Soul goes to heaven before Resurrection? Soul goes to heaven after resurrection?

Do we immediately go to heaven when we die or no?

  • the soul ascends to heaven BEFORE the resurrection

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • the soul ascends to heaven AFTER the resurrection

    Votes: 9 47.4%

  • Total voters
    19

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The distinction being animals were not made in the Image and according to the likeness of God. That distinction has meaning.

I agree that humans, and not animals, were made in the image of God. But we are not discussing the phrase image of God, which was not given to animals. We are discussing the breath of life, which both man and animal have.

At the time that was true. The righteous resided in Abraham's Bosom and not Heaven.

I’m actually surprised you stated this. I thought for sure you would state their souls did ascend but not their resurrected body, considering You stated Jesus soul went to heaven before the resurrection, even though jesus himself stated he had not yet ascended.

Just FYI, the YLT has the comma before Today in Luke 23:43 . :)

Definitely aware of this, but thanks for the reminder. All the translations I use have the comma before today.

By the way, I just want to say I have appreciated our conversations. We may disagree on somethings, but we agree on the big picture.

Blessings brother :)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

SonOfZion

Active Member
Jun 26, 2018
143
25
59
Earth
✟10,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The life of the flesh is in the blood, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Leviticus 17:11

Yeshua laid down His Life, purchasing the Called out ones by His own Blood. Acts of the Apostles 20:28

The Body without blood, its life force is dead

Only His Body died, and was buried, and YESHUA raised It on the Third Day. John 2:19, John 2:21

Raised without blood, yet still was made of flesh and bones. Luke 24:39

There is no problem with YESHUA (The Word) being in Heaven, before, during, and after His resurrection as God... was God in pieces? In-between

and the Thief was with Him that day in Paradise, In heaven, where every saved soul that dies goes to before the resurrection. When they will come back with Him. 1 Thessalonians 4:14

YESHUA had not Ascended in His Resurrected body, and not touching Him had everything to do with Him fulfilling the feast in the Heavenly tabernacle as the High Priest.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That’s not true:

The Curetonian Syriac (fifth century C.E.) renders Luke 23:43: "Amen,
I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of
Eden.'"--F. C. Burkitt, "The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels," Vol.
I, Cambridge, 1904.


Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai
hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, hotiet' emou ese e to paradeiso._
("Some indeed read this way: 'Truly I tell you today,' and put a comma;
then they add: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"--Hesychius of
Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E.Greek text
found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433.


Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin' e to
legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met' emou ese
en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. ("But others press upon the saying,
putting a punctuation mark after 'today,' so that it would be said
this way: 'Truly I tell you today'; and then they add the expression:
'You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Theophylact, an ecclessistical
writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123,
column 1104.
All I'm seeing here is today you will be with me in paradice, who cares if someone called it the garden of Eden. The comma is an abberation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
My intention was not prove the placement of the comma, my only intention is to show that JW are not the only group of people that translate the phrase “truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.” I was responding to the poster who stated specifically:



If you follow the dates from the post you just quoted, it shows that through the centuries, there were those that translated it: “truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.

This does not prove the placement of the comma, it only proves that there were those in history who translated it this way.
I'm not seeing anything substantive that the proper exegesis properly emphasises anything other then this man being in paradise that day. If there were a real argument here it would not be focused on the product but the original Greek. It has little to do with the nouns, the key is the verb, everything else follows that key to the context in the Greek.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This is not really about what a parable is and isn't. It's about Christendom's love of hell and their propensity for adjusting scripture to meet that desperate need. The fact that most Bibles falsely contain the word, "hell" is a travesty.

I can play this silly game, also. #1 (below) is the only one called a parable, so #2,3,4,5 cannot be parables - or, maybe the real truth is that Jesus Christ reasoned that saying it once at the start would apply to all 5 fictitious stories He planned on telling, one after another. And, #3, 4, and 5 all start out with, "a certain.....", but #1 and #2 don't. Therefore, #1 and #2 can't be parables - I guess Christ was wrong about #1. And, none of them mention the Kingdom, so I guess none of them can possibly be parables, according to your logic. These 5 parables all follow in order, with a short 5 verse break between 4 and 5, while Christ rebuked the Pharisees. All of Luke 15 and 16 are parables. To say otherwise, is a corruption of the scriptures. Usually, people use the absurdity that #5 isn't a parable because Lazarus' name is used. The absurdities that people dream up to distort scripture, so it will fit their agenda, is always amazing to me.

