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

[redleghunter]

If we are in heaven when Jesus returns, why would we need to be raised from the dead? Doesn’t he gather his people when he returns?

If we’re already with him in heaven, how does he regather us?

The inner man or soul is present with the Lord. At the Resurrection we are united with our resurrected bodies.

 

[redleghunter]

Untrue. Man IS a soul. He does not have a soul.

Yes this is the JW and SDA view.

 

[Traveling teacher]

So when the writer of Hebrews told His flocks they had already come to the New, Heavenly Jerusalem, the City of the Living God, in an innumerable company of Angels.... you are Saying God wasn't really dwelling there? (Hebrews 12:22)

Yes this is a hope of where we will be in the future in the New Jerusalem....

obviously a faith thing not physically fulfilled yet.....
but by faith in Jesus yes we have that reality......

Jesus said I go and prepare a place.....it wasnt completed at Jesus days on the earth...
John 14:3 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

If the place where Jesus is preparing is the New Jerusalem?????
Then it looks like the New Jerusalem is completed at the end of the
1000 year riegne....
REvelation 20:14-15....final judgement in lake of fire
REvelation 21 :1-2 ....
Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth,"for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Untrue. Man IS a soul. He does not have a soul.

(following is link leading potentially, if there is hunger and thirst for righteousness with God, and for His Word, to extensive detailed and accurate Scripture reading)

"Spirit and Soul
The Spiritual Man, CFP, Vol. 1, Part 1, INTRODUCTION ON SPIRIT, SOUL AND BODY, Ch. 2, by Watchman Nee

Spirit
IT IS IMPERATIVE that a believer know he has a spirit, since, as we shall soon learn, every communication of God with man occurs there. If the believer does not discern his own spirit he invariably is ignorant of how to commune with God in the spirit. He easily substitutes the thoughts or emotions of the soul for the works of the spirit. Thus he confines himself to the outer realm, unable ever to reach the spiritual realm."

 

[Traveling teacher]

What a great question.

The answer is all souls went to Sheol prior to the resurrection. Sheol was divided into two parts. One, commonly referred to as Abraham's bosom, or paradise, and the other Hades (see Luke 16:22-23).
It was the souls in paradise that were freed and taken to Heaven by Jesus after the crucifixion (see Eph. 4:7-10). The gates of Hades could not hold those Jesus freed, but the souls that are condemned waiting judgement at the White Throne are still there.

agree sheol has 2 parts divided by a gulf
1. paradise
----gulf--------
2. hades ...place or torment

however I am not sure if Jesus took these souls in Paradise out yet...
but I do believe He crossed over this gulf and took some out...
of hades or the place of torment where the rich man was.....
at His resurection and brought them into Paradise.....
If there are 2-3 Heavens this would make sense.....

ephesians 4:8-9
When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people." 9(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions?
1 Peter 4:18-20
He went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

 

[MartyF]

Word-for-word is a synonym of literal with regards to translation. So I’m not sure what you are talking about Marty.

Je m'appelle Marty.

Word-for-word translation

I me calls Marty.

Literal translation

My name is Marty.

The NLT paraphrases John 3:13, as it is a rewording of the passage. It is not word for word.

New Living Translation

No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man* has come down from heaven.

An actual paraphrase given on the following website:

https://www.gotquestions.org/John-3-13.html

“None of your earthly teachers can really teach you about heaven, because none of them have actually been there. However, I have been there. In fact, it is My home. I have come to you from heaven, and I have brought with Me experiential knowledge of that place. My testimony carries weight; I can tell you the truth about salvation.”

I would argue word for word or literal helps to prevent introducing meaning that is not there.

The opposite is actually true. Word-for-word and literal translations are more likely to introduce meaning which is not there. Anyone who has to translate for a living will know that equivalent > literal > word-for-word. Here are some examples on websites:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sh-translations-spotted-restaurant-menus.html

http://mentalfloss.com/article/48795/9-little-translation-mistakes-caused-big-problems

Word-for-word and literal translations are the laziest translations requiring little effort on the part of the translator. Many Bible translations get away with it because people in the U.S. evangelical community tend to know only English and don't understand the problems with the translations.

As a result of your misinterpretation of John 3:13, you have to use a giant distortion prism to warp the meaning of the rest of the Bible. You've given primacy to a portion of the verse in John 3:13 without reading it contextually with the surrounding passage. Your primacy of your interpretation of a portion of John 3:13 distorts your entire view of the Bible. This distortion is evident in your later discussion in the post.

