Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
zeland

A strange question “Is there any sin in heaven”?

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Redleg said:

More than a vision. Stephen was confident his spirit or inner man would be taken up by God.  This was something to be confident in given the following:

 

Luke 23: NASB

 

39One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!” 40But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41“And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

 

[...]

 

46And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT.” Having said this, He breathed His last.

 

 

 

 

Acts 7 says nothing other than a vision of Stephen and a statement from him for God to receive his spirit. The Father does preserve the spirits but they are not conscience.

 

Acts 7:56 “And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” 

 

John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”  Must be a vision then.

 

Luke 23:43 “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”  But the commas were added so it could say: Luke 23:43 “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee To day, shalt thou be with me in paradise.” That just says he is today telling him.

 

Do you really think Jesus went to paradise or heaven that very day? That is not what your people preach.

 

Again, I say: The Father does preserve the spirits but they are not conscience.

 

 

blue-smiley-that-says-no-emoticon.gif.516c291b0621749687069a8c82d02f52.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, deade said:

Acts 7 says nothing other than a vision of Stephen and a statement from him for God to receive his spirit. The Father does preserve the spirits but they are not conscience. 

 

Acts 7:56 “And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” 

 

John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”  Must be a vision then.

 

Luke 23:43 “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”  But the commas were added so it could say: Luke 23:43 “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee To day, shalt thou be with me in paradise.” That just says he is today telling him.

 

Do you really think Jesus went to paradise or heaven that very day? That is not what your people preach.

 

Again, I say: The Father does preserve the spirits but they are not conscience.

 

 

blue-smiley-that-says-no-emoticon.gif.516c291b0621749687069a8c82d02f52.gif

Does not matter if Acts 7 is a vision or not.  It was a revelation from God and Stephen saw the Risen and Glorified Christ.  If we see Christ we see the Father.---He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

 

No reputable scholar believes the Luke 23:43 comma controversy.  Koine Greek has no commas.  The translators have been consistent with other "Verily" statements of Jesus. 

 

For example:

 

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” 

 

It's consistent but the comma has to move for you to make your theology work.

 

Yes Jesus's spirit/soul went to paradise that day because He said He would be there with the repentant criminal.  That's pretty simple actually reading the text.

 

On consciousness, that may be a different subject, but Paul does tell us that after our moral bodies die believers will be present, at home actually, with the Lord.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2018 at 9:08 AM, deade said:

Later that same day He appeared to His disciples and they could touch Him. That is when He told Thomas to touch His wounds and then He ate with them.

Just to clarify the verse does not say Thomas actually "touched" the Lord. The very next verse says, because you have "seen". Despite Thomas' initial inability to overcome his doubts by empirical evidence, his doubts were overcome through Faith.

 

John 20:

  • 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
  • 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
  • 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Interesting enough, closely observing what Jesus states takes away the necessity to even "see". Jesus reaffirms the obvious by saying you believed because you have seen (not touched) but He even took away that conviction by blessing those that had not seen and yet believed (faith).

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 4:08 AM, deade said:

Maybe you aren't aware that there were two ascensions. One was almost immediately after He was resurrected, the other was 40 days after from the Mt. of Olives.

 

John 20:16-18: “Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.”

John 20:19“Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.”

 

Later that same day He appeared to His disciples and they could touch Him. That is when He told Thomas to touch His wounds and then He ate with them.

 

7022.gif

 

 

Nah, if you think there were two ascenscions you'd have to believe the second coming took place before your so-called second ascencion.

John 20:17 is about Mary doing something more important than hold on to her "Master" in the clinging emotional state she was in. I'm so sorry you've been misled about this, deade. 
 

Quote

 

From John Wesley's Explanatory Notes:

"Touch me not - Or rather, Do not cling to me (for she held him by the feet,) Mat_28:9. Detain me not now. You will have other opportunities of conversing with me. For I am not ascended to my Father - I have not yet left the world. But go immediately to my brethren - Thus does he intimate in the strongest manner the forgiveness of their fault, even without ever mentioning it."

 

Quote

 

From Albert Barnes' Notes On The Bible:

"The reason why he forbade her to touch him now is to be sought in the circumstances of the case. Mary, filled with joy and gratitude, was about to prostrate herself at his feet, disposed to remain with him, and offer him there her homage as her risen Lord. This is probably included in the word touch in this place; and the language of Jesus may mean this: “Do not approach me now for this purpose. Do not delay here. Other opportunities will yet be afforded to see me. I have not yet ascended - that is, I am not about to ascend immediately, but shall remain yet on earth to afford opportunity to my disciples to enjoy my presence.” From Mat_28:9, it appears that the women, when they met Jesus, held him by the feet and worshipped him. This species of adoration it was probably the intention of Mary to offer, and this, at that time, Jesus forbade, and directed her to go at once and give his disciples notice that he had risen."

 

Quote

 

From Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible:

"Mary thought, now that her Master was risen, he would presently set up a temporal kingdom, such as they had long promised themselves. “No,” says Christ, “touch me not, with any such thought; think not to lay hold on me, so as to detain me here; for, though I am not yet ascended, go to my brethren, and tell them, I am to ascend.” As before his death, so now after his resurrection, he still harps upon this, that he was going away, was no more in the world; and therefore they must look higher than his bodily presence, and look further than the present state of things."