1- Lost Sheep - Lk 15:3-7, Called a Parable in vs 3
2- Lost Coin - Lk 15:8-10
3- Prodigal Son - Lk 15:11-32
4- Dishonest Manager - Lk 16:1-13
5 -Lazarus and Rich Man - Lk 16:19-31

Your reasoning on the topic is a very common one that reeks of the traditions of men, similar to those that believe in the 100% pagan concepts that (A) man HAS a soul, even though Gen 2:7 eliminates that possibility by saying that man IS a soul, and that (B) unbelievers are tortured by our loving God, in fire, forever, 24/7, even though Christ died and thus paid the entire debt for the sins of the entire world - 1 John 2:2. Here's a good discussion of that verse.
https://www.bibleref.com/1-John/2/1-John-2-2.html

A reason that some people say L&RM is not a parable is because they love the idea that people less pious than they are will be punished. In some churches, those that don't believe in hell are considered unsaved
Nonsense, figurative language is marked by a 'like' or 'as' indicating a comparison and Jesus uses no such comparative language describing the rich man and Lazarus . I strongly suggest you go back to the parables you try to compare the rich man and Lazarus and find them and you try to explain the absence of that language in the passage in question. You are resorting to fallacious rhetoric early, relying on ad hominem insults when you should be examining the passage. Thus your error, you failed to learn the material before you preached the sermon.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The distinction being animals were not made in the Image and according to the likeness of God. That distinction has meaning.


At the time that was true. The righteous resided in Abraham's Bosom and not Heaven.


Just FYI, the YLT has the comma before Today in Luke 23:43 . :)
Just two things, Abrahams bosum speaks of the covenant that put him in heaven and the wording of the YLT indicates a very different emphasis with the comma that you get from the NWT.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes that is where His Body was indeed. Yet He gave up His spirit to the Father. Where is the Father?


Touch me not is key here. He truly did not ascend yet, at that point, to Heaven in His Resurrected Immortal Body.

You would have to assume when Jesus gave up His Spirit to the Father, He actually meant the grave.

Just a point from the passage, touch me not, dude she was already hugging him when he said this. He was saying don't cling to me because I must ascend. Its very similar to what Jesus said to the Apostles in the Upper Room.

A little off topic but the wording of the translation is awkward, just pointing out one of the features to the passage.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree that humans, and not animals, were made in the image of God. But we are not discussing the phrase image of God, which was not given to animals. We are discussing the breath of life, which both man and animal have.
I believe the fact we were made in the image and likeness has significance.

Meaning how God created our total person is unique from the rest of created carbon based life forms.
 
Upvote 0

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Nonsense, figurative language is marked by a 'like' or 'as' indicating a comparison and Jesus uses no such comparative language describing the rich man and Lazarus . I strongly suggest you go back to the parables you try to compare the rich man and Lazarus and find them and you try to explain the absence of that language in the passage in question. You are resorting to fallacious rhetoric early, relying on ad hominem insults when you should be examining the passage. Thus your error, you failed to learn the material before you preached the sermon.

There are over 8000 occurrences of figures of speech in the Bible and over 200 different types in Hebrew and Greek. Maybe 2 or 3% of them start with "like" or "as".

There is no mention of sin or any evildoing in the passage. The only explanation of why Lazarus had it good and the rich man had it bad was because, while alive, Lazarus had it bad and the rich man had it good - vs 25. Evidently, the Pharisees used this nonsense to pacify the poor and invalid. The rich man may have been a good Jew who kept the law and loved God. Made no difference in this fictitious story. He had it good when alive and, the way the Lord cleverly turned the tables, he would therefore have it bad after death.

This fictitious story is a satire, an insult to the Pharisees, because they believed such stupid stuff. Josephus, a Pharisee, in his discourse on Hades, which is nearly identical to Lk 16, showed that this was what was believed by the Pharisees, likely through the Talmud, since there's nothing about any of it in the OT. However, hell worshipers today can't dismiss it as the fable it truly is, so they invent things to try and prove it as truth. The only way this can be done is to provide smoking gun verses from the OT. You and I both know they don't exist.