Marty

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

agree sheol has 2 parts divided by a gulf
1. paradise
----gulf--------
2. hades ...place or torment

however I am not sure if Jesus took these souls in Paradise out yet...
but I do believe He crossed over this gulf and took some out...
at His resurection and brought them into Paradise.....
If there are 2-3 Heavens this would make sense.....
ephesians 4:8-9
When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people." 9(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions?
1 Peter 4:18-20
He went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

It looks like you are in truth seeking the truth and have sought the truth for some time already.
This will help if you are able > if you can find e.w.bullinger's pdf online "lazarus and the rich man".... which as far as I know is the only really good study that goes from Genesis 1:1 thru all Scripture and thru the Apocalypse , showing Yahweh's meaning in complete harmony with no contradiction.

Not many are able nor willing to actually seek Yahweh's understanding of Yahweh's Word. (for most, tradition trumps Scripture, and they are willing to leave it there)

 

[Traveling teacher]

If we are in heaven when Jesus returns, why would we need to be raised from the dead? Doesn’t he gather his people when he returns?

If we’re already with him in heaven, how does he regather us?

if we can believe that there now 2 heavens and in the future 3 heavens this would make sense......

I believe the first heaven is Paradise.......
this is Sheol or the place of all dead in the OT.....
psalm 16:10
"For you will not leave my soul in sheol"
divided by a gulf....where good and evil are in 2 places....

It is my belief that those who die in Christ are taken to the first heaven which is Paradise.......

When Christ returns we will be resurected and meet Him in the air and we will be taken to the 2nd heaven where God now exists.....

 

[redleghunter]

(following is link leading potentially, if there is hunger and thirst for righteousness with God, and for His Word, to extensive detailed and accurate Scripture reading)

"Spirit and Soul
The Spiritual Man, CFP, Vol. 1, Part 1, INTRODUCTION ON SPIRIT, SOUL AND BODY, Ch. 2, by Watchman Nee

Spirit
IT IS IMPERATIVE that a believer know he has a spirit, since, as we shall soon learn, every communication of God with man occurs there. If the believer does not discern his own spirit he invariably is ignorant of how to commune with God in the spirit. He easily substitutes the thoughts or emotions of the soul for the works of the spirit. Thus he confines himself to the outer realm, unable ever to reach the spiritual realm."

What's your source for the quoted above?

The NT term is the "inner man."

Inward (man, part), Inwardly

[ 1,,G2080, eso ]
within, inward," is used adjectivally in Romans 7:22, "(the) inward (man);" 2 Corinthians 4:16, with "man" expressed in the preceding clause, but not repeated in the original, "(our) inward (man)" (some mss. have esothen, "from within"); Ephesians 3:16, RV, "(the) inward (man)" (AV, "inner"). See INNER, WITHIN.
[ 2,,G2081, esothen ]
is used in Luke 11:39, as a noun with the article, "part" being understood, "(your) inward part;" in Matthew 7:15it has its normal use as an adverb, "inwardly." See WITHIN.
Note: In Romans 2:29 the phrase en to krupto, lit., "in (the) secret, or hidden" ("part" being understood) is rendered "inwardly," said of a spiritual Jew, in contrast to the one who is merely naturally circumcised and so is one outwardly. See HIDE, SECRET.
https://studybible.info/vines/Inward (man, part), Inwardly​

STRONGS NT 2080: ἔσω

ἔσω, adverb (from ἐς, for εἴσω (fr. Homer on) from εἰς; cf. Winers Grammar, 52; (Buttmann, 72 (63); Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 432));

1. to within, into: Matthew 26:58; Mark 14:54; with the genitive Mark 15:16(Winer's Grammar, § 54,6).

2. within: John 20:26; Acts 5:23; ὁ ἔσωἄνθρωπος, the internal, inner man, i. e. the soul, conscience (see ἄνθρωπος, 1 e.), 2 Corinthians 4:16 L T Tr WH; Romans 7:22; Ephesians 3:16; οἱ ἔσω, those who belong to the Christian brotherhood (opposed to οἱ ἔξω (which see in ἔξω, 1 a.)), 1 Corinthians 5:12.

As Paul contrasts with the outer man:

STRONGS NT 1854: ἔξω

ἔξω, adverb (from ἐξ, as ἔσω and εἴσω from ἐς and εἰς);

1. without, out of doors;

a. adverbially: Mark 11:4; joined with verbs: ἑστάναι, Matthew 12:46, 47 (WHtext omit the verse); Mark 3:31; Luke 8:20; Luke 13:25; John 18:16; John 20:11(Lachmann omits); καθῆσθαι, Matthew 26:69; or with some other verb declaring that the person without is doing something, Mark 3:31. Preceded by the article ὁ ἔξω, absolutely, he who is without, properly, of place; metaphorically, in plural, those who do not belong to the Christian church (cf. Lightfoot on Col. as below; Meyer on Mark as below): 1 Corinthians 5:12, 13; Colossians 4:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:12; those who are not of the number of the apostles, Mark 4:11 ((cf. Meyer) WHmarginal reading ἔξωθεν, which see). With a noun added: αἱ ἔξω πόλεις, foreign, Acts 26:11; ὁ ἔξω ἄνθρωπος, the outer man, i. e. the body (seeἄνθρωπος, 1 e.), 2 Corinthians 4:16.

b. it takes the place of a preposition and is joined with the genitive, without i. e. out of, outside of (Winer's Grammar, § 54, 6): Luke 13:33; Acts 21:5; Hebrews 13:11, 12.

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/2_corinthians/4-16.htm

 

[Traveling teacher]

It looks like you are in truth seeking the truth and have sought the truth for some time already.
This will help if you are able > if you can find e.w.bullinger's pdf online "lazarus and the rich man".... which as far as I know is the only really good study that goes from Genesis 1:1 thru all Scripture and thru the Apocalypse , showing Yahweh's meaning in complete harmony with no contradiction.

Not many are able nor willing to actually seek Yahweh's understanding of Yahweh's Word. (for most, tradition trumps Scripture, and they are willing to leave it there)

jeff
thanks for the encouragement

this is an interesting study......
nice to know we are going to a better place....
from glory to glory......

 

[ac28]

Incorrect.
Gentiles were given, through Christ, FULL CITIZENSHIP in the commonwealth of Israel:

"Ye were...aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise...[but Christ] hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us...Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens." (Eph 2:12,19)

Gentile converts to christianity go from being "foreigners of the commonwealth of Israel" to "fellow citizens."

I realize just how devastating this Biblical fact is to your "Two peoples of God" Doctrine, but all you need to do is bring your view in line with scripture and you'll be fine.

You are adjusting scripture to suit your agenda,

In God's eyes, Israel, as a nation, hasn't existed since 63AD, when Paul, in Ac 28:25-27 , pronounced Israel blinded, by quoting the curse of Isa 6:9-10 ffor the 7th and last time in scripture.

You are the one that maintains this two peoples of God thing. I certainly don't believe it. The only people of God that exist today are those individuals, whether Jew or Gentile, that believe Christ died for their sins, was buried, and raised, 3 days later, as in Paul's Gospel in 1Cor 15:1-4

Since there is no Israel today, there is no commonwealth of Israel. Saved Gentiles are fellow citizens with saved Jews today. There is no nation of God today. Everyone today is an individual. That's what pure grace is all about. Pure grace didn't exist during Acts, but it does today.

 

[ac28]

What a great question.

The answer is all souls went to Sheol prior to the resurrection. Sheol was divided into two parts. One, commonly referred to as Abraham's bosom, or paradise, and the other Hades (see Luke 16:22-23).
It was the souls in paradise that were freed and taken to Heaven by Jesus after the crucifixion (see Eph. 4:7-10). The gates of Hades could not hold those Jesus freed, but the souls that are condemned waiting judgement at the White Throne are still there.

Prove it.
You can't use Lk 16:19-31 as proof for anything, since it is a parable and is the last of several parables in Lk 15-16. The definition of a parable is a fictitious story. Don't believe those unknowledgeable tradition believers that tell you it's a true story because names are used. Of course, you've used a ton of private interpretation with Eph 4:7-10.

 

[ac28]

According to the SDA group.

According to the Bible

 

[claninja]

Je m'appelle Marty.

Word-for-word translation

I me calls Marty.

Literal translation

My name is Marty.

I don't know what else to to tell you marty, if you want to ignore the definitions of words, that is up to you, but a word-for-word translation is the same thing as a literal translation

From the oxford dictionary:

lit·er·al
ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/
adjective1.

1. taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
   "dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread"
2. (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.
   synonyms: word-for-word, verbatim, letter-for-letter; More

According to wikipedia, a literal translatin is also known as a word-for-word translation:
Literal translation, direct translation, or word-for-word translation is the rendering of text from one language to another one word at a time

New Living Translation

No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man* has come down from heaven.

An actual paraphrase given on the following website:

https://www.gotquestions.org/John-3-13.html

“None of your earthly teachers can really teach you about heaven, because none of them have actually been there. However, I have been there. In fact, it is My home. I have come to you from heaven, and I have brought with Me experiential knowledge of that place. My testimony carries weight; I can tell you the truth about salvation.”

From: http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html

“The New Living Translation is an extensive revision of Ken Taylor's Living Bible (published by Tyndale House in 1971). It was designed to improve the accuracy of Taylor's paraphrase.

Like the Good News Bible, the preface of the NLT states that the translation was done in accordance with principles of 'dynamic equivalence.' It explains that "the goal of this translation theory is to produce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text—both in meaning and in style. Such a translation attempts to have the same impact on modern readers as the original had on its own audience ... the New Living Translation seeks to be both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful." The problems inherent in this method of 'dynamic equivalence' are well known — they are discussed in the essay "Against the Theory of Dynamic Equivalence" on this site, and we will not dwell on them here. It would be useless to criticize the version for specific non-literal renderings when the editors have renounced literal accuracy in principle; but it would be pertinent to ask whether the version is a good one according to its own stated goals, and so we will do this under the several headings below.

There may be a place for this version in the education of children, but we conclude that it is not suitable for use by adults in the Church. The version carries over too much of the unsound paraphrasing of the Living Bible.”

The opposite is actually true. Word-for-word and literal translations are more likely to introduce meaning which is not there. Anyone who has to translate for a living will know that equivalent > literal > word-for-word.

That’s just not true. I suggest looking up the pros and cons for formal equivalence (word for word, literal) and dynamic equivalence (thought for thought).

Word for word or literal translations are not more likely to insert new meaning. The con of word for word or literal is that it can be more open to interpretation. The con of thought for thought is that though they may be easier to read, meanings to the text can be added intentionally or unintentionally through interpretative translation.

Here are some examples on websites:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sh-translations-spotted-restaurant-menus.html

http://mentalfloss.com/article/48795/9-little-translation-mistakes-caused-big-problems

I agree, translational MISTAKES and ERRORS can lead to problems with understanding the language being translated.

Word-for-word and literal translations are the laziest translations requiring little effort on the part of the translator. Many Bible translations get away with it because people in the U.S. evangelical community tend to know only English and don't understand the problems with the translations.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

As a result of your misinterpretation of John 3:13, you have to use a giant distortion prism to warp the meaning of the rest of the Bible. You've given primacy to a portion of the verse in John 3:13 without reading it contextually with the surrounding passage. Your primacy of your interpretation of a portion of John 3:13 distorts your entire view of the Bible. This distortion is evident in your later discussion in the post.

Marty, you won’t even recognize the Oxford dictionary definition of literal in regards to translation, which has word-for-word as a synonym. You rely only on the translation of the nlt for your case. You provide articles about translation MISTAKES from restaurant menus, as supporting your case. you provide your opinion that formal equivalent is a lazy way of translation. Additionally, you accuse me of misenterpriting by giving primacy to Jesus’ words, without explainging why I am wrong about the interpretation of other scripture (2 kings, 2 chronicles, Hebrews 11).

Your case is on shaky ground brother.

 

[MartyF]

I don't know what else to to tell you marty, if you want to ignore the definitions of words, that is up to you, but a word-for-word translation is the same thing as a literal translation

From the oxford dictionary:

lit·er·al
ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/
adjective1.

1. taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
   "dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread"
2. (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.
   synonyms: word-for-word, verbatim, letter-for-letter; More

According to wikipedia, a literal translatin is also known as a word-for-word translation:
Literal translation, direct translation, or word-for-word translation is the rendering of text from one language to another one word at a time



From: http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html

“The New Living Translation is an extensive revision of Ken Taylor's Living Bible (published by Tyndale House in 1971). It was designed to improve the accuracy of Taylor's paraphrase.

Like the Good News Bible, the preface of the NLT states that the translation was done in accordance with principles of 'dynamic equivalence.' It explains that "the goal of this translation theory is to produce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text—both in meaning and in style. Such a translation attempts to have the same impact on modern readers as the original had on its own audience ... the New Living Translation seeks to be both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful." The problems inherent in this method of 'dynamic equivalence' are well known — they are discussed in the essay "Against the Theory of Dynamic Equivalence" on this site, and we will not dwell on them here. It would be useless to criticize the version for specific non-literal renderings when the editors have renounced literal accuracy in principle; but it would be pertinent to ask whether the version is a good one according to its own stated goals, and so we will do this under the several headings below.

There may be a place for this version in the education of children, but we conclude that it is not suitable for use by adults in the Church. The version carries over too much of the unsound paraphrasing of the Living Bible.”



That’s just not true. I suggest looking up the pros and cons for formal equivalence (word for word, literal) and dynamic equivalence (thought for thought).

Word for word or literal translations are not more likely to insert new meaning. The con of word for word or literal is that it can be more open to interpretation. The con of thought for thought is that though they may be easier to read, meanings to the text can be added intentionally or unintentionally through interpretative translation.



I agree, translational MISTAKES and ERRORS can lead to problems with understanding the language being translated.



You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.



Marty, you won’t even recognize the Oxford dictionary definition of literal in regards to translation, which has word-for-word as a synonym. You rely only on the translation of the nlt for your case. You provide articles about translation MISTAKES from restaurant menus, as supporting your case. you provide your opinion that formal equivalent is a lazy way of translation. Additionally, you accuse me of misenterpriting by giving primacy to Jesus’ words, without explainging why I am wrong about the interpretation of other scripture (2 kings, 2 chronicles, Hebrews 11).

Your case is on shaky ground brother.

Well,

Since you won’t read a word I said and your heart is harder than a lump of titanium, there’s no use in continuing to discuss anything with you.

Bye,

Marty

 

[claninja]

Well,

Since you won’t read a word I said and your heart is harder than a lump of titanium, there’s no use in continuing to discuss anything with you.

Bye,

Marty

Sure.....ok Marty......

In any case even if we disagree we are still family in Christ. Blessings Marty.

 

[redleghunter]

if you can find e.w.bullinger's pdf online "lazarus and the rich man".... which as far as I know is the only really good study that goes from Genesis 1:1 thru all Scripture and thru the Apocalypse , showing Yahweh's meaning in complete harmony with no contradiction.

Read it a few years ago. Just went over it again. Bullinger is not advocating the soul sleep of the SDA. It's worse, he teaches that at death a man-spirit, soul and body-ceases to exist.

He bases his entire theory on Ecclesiastes 9:5-6. What I mean by bases, is that Bullinger interprets Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 and from there handles the remainder of Scriptures based on his sunk understanding of those verses. Error begets error from there. Verses in context below:

Ecclesiastes 9: NASB

1For I have taken all this to my heart and explain it that righteous men, wise men, and their deeds are in the hand of God. Man does not know whether it will be love or hatred; anything awaits him.

2It is the same for all. There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked; for the good, for the clean and for the unclean; for the man who offers a sacrifice and for the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is, so is the sinner; as the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to swear. 3This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead. 4For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.

7Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works. 8Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head. 9Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun.

but the dead do not know anything
Bullinger sees this as key to the passage and his theology as meaning the total man is non-existent or ceases to exist until the resurrection.

nor have they any longer a reward
This part of the verse becomes a problem for Bullinger. If "the dead do not know anything" means total man-soul literally ceases to exist, then "nor have they any longer a reward" means exactly that...dead people have no reward future. Yet in Daniel 12 and in the NT we see those in Christ will have a reward at His coming. So this part of verse 5 is a huge problem for Bullinger.

and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
We have the above in verse 6 which sheds light on the dead not knowing anything and the dead no longer having a reward. What is written in this passage of Ecclesiastes 9:1-9 ends with "done under the sun." Meaning this temporal life. This completely torpedoes Bullinger's thesis as he applies the verses in question to the immortal when the author (Solomon) is applying such to our temporal lives on earth.

This is where Bullinger goes in a circular argument. He states when we die our soul-man, our very existence ceases. Then when interpreting verses 5 and 6 goes on to argue there is nothing after our death until the resurrection because there is no such thing as an intermediary state. It's a keen use of semantics and rhetoric which he prefaces in the first page of his pamphlet. He up front says anyone arguing against his position (which he says is straight from the Word of God) is a Traditionalist. He goes on to bemoan that 9 out of 10 people looking at the issue of existence after bodily death argue from Tradition and not Scriptures. This is a very cultic outlook to defend ones position from a created straw man. His argument is basically "If you don't see what I'm saying, you are obviously not arguing from Scriptures and must be adhering to a Traditionalist view tainted by early Christian held pagan beliefs." He then makes an impassioned argument terms such as "immortal soul" and "intermediary state" are not in Holy Scriptures therefore are false doctrines. Which is a fallacious argument as I'm sure Bullinger as an Anglican was Trinitarian and used the term "Trinity" in his Anglican liturgy. Bottom line he should know better to argue from this point thus setting up a straw man which could be easily knocked down.

Therefore, Bullinger put a lot of freight behind these two verses from a book of wisdom and got it wrong. Which calls into question the remainder of his argument which has as the base piece Ecclesiastes 9:5-6.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"You say"

Therefore, Bullinger put a lot of freight behind these two verses from a book of wisdom and got it wrong. Which calls into question the remainder of his argument which has as the base piece

but historically and factually "I say" he got more right than anyone you know including yourself, more than me, including myself,
more than anyone I know (except a couple possibles).

Yes, Testing any message is required - and having tested your messages (posts)
and having tested Bullinger's messages,

overall yours are far more failed than His - you each may have some wrong and some right, and he is acknowledged by many in the last few centuries(however long) to have gotten many things right/ correct according to Scripture. NOT everything, but overall better than you have shown, and better than you have posted so far as I have been able to read.

 

[redleghunter]

"You say"
but historically and factually "I say" he got more right than anyone you know including yourself, more than me, including myself,
more than anyone I know (except a couple possibles).

Yes, Testing any message is required - and having tested your messages (posts)
and having tested Bullinger's messages,

overall yours are far more failed than His - you each may have some wrong and some right, and he is acknowledged by many in the last few centuries(however long) to have gotten many things right/ correct according to Scripture. NOT everything, but overall better than you have shown, and better than you have posted so far as I have been able to read.

Jeff the problem is you are using the same semantic rhetoric Bullinger uses. You have not refuted my use of Holy Scriptures because you have not even attempted to address them.

We can start with a very simple passage from the New Testament and from the lips of Christ:

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.”

44It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45because the sun was obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT.” Having said this, He breathed His last. 47Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he began praising God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent.” 48And all the crowds who came together for this spectacle, when they observed what had happened, began to return, beating their breasts. 49And all His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance, seeing these things.

Please address the bolded red and underlined above.

For background I provide the following:

New International Version
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

New Living Translation
And Jesus replied, "I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise."

English Standard Version
And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Berean Study Bible
And Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Berean Literal Bible
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

New American Standard Bible
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

King James Bible
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Christian Standard Bible
And he said to him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Contemporary English Version
Jesus replied, "I promise that today you will be with me in paradise."

Good News Translation
Jesus said to him, "I promise you that today you will be in Paradise with me."

Holman Christian Standard Bible
And He said to him, "I assure you: Today you will be with Me in paradise."

International Standard Version
Jesus told him, "I tell you with certainty, today you will be with me in Paradise."

NET Bible
And Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

New Heart English Bible
And he said to him, "Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But Yeshua said to him, “Amen, I say to you that today you shall be with me in Paradise.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Jesus said to him, "I can guarantee this truth: Today you will be with me in paradise."

New American Standard 1977
And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

Jubilee Bible 2000
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

King James 2000 Bible
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto you, Today shall you be with me in paradise.

American King James Version
And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, To day shall you be with me in paradise.

American Standard Version
And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Darby Bible Translation
And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

English Revised Version
And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.

Webster's Bible Translation
And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Weymouth New Testament
"I tell you in solemn truth," replied Jesus, "that this very day you shall be with me in Paradise."

World English Bible
Jesus said to him, "Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

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

Comparing the "Verily I say unto thee" statements in the Gospels:

Verily I say unto thee

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

To do as you want, i.e. "refute" (the leaves on the trees) the Scripture you use,
would be both enough but insufficient at the same time -
(sorry but this is from memory at this time as posters don't usually want to go the whole route, even barely ever start)
the deeper goals , the repairing / healing from the roots would
require much more time and space, (or direct revelation from Yahweh thru Jesus/ Spirit)
and so far on this forum after even a few days or weeks getting down to the roots with them relatively 'amicably' went fine
until we got down to the source of the ... ... what is it..... the original thought/ teaching they built upon, which was as known all along in error, but which they did not want to let go of ... so they were very willing to "go along amicably" post to post,
point to point, until we got to that point where their basic error (whether sin or not, not considering here) would be exposed...
then , always so far, they bailed. (with various excuses)...