Question For The Christians

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again Phanta.

 

Would you be so kind as to say which of my example/argument combos failed to make the cut and why you thought so? Any helpful input would be much appreciated.

 

Sure!

 

First let me describe what I think you are doing in these posts. I think you are showing the the Jewish idea of the afterlife according to scripture does not resemble Ray's claim about the afterlife-- who goes where and when. Your claim is that the Jews believed that, after death, the soul went to sleep in Shoel until the day of resurrection. Yes?

 

In a nutshell, yes.

Both the Old and the New testaments agree that all flesh (except the chosen few who are taken up alive into heaven) returns to the dust and only rises when it's time for the new to sweep away the old - Judgement Day.

This explains why Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob and Aaron were, 'gathered to their people', when they died. This is being gathered to their dead ancestors, who lie in the dust of the earth. Logic dictates that this gathering cannot mean being gathered to their living people, since they are leaving the living and going to their deaths. Logic also dictates that they are not being gathered to their people who were already in heaven. This is because God's promise to Abraham - to make him into a great nation, with descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky - had not been fulfilled in Abraham's lifetime.

 

The Apostle Paul is quite clear that Abraham looked ahead to the time when God would make good on His promise. He did not see that time while he lived. That is why his faith and trust in God were credited to him as righteousness. ('Accounted to' or 'Reckoned to', in the NT Greek. "Reckoning to' in the OT Hebrew.) He will collect what was credited, accounted or reckoned to him on Judgement Day - not before. Even though He did not live to see God's promise fulfilled, he expects to see it, once he is raised from Sheol, on the Last Day. Some might argue that John 8:48-59, where Jesus talks about, 'Abraham seeing my day', means that Abraham saw God right after he died. However, that interpretation clashes with the examples I've already posted and with the meaning of Hebrews 11, having faith in future things.

 

If you read the John passage carefully and pay attention to verses 58 and 59, the problem goes away. "...before Abraham was born, I AM!" Those listening to Jesus wanted to stone him because he'd spoken the holy name of God. They thought he'd blasphemed, when in fact, he was using His own name. So, of course Abraham saw Jesus' day. But Christ says this from his own p.o.v, not Abraham's. That's the key to it. To God, simple things like time and eternity are of no meaning. To Him, the dead are alive and not unseen/unperceived, as I've mentioned earlier in this thread. So yes, Abraham saw Jesus' day, that is the Second Coming, and was glad. In the same way, Paul and Timothy and all the Christian dead will see His day and be glad. But that Day has not yet come and until it does, the dead sleep.

Ray doesn't agree with some aspect of that...YOU seem to be saying that he thinks Shoel is a metaphor, but I can't find where he directly addressed the Shoel verses... (Maybe one of you can point me to it).

 

Yes, his literal take on scripture is too inflexible to see that certain parts of scripture aren't history, but metaphor. Also, he reads, "Abraham saw my day" in a rigidly literal way. If Jesus says this is so - then it must be so and alternative interpretations be damned! Ray cannot accept the flexibility of the interpretation I've given above, even though mine is in better agreement with the rest of scripture than his and does not generate the contradictions his does. If he yields to the possibility that God can use language flexibly to convey meaning, then the absolute certainty his literalism gives to him vanishes... 'poof'! Unless God speaks the total and perfect truth, Ray's in trouble. Why? Because if God's own words cannot be relied upon to be the absolute defining truth of all reality, that puts everything else into the Bible into doubt. The deeds of King David - history or metaphor? The Exodus - actual reportage of real events or a morality tale? Worst of all, the first chapters of Genesis! If it isn't actually 100% true that God created the universe in six days and that Adam and Eve are actually fictional characters, then maybe Evolution does explain where we come from!

 

No Phanta, Ray hasn't addressed the Sheol verses. Nor do I think he will. Stonewall defiance and denial are his first line of defense. Trashing anything you or I or anyone who isn't on his 'approved' list of Christian VIP's says to the contrary, is his second. So far, we've seen plenty of both and not much in the way of a studied response/refutation of my challenges. I fully expect him to latch onto something from this post, rather than satisfy our questions. (I've got a, 'Told you so!' ready and waiting, should he do so.)

 

If that's correct, then the minor point that I found a bit weak is here:

 

Genesis 37: 29-36.