So, you've incorrectly stated that all of Christ's parables start with, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like.............." and then you implied that all figurative language starts with "like" or "as". Both statements are obviously 100% in error. The first I've proven wrong by listing 5 that do not containg the word, "Kingdom.". The second is easily shown to be wrong by Bullinger's definitive, 1164 page, "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible." which one can easily find and download free on the internet. Bullinger has gotten a bum rap, but only by the ignorant. In reality, he may be the greatest Bible scholar, ever. What separated him from other "Bible scholars" was that he believed the Bible and believed it was without error. He also obeyed 2Tim 2:15 and was, therefore, approved onto God, according to that verse. That sets him apart from every mainstream denominational preacher on the planet. NONE of them obey 2Tim 2:15. Lots of dividers, but not one of them does it rightly.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Hillsage
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There are over 8000 occurrences of figures of speech in the Bible and over 200 different types in Hebrew and Greek. Maybe 2 or 3% of them start with "like" or "as".

Now your just making things up. Did you go back and compare those five parables you compared to the rich man and Lazarus? Invariably there is something I'm the immediate context indicating two things are being compare. We know the serpent in the garden was Satan, proper name can be an exception to the like or as rule, but even at that your hyperbolic ratios are off the top of your head, they reflect nothing genuine.

There is no mention of sin or any evildoing in the passage. The only explanation of why Lazarus had it good and the rich man had it bad was because, while alive, Lazarus had it bad and the rich man had it good - vs 25. Evidently, the Pharisees used this nonsense to pacify the poor and invalid. The rich man may have been a good Jew who kept the law and loved God. Made no difference in this fictitious story. He had it good when alive and, the way the Lord cleverly turned the tables, he would therefore have it bad after death.

You have no rational basis for saying that, no source material and flatly contradicting the Lord himself. He give no indication whatsoever this is anything but a first hand account. Its not a parable or a vision, otherwise there would be an interpretation and the Bible doesn't have fables.

This fictitious story is a satire, an insult to the Pharisees, because they believed such stupid stuff. Josephus, a Pharisee, in his discourse on Hades, which is nearly identical to Lk 16, showed that this was what was believed by the Pharisees, likely through the Talmud, since there's nothing about any of it in the OT. However, hell worshipers today can't dismiss it as the fable it truly is, so they invent things to try and prove it as truth. The only way this can be done is to provide smoking gun verses from the OT. You and I both know they don't exist.

Hell worshipers? Your really shameless in you ad hominem rhetoric arent you. Hell (gehenna) was relatively new revelation but not entirely absent in the OF. Daniel speaks of those raised to everlasting life while others are raised to everlasting shame and contempt. I think you know that and probably realize that sheol, death and the grave could be used to speak of the punishment of the wicked in the next life. David say, you will not leave me in the grave, Peter reports at the time this prophecy was fulfilled David was still quite literally in his grave, probably reduced to dust by then. Job speaks of the ressurection, clearly stating that in his flesh he would see God. Hebrews explains the Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac because he believed God was raise him. The ressurection of the children of perdition was a revelation family new in the New Testament, as indeed the righteousness of God in Christ was. Jesus is the smoking gun for this doctrine and spoke explicitly of this place as the final end of the wicked. Now I personally don't have a problem with nonnicean extremists visiting a Christians only forum but some of the posters here are pretty devout. We know our own Scriptures so you have to know we are going to see through the fallacious hyperbole your preaching like gospel. So why don't you tone down the satirical rant a bit and tell me were your really getting this soul sleep doctrine. Read a lot of Jehovah of the Watch Tower track society do you?

So, you've incorrectly stated that all of Christ's parables start with, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like.............." and then you implied that all figurative language starts with "like" or "as". Both statements are obviously 100% in error. The first I've proven wrong by listing 5 that do not containg the word, "Kingdom.". The second is easily shown to be wrong by Bullinger's definitive, 1164 page, "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible." which one can easily find and download free on the internet. Bullinger has gotten a bum rap, but only by the ignorant. In reality, he may be the greatest Bible scholar, ever. What separated him from other "Bible scholars" was that he believed the Bible and believed it was without error. He also obeyed 2Tim 2:15 and was, therefore, approved onto God, according to that verse. That sets him apart from every mainstream denominational preacher on the planet. NONE of them obey 2Tim 2:15. Lots of dividers, but not one of them does it rightly.

