Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"I mean for a place filled with fire to be a dark place all at the same time doesn't make sense." Have you ever watched professional racing? I have watched them refueling the cars with the special racing fuel they use and several times I have seen the pit crew members start yelling and waving their hands, other crew members would start spraying them with fire extinguishers. They were on fire but you could not see any flames. How do you figure that?Today at 06:24 PM Rae Naval said this in Post #201 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=664546#post664546)
I gotta say sorry first of all cause i didn't read all the posts in this topic.
But first of I'd have to say that you have to take the depictions of hell figuratively. I mean for a place filled with fire to be a dark place all at the same time doesn't make sense. Second I also believe that hell is separation from God. God being all that is good, separation from that would be all that is bad(think heat, a lack of heat is just cold). I don't feel that God is attempting to use coercive power over us, he has made things as simple as possible: allow me into your lives or don't. The latter meaning eternal separation.
Prove that is the reason. But there is also another possibility. Just heard about a subway disaster in Korea 120+ people killed. An arsonist threw a burning flammable liquid in the subway station, burned two subway trains with several cars. Although there was fire it was dark. Care to take a guess why? Smoke! The same thing ahppened in Kuwait when the Iraqis pulled out and set hundreds of oil wells on fire, although there were hundreds of fires it was dark, from the smoke. Since it is possible for darkness to exist in the presence of fire in our own experience I'm sure a supernatural God would have no problem having fire and darkness at the same time.Today at 07:03 PM Rae Naval said this in Post #203 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=664575#post664575)
cause it's not dark outside.
Today at 03:01 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #200 The only Bible I am aware of that places the comma in front of today is the JW NWT! Here is quoted from The Greek New Testament, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, UBS, 1975. On page 312, It clearly shows the comma before today and no other alternate readings are listed which means NOT one single manuscript of Luke has the comma after today There is NO historical or manuscript evidence for placing the comma before today.
Luke 23:43 kai eipen autw o ihsouV amhn legw soi, shmeron met emou esh en tw paradeisw 43 kai eipen auto o ihsouv amhn lego soi, semeron (today) met emou ese en to paradeiso
Today at 11:38 AM beanbagboy1982 said this in Post #206 i told someone this once:
you say there is no hell and no GOD.
ok, i belive in God and you dont, and there is no GOd, then nothing will happen,
But lets say there is a God and there is a hell, who do you think will be safe?
Hell exists and we all know it, even though some people deny it.
I LOVE GOD
Today at 05:39 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #204
Prove that is the reason. But there is also another possibility. Just heard about a subway disaster in Korea 120+ people killed. An arsonist threw a burning flammable liquid in the subway station, burned two subway trains with several cars. Although there was fire it was dark. Care to take a guess why? Smoke! The same thing ahppened in Kuwait when the Iraqis pulled out and set hundreds of oil wells on fire, although there were hundreds of fires it was dark, from the smoke. Since it is possible for darkness to exist in the presence of fire in our own experience I'm sure a supernatural God would have no problem having fire and darkness at the same time.
Today at 01:08 PM Rae Naval said this in Post #209 It's only dark above the flames. where the smoke is. But to actually be in fire itself, to actually have your body covered in fire would not be dark. Unless those in hell don't actually enter the fire and just hover above I'd have to think that you're wrong. If it doesnt' look like a flame in any sense of what we imagine a flame to be who's to say it is. Unless God is speaking figuratively. For all your trying to argue hell could just be really hot water. Dark and really hot. All i'm saying is that I don't think Hell is actually fire, maybe being separated from God actually burns (I'd imagine it actually hurts alot to completely be out of the prescence of all that is good). I'm not trying to make hell out to be some walk in the park I'm pretty sure it's the worse possible thing I just doubt it's literally fire. To add i also believe that if we are to enter hell it is our own doing, our seperation from God is the choice we make if we deny him.
Have you ever meditated even for ten minutes on the absurdity of somebody posting endless words asserting the man-made doctrine of their false relgion and NEVER posting one single scripture to back it up.Today at 03:55 AM franklin said this in Post #208 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=665334#post665334)
BBB,
If eternal torment IS TRUE, then Jesus Christ will *SNIP* through all eternity.
Have you ever meditated even for ten minutes on the absurdity of being tortured like this for eternity?