(Here's a preface for you Ray - so that you know that this the literal truth and not a metaphor. Ok? I know you have a problem distinguishing reportage from metaphor, so here's a helping hand. Please read on...)[/color]

Joseph sold by His Brothers

29When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he(AA) tore his clothes 30and returned to his brothers and said, "The boy(AB) is gone, and I, where shall I go?" 31Then they took(AC) Joseph’s robe and slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. 32And they sent the robe of many colors and brought it to their father and said, "This we have found; please identify whether it is your son’s robe or not." 33And he identified it and said, "It is my son’s robe.(AD) A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces." 34Then Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days. 35All his sons and all his daughters(AE) rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No,(AF) I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him. 36Meanwhile(AG) the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh,(AH) the captain of the guard.

 

"...I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning?"

 

What? Not up to heaven? But you say that all true Christian believers immediately go up to Christ's presence in heaven. Isn't that right, Ray? Isn't that what would happen, if the what Jesus said to the thief, was literally true? So why's Joseph talking about going down to Sheol? Is this a metaphor, perhaps? Nope. Can't be. The preface, 'Joseph sold by His Brothers' tells us that it must be the literal truth - a totally and absolutely accurate and perfectly reliable account of historical events. Not a metaphor at all. Can you resolve this contradiction please?

 

It is actually possible that:

 

1. Joseph was confused about what happens after death.

or

2. Joseph was using some kind of metaphor "going down to Shoel" to refer to grief/death.

or

3. Biblical theology changed significantly time in between the writing of this manifestation of Genesis and the time Ray learned his ideas about the afterlife.

 

Well yes, I do have some thoughts about 'recent' changes in theology, notably the birth and rise of Creationism and what it was a response to. Can elaborate, if you'd like. Please lmk.

Your other examples suggest that #2 is not a real possibility. However, Joseph making a statement does not make Ray's idea of Heaven and Biblical reporting untrue in itself. Biblical characters are often illustrations of mistakes. They present difficult interbeing conundrums, morally abmiguous situations, and misunderstanding. #1 could still be argued by Ray and the Bible would remain consistent. In order to be truthful, the Bible need only report truthfully the real feelings of its characters, flawed though they may be. He could also argue that all references to Shoel are metaphoric. Or....?

 

Without your supporting evidence, it still could be metaphor spoken by Joseph and true recounting by the Bible.

 

Agreed and accepted. Thanks for the input. This Genesis passage is not up to the task.

 

Phanta

 

Edited: to get back on track.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

[Phanta]

Hi BAA! Thanks for the interesting reply.

 

Logic also dictates that they are not being gathered to their people who were already in heaven. This is because God's promise to Abraham - to make him into a great nation, with descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky - had not been fulfilled in Abraham's lifetime.

 

The Apostle Paul is quite clear that Abraham looked ahead to the time when God would make good on His promise. He did not see that time while he lived. That is why his faith and trust in God were credited to him as righteousness. ('Accounted to' or 'Reckoned to', in the NT Greek. "Reckoning to' in the OT Hebrew.) He will collect what was credited, accounted or reckoned to him on Judgement Day - not before. Even though He did not live to see God's promise fulfilled, he expects to see it, once he is raised from Sheol, on the Last Day. Some might argue that John 8:48-59, where Jesus talks about, 'Abraham seeing my day', means that Abraham saw God right after he died. However, that interpretation clashes with the examples I've already posted and with the meaning of Hebrews 11, having faith in future things.

 

Are you saying that Abraham will see the earthly nation that has formed during his sleep-time upon his resurrection (on Judgement day)?

 

If you read the John passage carefully and pay attention to verses 58 and 59, the problem goes away. "...before Abraham was born, I AM!" Those listening to Jesus wanted to stone him because he'd spoken the holy name of God. They thought he'd blasphemed, when in fact, he was using His own name. So, of course Abraham saw Jesus' day. But Christ says this from his own p.o.v, not Abraham's. That's the key to it. To God, simple things like time and eternity are of no meaning. To Him, the dead are alive and not unseen/unperceived, as I've mentioned earlier in this thread. So yes, Abraham saw Jesus' day, that is the Second Coming, and was glad. In the same way, Paul and Timothy and all the Christian dead will see His day and be glad. But that Day has not yet come and until it does, the dead sleep.

[/color]

 

Ok, I read the text. It's a bit confusing. I'm going to need to sit with the text and your interpretation for a bit.