 

 

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luk 22:16  For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 

 

Luk 24:41  And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 
Luk 24:42  And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 
Luk 24:43  And he took it, and did eat before them

 

I am interested in your understanding of these cherry pick passages  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 5:48 PM, Placable37 said:

Nah, if you think there were two ascenscions you'd have to believe the second coming took place before your so-called second ascencion.

John 20:17 is about Mary doing something more important than hold on to her "Master" in the clinging emotional state she was in. I'm so sorry you've been misled about this, deade. 
 

 

So Jesus was talking about His ascension 40 days in the future when He said:

 

John 20:17  "Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."  Nope, don't think so!

 

7070.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, deade said:

So Jesus was talking about His ascension 40 days in the future when He said:

 

John 20:17  "Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."  Nope, don't think so!

So Matthew Henry, Albert Barns, and John Wesley (who by the way all know Greek) are wrong but you are right, and your proof for this is you "don't thing so."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Becky said:

Luk 22:16  For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 

 

Luk 24:41  And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 
Luk 24:42  And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 
Luk 24:43  And he took it, and did eat before them

 

I am interested in your understanding of these cherry pick passages  

Hi Becky,

In Luke 22:16 the eating refers to the Passover meal. Jesus is firstly stating a fact that He knew to be true, and secondly prophecying of a time when that which typologically the Passover meal represented and commemorated, namely divine deliverance from worldly bondage and the blessings of triumph and redemption, would be the eternal reality partaken of in heaven. See also Matt 26:29

 

In Luke 24:41-43 the eating is not of a Passover meal, and not of necessity but rather to add to the proof that Jesus was not an apparition or phantom, but was risen from the dead in a true and real body.

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 1:57 PM, deade said:

Luke 23:43 “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

But the commas were added so it could say:

Luke 23:43 “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee To day, shalt thou be with me in paradise.

That just says he is today telling him.

Thus the question is why chose your view over the other?  You give no reasons why your ought to be accepted.

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

Or
"Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." 


(1) Is Jesus pointing out to the criminal that "he is speaking to him on that very day" or is he telling the criminal that on that very same day he would be with him in paradise? If it is the first, then Jesus is saying something along the lines of: "believe me that I am speaking to you now" which makes no sense at all. There is no need or reason for Jesus to tell the criminal that he is speaking to on that day. The criminal already knows that Jesus is speaking to him on that day.  It simply makes no sense.

 

(2) Jesus' uses his trademark expression "Truly I say to you" (or "truly, truly") 72 times and it is NEVER modified by an adverb of time.

 

(3) Jesus uses his trademark expression to emphasis what he is going to say not when he said.  The 72 examplex in the N.T. verify this point.


(4) Luke uses the adverb σήμερον ("today" or "this very day") to emphasize the immediacy of an event (See 2:11; 4:21; 5:26; 13:32-33; 22; 34, 61). Moreover, σήμερον is used 40 times in the New Testament, 11 times in Luke alone. And not once is it used in the sense of informing a person that he is being spoken to a certain time.

 

(5) Every major translation has the comma before the adverb  (i.e. KJV, NKJV, ESV, Net Bible, NASB, NLT, RS, NRSV, NIV,  LEB, HCSB, CSB etc.).  Give the number of Greek scholars who translated these versions, not one of them agree with you.  In fact the only translation I know of which does is the cult NWT from the JWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Origen said:

Thus the question is why chose your view over the other?  You give no reasons why your ought to be accepted.

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

Or
"Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." 


(1) Is Jesus pointing out to the criminal that "he is speaking to him on that very day" or is he telling the criminal that on that very same day he would be with him in paradise? If it is the first, then Jesus is saying something along the lines of: "believe me that I am speaking to you now" which makes no sense at all. There is no need or reason for Jesus to tell the criminal that he is speaking to on that day. The criminal already knows that Jesus is speaking to him on that day.  It simply makes no sense.

 

(2) Jesus' uses his trademark expression "Truly I say to you" (or "truly, truly") 72 times and it is NEVER modified by an adverb of time.


(3) Luke uses the adverb σήμερον ("today" or "this very day") to emphasize the immediacy of an event (See 2:11; 4:21; 5:26; 13:32-33; 22; 34, 61). Moreover, σήμερον is used 40 times in the New Testament, 11 times in Luke alone. And not once is it used in the sense of informing a person that he is being spoken to a certain time.

 

(4) Every major translation has the comma before the adverb  (i.e. KJV, NKJV, ESV, Net Bible, NASB, NLT, RS, NRSV, NIV,  LEB, HCSB, CSB etc.).  Give the number of Greek scholars who translated these versions, not one of them agree with you.  In fact the only translation I know of which does is the cult NWT from the JWs.

So my question to you is: Do you think it fits with the rest of scripture that Christ went to paradise that very day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, deade said:

So my question to you is: Do you think it fits with the rest of scripture that Christ went to paradise that very day?