Look if you want to quote Bullinger go for it but everything I've told you is readily apparent from your own proof texts. In those five parables did you see the 'like' or 'as' or not? What's more I never said all figurative language had a requisite like or as, but thats generally the case. Some times Jesus will tell a story like the good Samaratan, which has every indication of something that actually occurred. Jesus doesn't explain how he knew about this or the rich man and Lazerous. Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you get to dismiss the clear meaning as figurative, and certainly you got no basis for saying Jesus was mocking the teaching of the Pharisees. Your just making stuff up. But I'll tell you what, I'll take a look at Bullingers stuff at some point, although I doubt seriously I'm going to conclude he is the best scholar ever. If it's the same guy I think it is he wrote an interesting book on the significance of numbers in Scripture, so I suspect your misrepresenting him just like you have me, the Scriptures and the Lord's meaning in his lesson.

Did you really think you could effective undermine sound doctrine by being emphatic. Christians can see through this, there are still a fair number of lay scholars who do this kind of doctrinal work. They see this as a job for an apologist, one of many false teaching that emerge regularly to be refuted and drift harmlessly into the stacks. Your not the first to come in here spouting this kind of soul sleep error and you won't be the last. But did you seriously expect that we don't know our own Scriptures better then this?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Now your just making things up. Did you go back and compare those five parables you compared to the rich man and Lazarus? Invariably there is something I'm the immediate context indicating two things are being compare. We know the serpent in the garden was Satan, proper name can be an exception to the like or as rule, but even at that your hyperbolic ratios are off the top of your head, they reflect nothing genuine.



You have no rational basis for saying that, no source material and flatly contradicting the Lord himself. He give no indication whatsoever this is anything but a first hand account. Its not a parable or a vision, otherwise there would be an interpretation and the Bible doesn't have fables.



Hell worshipers? Your really shameless in you ad hominem rhetoric arent you. Hell (gehenna) was relatively new revelation but not entirely absent in the OF. Daniel speaks of those raised to everlasting life while others are raised to everlasting shame and contempt. I think you know that and probably realize that sheol, death and the grave could be used to speak of the punishment of the wicked in the next life. David say, you will not leave me in the grave, Peter reports at the time this prophecy was fulfilled David was still quite literally in his grave, probably reduced to dust by then. Job speaks of the ressurection, clearly stating that in his flesh he would see God. Hebrews explains the Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac because he believed God was raise him. The ressurection of the children of perdition was a revelation family new in the New Testament, as indeed the righteousness of God in Christ was. Jesus is the smoking gun for this doctrine and spoke explicitly of this place as the final end of the wicked. Now I personally don't have a problem with nonnicean extremists visiting a Christians only forum but some of the posters here are pretty devout. We know our own Scriptures so you have to know we are going to see through the fallacious hyperbole your preaching like gospel. So why don't you tone down the satirical rant a bit and tell me were your really getting this soul sleep doctrine. Read a lot of Jehovah of the Watch Tower track society do you?



Look if you want to quote Bullinger go for it but everything I've told you is readily apparent from your own proof texts. In those five parables did you see the 'like' or 'as' or not? What's more I never said all figurative language had a requisite like or as, but thats generally the case. Some times Jesus will tell a story like the good Samaratan, which has every indication of something that actually occurred. Jesus doesn't explain how he knew about this or the rich man and Lazerous. Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you get to dismiss the clear meaning as figurative, and certainly you got no basis for saying Jesus was mocking the teaching of the Pharisees. Your just making stuff up. But I'll tell you what, I'll take a look at Bullingers stuff at some point, although I doubt seriously I'm going to conclude he is the best scholar ever. If it's the same guy I think it is he wrote an interesting book on the significance of numbers in Scripture, so I suspect your misrepresenting him just like you have me, the Scriptures and the Lord's meaning in his lesson.

Did you really think you could effective undermine sound doctrine by being emphatic. Christians can see through this, there are still a fair number of lay scholars who do this kind of doctrinal work. They see this as a job for an apologist, one of many false teaching that emerge regularly to be refuted and drift harmlessly into the stacks. Your not the first to come in here spouting this kind of soul sleep error and you won't be the last. But did you seriously expect that we don't know our own Scriptures better then this?
Nothing you said contains any truth. Nothing I said contains any lies. And you know it.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is a resurrection after the Kingdom age -- the 1,000 year reign of Christ. This is when there will be a new Heaven and a New Earth and we will need a resurrected body to live on the Earth then.