 

Yes, his literal take on scripture is too inflexible to see that certain parts of scripture aren't history, but metaphor. Also, he reads, "Abraham saw my day" in a rigidly literal way.

 

You mean...he sees it that Abraham went immediately to Heaven and saw Jesus...?

 

So...Jesus is affirming this death-sleep idea?

 

If Jesus says this is so - then it must be so and alternative interpretations be damned! Ray cannot accept the flexibility of the interpretation I've given above, even though mine is in better agreement with the rest of scripture than his and does not generate the contradictions his does. If he yields to the possibility that God can use language flexibly to convey meaning, then the absolute certainty his literalism gives to him vanishes... 'poof'! Unless God speaks the total and perfect truth, Ray's in trouble. Why? Because if God's own words cannot be relied upon to be the absolute defining truth of all reality, that puts everything else into the Bible into doubt.

 

Well...that doesn't really prove that it isn't literal, does it? What it suggests is that the author of whatever scripture we are discussing uses complex literary forms to convey ideas. It refutes plain language, not literalism.

 

?

 

If that's correct, then the minor point that I found a bit weak is here:

 

Genesis 37: 29-36.

(Here's a preface for you Ray - so that you know that this the literal truth and not a metaphor. Ok? I know you have a problem distinguishing reportage from metaphor, so here's a helping hand. Please read on...)

Joseph sold by His Brothers

29When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he(AA) tore his clothes 30and returned to his brothers and said, "The boy(AB) is gone, and I, where shall I go?" 31Then they took(AC) Joseph’s robe and slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. 32And they sent the robe of many colors and brought it to their father and said, "This we have found; please identify whether it is your son’s robe or not." 33And he identified it and said, "It is my son’s robe.(AD) A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces." 34Then Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days. 35All his sons and all his daughters(AE) rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No,(AF) I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him. 36Meanwhile(AG) the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh,(AH) the captain of the guard.

 

"...I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning?"

 

What? Not up to heaven? But you say that all true Christian believers immediately go up to Christ's presence in heaven. Isn't that right, Ray? Isn't that what would happen, if the what Jesus said to the thief, was literally true? So why's Joseph talking about going down to Sheol? Is this a metaphor, perhaps? Nope. Can't be. The preface, 'Joseph sold by His Brothers' tells us that it must be the literal truth - a totally and absolutely accurate and perfectly reliable account of historical events. Not a metaphor at all. Can you resolve this contradiction please?

 

It is actually possible that:

 

1. Joseph was confused about what happens after death.

or

2. Joseph was using some kind of metaphor "going down to Shoel" to refer to grief/death.

or

3. Biblical theology changed significantly time in between the writing of this manifestation of Genesis and the time Ray learned his ideas about the afterlife.

 

Well yes, I do have some thoughts about 'recent' changes in theology, notably the birth and rise of Creationism and what it was a response to. Can elaborate, if you'd like. Please lmk.

 

Perhaps when I am better educated as to the original ideas.

 

Your other examples suggest that #2 is not a real possibility. However, Joseph making a statement does not make Ray's idea of Heaven and Biblical reporting untrue in itself. Biblical characters are often illustrations of mistakes. They present difficult interbeing conundrums, morally abmiguous situations, and misunderstanding. #1 could still be argued by Ray and the Bible would remain consistent. In order to be truthful, the Bible need only report truthfully the real feelings of its characters, flawed though they may be. He could also argue that all references to Shoel are metaphoric. Or....?

 

Without your supporting evidence, it still could be metaphor spoken by Joseph and true recounting by the Bible.

 

Agreed and accepted. Thanks for the input. This Genesis passage is not up to the task.

 

On it's own, no. But as a member of the collection of examples, it is worthy of consideration.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

 

You're welcome. Thanks for the conversation!

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

Double Post

[LNC]

btw when did Hawking ever emphatically and categorically state that 'god' DOES NOT exist? I didn't get that from him at all.

Hawking said, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." My understanding, but I could be wrong, is that Hawking only have claimed that God is not necessary any longer to explain Big Bang. In other words, First Cause is out the window. (Or perhaps Christians would just have to push their first cause a little further "before" Big Bang?)