So rather than address the evidence against you, you just ignore it and ask me a question about what I think which proves nothing about the text.  That would do nothing to support your claim.  Stick to the evidence.

 

Now, you claim it "Truly I tell you today," is to be preferred.  So let me ask you a relevant question, one concerning the evidence against your claim.  Do you have any exegetical or grammatical evidence that might refute the numerous Greek scholars who disagree with you?  The numerous Greek scholars who translated the KJV, NKJV, ESV, Net Bible, NASB, NLT, RS, NRSV, NIV,  LEB, HCSB, CSB etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am saying that the misplaced comma is only possible. The rest of scripture of what happened to Christ, after the crucifiction, points to something other than the obvious interpretation as given. It all fits together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, deade said:

No, I am saying that the misplaced comma is only possible. The rest of scripture of what happened to Christ, after the crucifiction, points to something other than the obvious interpretation as given. It all fits together.

So you have no exegetical or grammatical evidence that might refute the numerous Greek scholars who disagree with your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Origen said:

So you have no exegetical or grammatical evidence that might refute the numerous Greek scholars who disagree with your claim.

These scholars mean nothing to me. If I believe everything another teaches, I will have their errors as well as my own. I pray and read the scriptures as presented, however imperfect. My Bible tells me I have a Spirit that will teach me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, deade said:

These scholars mean nothing to me. If I believe everything another teaches, I will have their errors as well as my own. I pray and read the scriptures as presented, however imperfect.

I am sure they don't.  That, however, does not explain why anyone should accept your view over theirs and that is the point.  They are experts in their field of study.  They cite exegetical and grammatical evidence.  You have none.

 

16 hours ago, deade said:

My Bible tells me I have a Spirit that will teach me.

So does their Bible and so does mine.  It seems you might be suggesting that since you have the Spirit anyone who does not agree with you does not.  I see no reason to believe that the indwelling of the Spirit within them is somehow not as valid or something less than what you claim to have.   They do not simply claim we have the Spirit therefore you ought to believe us.  They cite evidence for their claims concerning the text, and they have the expertise to support their view.  The fact you won't even try to address the evidence means you are unable to address it in a meaning way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, deade said:

These scholars mean nothing to me. If I believe everything another teaches, I will have their errors as well as my own. I pray and read the scriptures as presented, however imperfect. My Bible tells me I have a Spirit that will teach me.

Deade, you'll have to show me in Scripture where it suggests that people ignore everyone else because they themselves have the Holy Spirit?

 

You'll find that the Bereans didn't ignore Paul but they searched the Scriptures to see whether these things were true. They didn't seek for self-authority, but they searched to find out what was said were true.  Also, some are gifted in the office of teacher, and others are said to be better off not teaching.

  • Acts 17:11
  • Ephesians 4:11-14
  • James 3:1

The condemnation in James 3:1 is to those who appoint themselves. In the spirit of the Bereans one should go to the Scriptures, discerning (we rely on the Holy Spirit for illumination) truth from falsehood, as there are teachers and false teachers.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, William said:

Deade, you'll have to show me in Scripture where it suggests that people ignore everyone else because they themselves have the Holy Spirit?

 

You'll find that the Bereans didn't ignore Paul but they searched the Scriptures to see whether these things were true. They didn't seek for self-authority, but they searched to find out what was said were true.  Also, some are gifted in the office of teacher, and others are said to be better off not teaching.

The condemnation in James 3:1 is to those who appoint themselves. In the spirit of the Bereans one should go to the Scriptures, discerning (we rely on the Holy Spirit for illumination) truth from falsehood, as there are teachers and false teachers.

 

God bless,

William

I respect the work the translators did to bring me the scriptures in my language, but I know antichrist was already working in the first century. I see a pope hundreds of years later living openly with a harlot and having illegitimate children and passing things like the infallibility policy giving us the scriptures we are to believe. It makes me suspect all the early teachers.  

 

So yes, I search the scriptures and compare the intent of each instance and compare that with others on the same subject. What we don't have is the ability to look at these teachers to determine if they are indeed walking with Christ.

 

1 Thess. 1:5-7 "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia." 

 

I have some of my own experts, that I have been able to observe their manner of life. I doubt you would acknowledge them, as they are sabbatarians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus is God . God is

om·ni·pres·ent

ˌämnəˈpreznt/

adjective

widely or constantly encountered; common or widespread.

"the omnipresent threat of natural disasters"

synonyms:ubiquitous, all-pervasive, everywhere; More

(of God) present everywhere at the same time.

adjective: omnipresent

 

We believe God is omnipresent . It is therefore simple for me to grasp the repentive  thief could well be with Christ in paradise 'this day' 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Becky said:

Jesus is God . God is

om·ni·pres·ent

ˌämnəˈpreznt/

adjective

widely or constantly encountered; common or widespread.

"the omnipresent threat of natural disasters"

synonyms:ubiquitous, all-pervasive, everywhere; More

(of God) present everywhere at the same time.

adjective: omnipresent

 

We believe God is omnipresent . It is therefore simple for me to grasp the retentive thief could well be with Christ in paradise 'this day' 

Thank you, I haven't thought of it that way.  :RpS_thumbup:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy