testament is in Greek and Aramaic.  The Old Testament is in Hebrew.

2. kung walang comma sa greek, how come naging mas-accurate ang CLNT kung may commas din ang CLNT version...?

Merong comma sa Greek.  Pero sa ancient Greek, punctuation appeared sometime in the 9th century.  The gospel of Luke was written in the 1st century, wala pang punctuation.

Some New Testament Greek manuscripts have commas.  But the oldest (and therefore more reliable) New Testament manuscripts have no punctuation.  The original did not have punctuation.

Pero hindi dahil may comma ay inaccurate na agad.

May comma, pero tama ang puwesto ng comma --- accurate.
May comma rin, pero mali ang puwesto ng comma --- inaccurate.


  

[Nelson de Leon]

Merong comma sa Greek.  Pero sa ancient Greek, punctuation appeared sometime in the 9th century.  The gospel of Luke was written in the 1st century, wala pang punctuation.

Some New Testament Greek manuscripts have commas.  But the oldest (and therefore more reliable) New Testament manuscripts have no punctuation.  The original did not have punctuation.

Pero hindi dahil may comma ay inaccurate na agad.

May comma, pero tama ang puwesto ng comma --- accurate.
May comma rin, pero mali ang puwesto ng comma --- inaccurate.

So how do we determine kung saan ang comma if the original transcript does not have a comma...? I mean how do we know whether tama or mali ang pwesto ng comma?

I suppose you would answer, dapat it should blend with other parts of the bible teachings. pero in this case kasi, kinda vague din ata ang bible pagdating sa topic na ito...?

[barrister]

So how do we determine kung saan ang comma if the original transcript does not have a comma...? I mean how do we know whether tama or mali ang pwesto ng comma?

I suppose you would answer, dapat it should blend with other parts of the bible teachings. pero in this case kasi, kinda vague din ata ang bible pagdating sa topic na ito...?

Just go over my prior posts, kasi uulitin ko lang yung mga na post ko na.  

I assure you, the bible is not vague regarding those points.  God will not cause the bible to be written if it's going to be vague anyway.  Otherwise, don't bother studying the bible because it's going to be a waste of your time.


=================================


Kung ang comma ay before "today," ang lalabas:

- and Jesus said to him verily I say to thee, to-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise --- OK na sa iyo yung "to-day with me thou shalt be," na maling structure ng sentence, o mas tama yung "verily I say to thee to-day, with me thou shalt be"?

At ang lalabas din:

- Nagsinungaling si Kristo kay Maria Magdalena, kasi nakaakyat na pala Siya sa langit kasama ng magnanakaw, pero sabi Niya kay Mary Magdalene 3 days later, hindi pa raw Siya nakakaakyat sa langit: 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father (John 20:17)

- Or, kung hindi Siya nagsinungaling kay Magdalena, nagsinungaling naman Siya sa magnanakaw, kasi hindi naman sila nagkasama sa langit nang araw na yon.

- Hindi totoo yung sinasabi sa Revelation at sa 1 Corinthians na sabay-sabay daw ang resurrection sa huling araw, kasi nauna sa langit yung magnanakaw.

- Talo pa ng magnanakaw sina Abraham, Moses, etc., kasi nauna pa siya sa langit, samantalang sina Moses, Abraham, etc., wala pa sa langit hanggang ngayon.

- Hindi totoo na si Kristo ang "firstfruits," kasi nauna pa yung magnanakaw sa langit, samantalang si Kristo, 3 days nakalibing, tapos 40 days pa sa lupa bago umakyat sa langit.  Ang lumalabas, talo pa ng magnanakaw si Kristo mismo, which is absurd.


Alangan namang dahil sa isang comma, Ok lang sa iyong masirang lahat ang mga nakasulat na yon.

[Nelson de Leon]

I know. My initial query was, after Christ's Resurrection sa gospel, those who are with Christ that died prior to Christ's ressurection (mga nasa Abraham's Bosom) ay nasa heaven na ngayon. meaning Abraham's Bosom is "empty" na...?

[sharkey360]

Does your religion make you think that entertainment forms like movies, music, video games and toys spread evil and immorality?

[barrister]

I know. My initial query was, after Christ's Resurrection sa gospel, those who are with Christ that died prior to Christ's ressurection (mga nasa Abraham's Bosom) ay nasa heaven na ngayon. meaning Abraham's Bosom is "empty" na...?

Those who are in Christ that died prior to Christ's resurrection are still dead.  All of the dead in Christ will resurrect when Christ returns to earth, sabay-sabay tayo.

... so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (1 Cor. 15: 20-23)

Sabay-sabay nga tayong pupunta sa langit, paanong may nauna sa langit?

- No human has ever resurrected as a conscious spirit until now, because that is yet to happen in the future:  "51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (1 Cor. 15:51 & 52)

- The resurrection will happen in the future --- "at the last trumpet."  When will the last trumpet come?  After the Great Tribulation in the Book of Revelation, at the seventh trumpet.  The Great Tribulation in Revelation has not yet come, so nobody has become a conscious spirit until now.

I won't answer "Abraham's bosom" yet.  Hihintayin ko munang aminin ni sir dpogs na hindi niya alam kung ano ang meaning ng "Abraham's bosom."  

There is no human who is in heaven today, or whose spirit is in heaven today.  

Para masabi mo na after Christ resurrected, may mga tao na nakarating din sa langit, you should first find the bible verse showing it.  It is not enough to merely agree with the false teachings of religious leaders and simply assume they are true.

One of these days, you will hear arguments insisting that there are bible verses proving that Elijah, Moses and Enoch are in heaven now.  That's not true.  Lumang tugtugin na sa akin yon.  Cite the verse and I will show you that they did not understand what they read.

You will also hear arguments that while Jesus was dead and buried for 3 days, he went to hell and preached to the dead.  That's utter nonsense.  Malaki sayad sa kukote non.  

Tapos meron namang mga religious group na naniniwala sa "secret rapture."  Nasa bible daw, kukunin tayo ni Lord, we will vanish from earth and go straight to heaven.  Magugulat daw yung mga kaibigan at kamag-anak natin kasi bigla tayong maglalaho.  Hindi raw sabay-sabay lahat sa last judgment ang resurrection kasi may mauuna ---- yung kukunin sa secret rapture.   Pero malaking kalokohan din yon ...  

[dpogs]

Abraham's bosom is a temporary haven for Christian died prior to Jesus Christ crucifixation. its in the center or heart of earth facing hell separated by great gulf fixed between them.

When Jesus said to the crminial on the cross na kasama siya ni Kristo sa paradise at sinabi niya sa babae na touch me not... only because Jesus was in Abraham's bosom for 3 days He really didnt go to heaven.

Matthew 12
40 For as 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.

[indie boi]

Matthew 12
40 For as 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.

Just curious, since creation is taken quite literally by some Christians, does the passage above mean that people believe that it's an actual, physical place near the center of the earth?

[dpogs]

Just curious, since creation is taken quite literally by some Christians, does the passage above mean that people believe that it's an actual, physical place near the center of the earth?

same as I believe that hell (while waiting for judgement day) is in the center of the earht.

[dpogs]

Does your religion make you think that entertainment forms like movies, music, video games and toys spread evil and immorality?

as long as it doesnt contradict the values in the Bible... (religion have nothing to do with it).

[barrister]

Just curious, since creation is taken quite literally by some Christians, does the passage above mean that people believe that it's an actual, physical place near the center of the earth?

No.  The belief that the "heart of the earth" is the center of the earth, and that hell and paradise are also in the same geographical location in the center of the earth are Baptist beliefs.  And sir dpogs' description of "Abraham's bosom" is wrong (actually, malayo nga, e  ).

Jesus was in a tomb; He was definitely not 2,000 miles down in the center of the earth.

Hell is not in the center of the earth.

In English, all of the original Hebrew and Greek words "Gehenna," "Sheol," "Tartarus," and "Hades" were translated to "Hell."  This caused the original meaning to be lost.  

Tartarus is a spiritual condition of bondage for the angels that sinned.  The word is Greek, and was used only once, in 2 Peter 2:4.  It does not contain humans, but only fallen angels.  It is a spiritual place, not a physical place with a geographic location.  So it's definitely not 2,000 miles below the surface of the earth.

Sheol is Hebrew for grave.  Hades is Greek for the Hebrew Sheol, so it is also the grave.  They do not refer to a place 2,000 miles below the surface of the earth.

But Gehenna was a place outside ancient Jerusalem, known in Jesus' time as "Gei Hinnom," or "Valley of Hinnom" in English.

The Valley of Hinnom was used by Jesus to describe the lake of fire, the eternal punishment in Revelation, because during Roman times, there was always a fire burning there.  The Valley of Hinnom was a garbage dump where waste materials and dead bodies of criminals and animals were thrown, and fires were kept burning to consume the garbage.  Parang Smoky Mountain garbage dump natin noon, where fire was used to consume the garbage that never stopped coming.  

Obviously, "Gehenna" is not in the center of the earth either.

Therefeore, none of the terms "Gehenna," "Sheol," "Tartarus," and "Hades" mean that the lake of fire is a place that is located in the center of the earth.  

In fact, the lake of fire does not even exist yet.  It will only exist in the future --- on judgment day, as described in Revelation.  And even then, the lake of fire will not be in the center of the earth.  It will simply be similar to the Valley of Hinnom, just like the analogy of Jesus.

In those days, the people listening to Jesus didn't even know that the earth was a sphere; they thought the earth was flat.  So why assume that the term "heart of the earth" in those days was understood to refer to the center of a globe?  That's just silly.

Contrary to Baptist belief, "heart of the earth" in Matt. 12: 40 does not mean "center of the earth."  Napakalayo naman po ...  

[sharkey360]

Church Places Apology To Gay Community On Billboard Along Billy Graham Parkway in North Carolina



http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/30/church-places-apology-to-gay-community-on-billboard-along-billy-graham-parkway-in-north-carolina-image/