 

And, of course, the straw-man talented Christian, half-brain apologists take it as a statement that God does not exist at all. They intentionally misunderstand so they have reasons to push vehemently for "acceptance" and "tolerance" in society for their hateful religion.

 

Actually, if you read the critiques that have been written about Hawking's and Mlodnow's book, it has been that he makes both scientific and philosophical errors. No one that I have read has attacked his argument from a religious point of view.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

btw when did Hawking ever emphatically and categorically state that 'god' DOES NOT exist? I didn't get that from him at all.

Hawking said, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." My understanding, but I could be wrong, is that Hawking only have claimed that God is not necessary any longer to explain Big Bang. In other words, First Cause is out the window. (Or perhaps Christians would just have to push their first cause a little further "before" Big Bang?)

 

And, of course, the straw-man talented Christian, half-brain apologists take it as a statement that God does not exist at all. They intentionally misunderstand so they have reasons to push vehemently for "acceptance" and "tolerance" in society for their hateful religion.

 

Actually, if you read the critiques that have been written about Hawking's and Mlodnow's book, it has been that he makes both scientific and philosophical errors. No one that I have read has attacked his argument from a religious point of view.

 

LNC

Sure. That could be. Perhaps Hawkings made philosophical errors in the book. Did he say that God doesn't exist, or did he just say that God wasn't necessary for the beginning of the Universe. There's a difference between those two statements.

 

If he only said God was unnecessary, the he didn't say God didn't exist, and the critique that he said such a thing would be unfounded.

 

However, if he did in fact say that God doesn't exist, then the critique that he said such would have a foundation.

 

It has nothing to do with if he is correct in his argument for God or necessity. My comment was purely about what claim did Hawking make and what does the critics say he said. If the critics claims Hawking said something he didn't say, then they're argument is wrong.

 

Do you seriously disagree on this?

 

H said X

C said H said Y, and then C says Y is false.

Then C made a red herring.

 

But if H said Y

and C said H said Y and that Y is false.

Then C might have a case.

 

My argument was that the quote says, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." Is that the same as saying "God does not exist"?

[LNC]

I beg to disagree. You forget you are talking primarily with ex-Christians here. Most of us are here, not because we were unwilling to submit to some ruleset, quite the opposite. We were simply tormented by the evidence. That was very much the case for me. I was the sort of teen who never gave my parents the slightest grief or disrespect and I was very much predisposed the same way towards god. In bible college others chafed at the 10 pm curfew; I was in the habit of turning in by then and had no idea why I would want to stay up later but if I had wanted to I would still have submitted to the rules. I never had a problem with pleasing authority -- I did it to a fault.

 

If you could look out back here you would see the grooves where I was dragged kicking and screaming out of Christianity. My departure was anything but willing. No one wants to come out of the womb and into the real world where it is sometimes cold and harsh and ambiguous. I just came to the place where I saw no alternative. The pain of cognitive dissonance exceeded the pain of uncertainty and the aversion to finding my own way.

 

If I have a "heart problem" it's that I have a good heart -- to a fault. I was so unwilling to cause concern or disappointment or misunderstanding or to question authority that I abrogated responsibility for my own beliefs to the thought system into which I was arbitrarily thrust as a child.

 

Yet, if you truly understood and believed what the Bible teaches, you would know that none of us has a good heart, we all have a heart problem. I'm not singling out the members of this site as the ones who alone have that problem, I am in that camp as well, as are all Christians (and non-Christians). Jeremiah wrote, "the heart is deceitful above all things,and desperately sick;who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) I also don't believe you had a problem with rules (nor do I believe that this is the big problem since rules don't save anyone).

 

If you assume that everyone is rebellious and wicked and self centered then you assume that everyone needs moral absolutes to reign them in. I have come to the place where I see everyone as not rebellious so much as fearful. People are afraid of the central task of being human, which is to face the fact of your own mortality and the need to live your life while you have it. This fear is displaced into all sorts of things like being more right or strong or rich than other people, into avoiding disease and injury and loneliness. But guess what, despite that, people mostly earn a living, take care of their families as best they know how, pay their taxes and help their fellow man.

 

I have had the misfortune recently to work with a certified asshole web designer with an ego six miles wide, incredibly insecure, incapable of collaboration, the sort of guy who needs to urinate on everything he comes in contact with, and show you how he has the best ideas and you are lame. He's also incompetent in many ways and doesn't know it. A more impertinent and unprofessional person you could not imagine.