Oh no Franklin that is a cop out, you posted something now I would like to see you back it up. When you address the false information you posted about Luke 23:43 and then we will proceed from there. And OBTW I have already posted more than enough scriptural support for my posotion, which you have ignored just as you are trying to ignore my argument about Luke.Today at 02:28 AM franklin said this in Post #205 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=665156#post665156)
OK OS, I'll play you silly childish game and not even use the comma as an argument. You still continue to not only sidestep my questions, but you haven't even been able to refute my argument about the statements made by Jesus which brings me to present another question to you.
If Christ went to Paradise that very day, He would surely have gone into the very presence of God. If Jesus ascended to the father that day, then was he lying to Mary? for he said to Mary three days later, after he had been raised from the dead, " I am not yet ascended to My Father " (John 20:17) Go ahead OS, give it your best shot!
I'm not sure if Franklin may have mistyped in his response to Luke 23:43, but the comma was not the only thing that was changed:Today at 07:12 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #213 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=667085#post667085)
Oh no Franklin that is a cop out, you posted something now I would like to see you back it up. When you address the false information you posted about Luke 23:43 and then we will proceed from there. And OBTW I have already posted more than enough scriptural support for my posotion, which you have ignored just as you are trying to ignore my argument about Luke.
Jesus was not telling the thief that he would be in Paradise with Jesus.By Franklin:Your quote reads as thus:
Luke 23:43, "...Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with Me in paradise."
However, the correct reading of this verse should read:
Luke 23:43, "...Verily I say unto thee To day , thou shalt be with me in paradise."
Notice the placement of the comma in the second quote from the first? It changes the whole meaning of the passage. And no OS, it's not out of the Jdubya's reference book or their bible BTW..... If Christ went to Paradise that very day, He would surely have gone into the very presence of God. But Jesus did not go to his Father that day, for he said to Mary three days later, after he had been raised from the dead, " I am not yet ascended to My Father " (John 20:17). Christ was resurrected for 40 days (Acts 1:3) and ascended to the father only after his 40 days were fulfilled (Acts 1:9-11). Therefore, they were not together anywhere that day, except on the cross. When Jesus made this statement to the thief, it was in a reply to what the thief said to Jesus: Luke 23:42-43, "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee To day, thou shalt be with me in paradise. " Notice, the thief said "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom." He did not say "when thou goest." He didn't go anywhere except the grave to go to sleep.
Today at 10:26 PM drmmjr said this in Post #214 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=667176#post667176)
I'm not sure if Franklin may have mistyped in his response to Luke 23:43, but the comma was not the only thing that was changed:
Jesus was not telling the thief that he would be in Paradise with Jesus.
The comma placement is relevant because it is not a question. There is NO question mark in this verse! In Biblical Greek the punctuation indicating a question mark was, what we call, a semi-colon, ;. Which does NOT occur in this sentence but it does occur in verse 43.The comma placement reall doesn't make much difference. Jesus was responding to the thief's request that Jesus remember the thief when Jesus comes into his kingdom. He did that by asking the thief if he would be in Paradise with Jesus, and the only way for that to happen would be for the thief to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
When quoting this verse most people swap the "shalt thou" into "thou shalt" which totally changes the meaning.
I will do better than that I will show how this is translated by A.T. Robertson who taught post graduate level Greek for 47 years.You had pasted in your post a quote of the verse from The Greek New Testament. But could you also past what the english translation is of these words? (Since not everyone can read Greek) That would help everyone to see which way the "shalt thou" was in that translation.
Oh, give me a break. As I pointed out, not everyone can read Greek, or Latin, or Hebrew, or Arabic, etc. etc. But as you say, the Greek word that "shalt thou be" is translated from is "esomai" {es'-om-ahee} - (from Lexicon results for esomai (Strong's 2071). This word is used as - future first person singular of "to be".Today at 09:23 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #215 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=667242#post667242)
And you of course can prove this can't you? But no I read further in your repsonse and you ask me to, "past [sic] what the english translation is of these words? (Since not everyone can read Greek)" Excuse me? You are going to tell me I am wrong about what the Greek says and you can't even read the Greek?
And how many Jews today answer a question with a question?The comma placement is relevant because it is not a question. There is NO question mark in this verse! In Biblical Greek the punctuation indicating a question mark was, what we call, a semi-colon, ;. Which does NOT occur in this sentence but it does occur in verse 43.
Thank you for the English inserts into the Greek.I will do better than that I will show how this is translated by A.T. Robertson who taught post graduate level Greek for 47 years.
Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise} (\Sêmeron met emou esêi en tôi paradeisôi\). However crude may have been the robbers Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (#2Co 12:4; Re 2:7), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven. Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting "Abrahams bosom" (#Lu 16:22) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it.
Luke 23:43 kai eipen autw o ihsouV amhn legw soi, shmeron met emou esh en tw paradeisw
43 kai eipen auto o ihsouv amhn lego soi, semeron (today) met emou ese en to paradeiso
And as you requested the Greek/English interlinear[/B]
43 kai {AND} eipen {SAID} autw o {TO HIM} ihsouv {JESUS,} amhn {VERILY} legw {I SAY} soi {TO THEE,} shmeron {TODAY} met {WITH} emou {ME} esh {THOU SHALT BE} en tw {IN} paradeisw {PARADISE.}
Today at 06:06 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #212 Have you ever meditated even for ten minutes on the absurdity of somebody posting endless words asserting the man-made doctrine of their false relgion and NEVER posting one single scripture to back it up.
Today at 10:28 AM drmmjr said this in Post #216
Oh, give me a break. As I pointed out, not everyone can read Greek, or Latin, or Hebrew, or Arabic, etc. etc. But as you say, the Greek word that "shalt thou be" is translated from is "esomai" {es'-om-ahee} - (from Lexicon results for esomai (Strong's 2071). This word is used as - future first person singular of "to be".
Please notice that this is a "future first person singular", key word future, not present.
False! Everybody with a Strong's thinks they're a Greek Bible authority. Strong's only gives the root word, it does NOT indicate the mood, case, person, gender, or number of the word used. But you don't know that because you don't know the first thing about Greek. A person cannot speak Russian with only a dictionary and they cannot translate Greek with only a concordance.Today at 12:28 AM drmmjr said this in Post #216 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=667322#post667322)
Oh, give me a break. As I pointed out, not everyone can read Greek, or Latin, or Hebrew, or Arabic, etc. etc. But as you say, the Greek word that "shalt thou be" is translated from is "esomai" {es'-om-ahee} - (from Lexicon results for esomai (Strong's 2071). This word is used as - future first person singular of "to be".
Please notice that this is a "future first person singular", key word future, not present.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Both questions are irrelevant. The subject here is what did Jesus say, 2000 years ago, NOT what many Jews today say!And how many Jews today answer a question with a question?
What the thief wanted or asked for is irrelevant. He certainly did NOT want to be on that cross but he was! Your other questions are irrelevant. Nothing prevented Jesus from doing exactly what He said, "Today, you shall be with me in paradise". Can you prove from the scriptures that it did NOT happen then or that it has not happened now?One thing to remember is the verse preceeding this one:
Luke 23:42 - And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
All that the thief wanted was for Jesus to remember him when Jesus came to establish his kingdom. Had that happened at that time? Has it happened yet? Then how could the thief be with Jesus in Paradise at that time?
Yesterday at 10:56 PM OldShepherd said this in Post #219 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=668532#post668532)
False! Everybody with a Strong's thinks they're a Greek Bible authority. Strong's only gives the root word, it does NOT indicate the mood, case, person, gender, or number of the word used. But you don't know that because you don't know the first thing about Greek. A person cannot speak Russian with only a dictionary and they cannot translate Greek with only a concordance.
You don't need a question mark to have a question.As I posted before this verse translated by a Greek scholar with over 47 years experience. The word in the original Greek is esh/"ese", not the root word "esomai". Robertson translated esh/"ese", as "you shall be" because it is in the "future, indicative" And future is correct, Jesus, while on the cross, could NOT say "Today you are with me in paradise!" Also there is no question mark, i.e. ;, it is a statement NOT a question!
Just trying to lighten the mood a little.How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Both questions are irrelevant. The subject here is what did Jesus say, 2000 years ago, NOT what many Jews today say!
What the thief wanted or asked for is irrelevant. He certainly did NOT want to be on that cross but he was! Your other questions are irrelevant. Nothing prevented Jesus from doing exactly what He said, "Today, you shall be with me in paradise". Can you prove from the scriptures that it did NOT happen then or that it has not happened now?
kuwn epistreqaV epi to idion exerama kai uV lousamenh eiV kulisma borborou
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?