There is a lot of teaching about how we go from the Church age to the Kingdom age. Is that what you are talking about?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Nothing you said contains any truth. Nothing I said contains any lies. And you know it.
What your post included were obvious error, easily uncovered and refuted. Your into some kind of soul sleep annialationism and apparently so was your hero Bullinger. The rich man and Lazerous has no figurative language, to dismiss it as figurative is to allergorize a text from a motive of unbelief, not sound exegesis. You pontificated statistics that you obviously wouldnt have the patience to study and offered no reference to were you got them. What I know is that your spouting erronious doctrine, what I dont know is why.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There is a resurrection after the Kingdom age -- the 1,000 year reign of Christ. This is when there will be a new Heaven and a New Earth and we will need a resurrected body to live on the Earth then.

There is a lot of teaching about how we go from the Church age to the Kingdom age. Is that what you are talking about?
Afraid not Josh, ac28 is peddling a doctrine known as soul sleep, the body soul and mind all perish in the grave. Specically the rich man and Lazarous is dismissed as a parable, no basis in the text mind you, but thats the contention.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
My NKJV reads 4:19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, (20)who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine long suffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared,...

I think this passage refers to Jesus declaring His victory to the imprisoned Angels. I don't believe that Jesus freed anyone from the place of torment.
(Jumping in here) indeed, except that what the Lord would have been declaring was judgment, that by rejecting the light they had, and conscience and Noah, then they were in essence rejecting Christ, The Light. Conversely, the Elect, those who by grace obeyed the Light God gave them as in the OT atonement, where in essence looking to Christ, but who could not enter Heaven till the perfect atonement was made, and who then led those captive in OT paradise with Him to the 3rd Heaven:

OT saints went to paradise, Abraham's Bosom (Lk. 16:22; 23:39-43) at death, to which Christ went at His death with the contrite criminal, which He called paradise, (Lk. 23:39-43) to release OT saints to glory, (Ephesians 4:9-10) and which Paul states is the 3rd Heaven. (2 Co. 12:3,4) "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Hebrews 10:4) Thus "the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." (Hebrews 9:8)

But, "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent." (Matthew 27:50-51) "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things." (Ephesians 4:8-10)

By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:19-20) "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.' (Matthew 27:52-53)


The so-called "good thief" (contrite criminal) of Luke 23 thus went with Christ to Paradise, Abraham's bosom (apparently the other side of Hades) and then at the resurrection went with Him with all the OT elect into the 3rd Heaven to remain with the Lord, which is where all believers are said to go at death or the Lord's return, whichever comes first (below).

If we don't have Faith Alone in Jesus Alone prior to death there are no do overs. The whole idea of purgatory denies the finished work at the Cross. .
There certainly is no RC purgatory, which is a tradition of men and must rely on imposed meaning and or obscure verses in attempts to support it from Scripture (which source is not the basis of assurance for RCs)

In contrast, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)

And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Afraid not Josh, ac28 is peddling a doctrine known as soul sleep, the body soul and mind all perish in the grave. Specically the rich man and Lazarous is dismissed as a parable, no basis in the text mind you, but thats the contention.

I believe in soul sleep. I, a living soul, according to Gen 2:7, sleep every night. Man absolutely does not have a soul - HE IS A SOUL, according to Gen 2:7. If you have access to a Bible, look it up.

So, if you accept Lazarus and the Rich Man ias truth, you MUST believe the ONLY reason that, after death, the rich man had it good and Lazarus had it bad, was because, when alive, the rich man had it good and Lazarus had it bad. In vs 25, that's exactly what it says. Did I ever mention that I have this bridge for sale?

Luke 16:24-25
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

So, according to your beliefs, all the bums and derelicts in the world will be in heaven and all the rich will be in hell, and all this will be automatic. Right? Believing in Christ will have nothing to do with it. Right? If you believe Luke 16:19-31 is truth, you MUST believe vs 25 is truth. Right?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I believe in soul sleep. I, a living soul, according to Gen 2:7, sleep every night. Man, absolutely does not have a soul - HE IS A SOUL, according to Gen 2::7. If you have access to a Bible, look it up.

So, if you accept Lazarus and the Rich Man ias truth, you MUST believe the ONLY reason that, after death, the rich man had it good and Lazarus had it bad was because, when alive, the rich man had it good and Lazarus had it bad. In vs 25, that's exactly what it says. Did I ever mention that I have this bridge for sale?

Luke 16:24-25
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

So, according to your beliefs, all the bums and derelicts in the world will be in heaven and all the rich will be in hell, and this will all be automatic. Believing in Christ will have nothing to do with it. Right?
You do have a flare for erroneous hyperbole. Jesus didn't say all derelict and bums, he said thesev particular individuals. Jesus did say blessed are the poor because theirs is the kingdom of heaven, but cursed are the rich for they have recieved their reward. James argues that God has chosen the poor to be rich in faith. Then in Corinth the rich denied the poor in their love feast, Paul says some of you are sick and some of you sleep. It's not generally well known but there are two words for death in the New Testament, necros and thanatos. Necros is the death of the wicked followed by the second death while thanatos is absent from.the body present with the Lord, even if God destroys the body to save the soul..

As far as 'breath' in Genesis 2:7 I'm well aware that means life breath. Spirit 'pneuma' in the New Testament has the same literal meaning. But both are used to describe the nonmaterial part of the human being. The Holy Spirit isn't just breath and being born again of the Spirit has nothing to do with your breathing.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All I'm seeing here is today you will be with me in paradice, who cares if someone called it the garden of Eden. The comma is an abberation.

Then you must not have read it closely. Notice the absence of a comma and the word order:

The Curetonian Syriac (fifth century C.E.) renders Luke 23:43: "Amen,
I say to thee to-day THAT with me thou shalt be in the Garden of
Eden.'"--F. C. Burkitt, "The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels," Vol.
I, Cambridge, 1904.

So it still holds true that the 'comma debate' pre dates JWs


If there were a real argument here it would not be focused on the product but the original Greek.

I agree.

I'm not seeing anything substantive that the proper exegesis properly emphasises anything other then this man being in paradise that day.
It has little to do with the nouns, the key is the verb, everything else follows that key to the context in the Greek.

I would argue the key is not the verb, the key is the adverb 'today'.

So what is the adverb 'today' in luke 23:43 modifying? is it modifying 'I say' in the first clause of the direct discourse, or it is it modifying the 2nd clause of the discourse?

Is there any other scripture where the adverb 'today' does not modify the verb, i say, it directly follows in a direct discourse? Not that I have found.

Additionally, Jesus states around 75 times "truly I tell you". The greek order of words literally being "truly I say to you". None of these are followed by the adverb 'today'. However, when it comes to luke 23:43, the order of words is changed: it literally reads "truly to you I say" directly followed by the adverb 'today'.

Let's look at another example where the language of a direct discourse that states 'to you I say' is directly followed by an adverb:

John 13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’

This literally reads, with order of the greek, "to you i say (verb) now (adverb)". Notice the comma is after the adverb in the translation. The literal translation would be: 'and as i said to the Jews where I go you are not able to come so to you I say now. a new commandment I give you also.......".

based on this evidence it is not unreasonable, by any means, for the verse to be translated "truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise".

What drives people to translate this verse is the idea of the soul going to heaven before the resurrection. But since Jesus did not ascend until after the resurrection, I still hold that we do not ascend until after the resurrection.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, if you accept Lazarus and the Rich Man ias truth, you MUST believe the ONLY reason that, after death, the rich man had it good and Lazarus had it bad, was because, when alive, the rich man had it good and Lazarus had it bad. In vs 25, that's exactly what it says. Did I ever mention that I have this bridge for sale?
Perhaps it had something to do with the Rich man's reprobate heart having a sick beggar at his gates and he was not moved to help.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Perhaps it had something to do with the Rich man's reprobate heart having a sick beggar at his gates and he was not moved to help.

Perhaps it's exactly as it says in vs 25. The ONLY reason given as to why Lazarus had it good and the Rich man had it bad, after death, was that, while both were alive, the rich man had it good and Lazarus had it bad. We cannot make any assumptions beyond that.
Lk 16:25
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Of course, this reason is absurd. Technically, it is a satire. Christ is obviously insulting the Pharisees, in 2 ways. One is because they lied to the poor and invalid and told them that their fortunes, after death, would change 180 degrees. This was to pacify them and keep them from grumbling. The second insult is that their traditions about hell were so stupid.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0