 

You would probably think this guy needs Jesus if anyone does. I just think he needs to go get some sense fucked into him or something. Jesus (or evangelical Jesus at any rate) would likely just make him more of a pompous ass than he already is, ultimately. Because he's already obsessed with being right and having all the answers. His problem isn't some innate sin nature, it's one or two thought constructs lodged in his brain that colors everything else. Whatever he needs I'm not equipped to judge but it's probably going to take him waking up one morning and realizing his relationships are a shambles and everyone hates him and everything he touches ultimately goes to shit and then guess what: the pain of change will be less than the pain of staying the same, and he'll have an epiphany. Quite apart from divine revelation, at least as you would conceive of it. People have "Damascus Road" experiences all the time quite apart from any involvement of god.

 

As I've said before, I've known Christian assholes and Christian saints, agnostic assholes and agnostic saints -- it's not hard to see that the common denominator is something other than one's specific (dis)beliefs about god and so the problem and the answer are not something so simplistic as "all people are bad and god will give you a goodness transplant if are sorry for being bad". If it were that simple we wouldn't be having this conversation; after two thousand years the whole world would be Christian and there would be no significant war or crime, etc.

 

It is interesting that you told me that you have a good heart, yet go on to call this guy names and insult him, no matter how bad the guy is. Yes, this guy needs Jesus, which is apparent to you, but so do you and I. There is none who is righteous, not even one. It is not that some don't need Jesus, it is that some won't admit their need (or often, even see their need).

 

LNC

[DesertBob]

Yet, if you truly understood and believed what the Bible teaches, you would know that none of us has a good heart, we all have a heart problem.

I understand that teaching very well, that it applies even to people with relatively ethical / responsible conduct, and that the best human would still fall short of God's standards and requirements. I was not building the case that I would be some kind of shining exception to that doctrine. Nevertheless, Christians often want to have it both ways and like to portray unbelievers as willfully disobedient and morally bankrupt.

 

As usual, you are replying to a point in the conversation several weeks old, and sometimes I wonder if you consistently do this so that hopefully no one remembers the context or will bother to go back and find it, so you can more readily build straw men and knock them down, and so that whatever power was in that context is not brought to bear on any of your logical fallacies.

Jeremiah wrote, "the heart is deceitful above all things,and desperately sick;who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) I also don't believe you had a problem with rules (nor do I believe that this is the big problem since rules don't save anyone).

As I said, I understand this, but your original point to which I was speaking was essentially that unbelief is willful disobedience, which would in fact be breaking of the rules. But okay, let us examine this point you're making now, about sin-sickness. Yet by this doctrine, everyone is as sick as the next person, even if asymptomatic. Let us grant you that this is analogous to, say, diabetes, which can be eating away at your body without any symptoms, or at least any obvious ones that don't require scientific measurement. But eventually you do get ulcers on your feet, peripheral neuropathy or have detached retinas or something that drives you to the doctor who runs blood tests and says, aha, you have diabetes.

 

You are positing a disease which is only diagnosed in one way -- the Bible says so. You can present no other evidence since it can't be accurately judged by someone's works. I maintain that humans in general are saddled with only one problem -- being human. As the saying goes, man has imagination to encourage him about what he can be, and he has humor to console himself about what he is. This is the human condition, judged empirically by what it is, not with some arbitrary doctrine superimposed over it to give it a mystical explanation.

 

I would rather hold each person accountable for their actual conduct. In your system, a person is guilty no matter what they achieve, and in the inverse, they are innocent no matter what they screw up. "None are righetous, no not one" and "Be patient, God is not finished with me yet". You would have tried to convert Einstein, I fancy, or Mother Theresa if you felt she didn't trust god for the right reasons, yet you might tolerate televangelist Jim Bakker of PTL Ministries / Heritage USA fame being back in business in Branson, Missouri these days in spite of what he did back in the 80's because he effects repentance and still emits a message you fundamentally agree with on this topic.

It is interesting that you told me that you have a good heart, yet go on to call this guy names and insult him, no matter how bad the guy is.

When I was a Christian I would never speak honestly about anyone precisely so that someone like yourself would not come along and, so to speak, judge me for being allegedly judgmental. Today I enjoy the freedom to call a spade a spade. Some people are assholes. I don't hate the man and don't lose any sleep over him because he won't conform to my way of being. And I didn't bring him up to make myself look good at his expense, I brought him up to make the point I actually made very explicitly, which is that the explanation for this guy's behavior isn't a sinful nature, it's that he is what he is because he got that way. Who knows why. His life experience combined with his personality tendencies have formed ways of seeing things and reacting to them that are unpleasant for others but which he persists in because he finds that he can superficially cope better that way. When and if that equation shifts for him, he will change. My point is that I see no reason to fish for metaphysical explanations for his behavior, it's entirely explicable without having to resort to some doctrine of original sin.

 

But let's suppose for the sake or argument that such things are due to original sin. Let's suppose further that it's true that when such people accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior, they get a new nature. We would, then, see that person transformed. That is in fact the party line, is it not? And yet my prediction would be that he would still have the same fundamental ideas lodged in his head: "everyone with similar expertise is a threat and must be ruthlessly attacked and demeaned and discredited". "I must have credit for all ideas or I will be exposed for the fraud that I know myself to be". Ideas like that. They don't vanish when people become Christians. And so I maintain there is no new nature, and no old nature, just human nature. People have life changing epiphanies at times, and those can at times be associated with Christian conversions, but they don't have to be.

There is none who is righteous, not even one. It is not that some don't need Jesus, it is that some won't admit their need (or often, even see their need).

I saw my need and admitted it some weeks before my sixth birthday. I agreed heartily with the assessment of me by Christian dogma for decades. Now for some years I have not. My ethics, morality and personal responsibility are unchanged and in fact continue to progress and evolve and mature.

 

I guess what I would have to say is this: it is not that some aren't human, it is just that they won't admit their humanity (or often, even see it).

[Deva]

Again Mister P, you show your lack of understanding of historical analysis and the situation in question. The fact is that the apostles would have had every reason to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. They had no belief in resurrections prior to the final resurrection.

 

Excuse me, LNC but really how the hell would you know that?? I can't mind read someone in the same room with me, much less 2,000 years ago in a different country, different customs, different influences... I could go on but I see that common sense has flown the coop here.

 

I'm betting is cause you heard Habermas say it. YOU really have no idea what people thought in that day and age.

 

If you are referring to the fact that the apostles did have a category for resurrection prior to the final resurrection, it is throughout the OT. Example, when Jesus told Mary that her brother would rise again, she replied, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” (John 11:24) She had no category for resurrection prior to that time. For an extensive analysis of what the OT taught on this subject and what expectations the disciples (who were Jewish) would have believed on this topic, let me refer you to N.T. Wrights' book, The Resurrection of the Sin of God, part 1, chapters 3-4 (pages 85-203). Wright provides an extensive analysis of the OT and what was taught on this subject. It is not a matter of mind reading, it is simply a matter of understanding what a person in that time and culture would have built their categories of belief upon.LNC

 

If you see all these precedents for people believing that a resurrection OF ANY KIND could happen, then why did you say that they had every reason to believe Jesus didn't rise from the grave? You are knit picking when you say they only believed in the final resurrection.

 

You cannot possibly know definitively what other religious influences were in the Middle East at that time and how they came bear on how a certain small group of people world or would not have viewed the possibility of bodily resurrection. There were definitely mystery religions, different cults and very possibly even Buddhism (which had already existed for 5 centuries). Not that they all believed in bodily resurrection, but just to state the point that there were a lot of religions floating around at the time. I really wish I knew more about the religious situation in the first century. If we had more comprehensive knowledge, then we could more clearly see how the writers of the New Testament cobbled together pagan and Jewish beliefs. They clearly did so.

 

I see that my reply was back in September. I believe you waited that long to reply so that I would simply forget about this outlandish claim that you made.

[bdp]

 

 

Actually, if you read the critiques that have been written about Hawking's and Mlodnow's book, it has been that he makes both scientific and philosophical errors.

 

 

...of COURSE he does...

 

 

...because, of course, deluded religious morons never make ANY kinds of errors, being enlightened with the holy spirit and all that...and Hawking is just a crippled fucking moron anyway...

 

it is my considered opinion that 'lnc' has absolutely no brain capacity. He's a zombie. And an extremely dishonest and shady one.

[agnosticator]

It is interesting that you told me that you have a good heart, yet go on to call this guy names and insult him, no matter how bad the guy is...

 

An atheist who risked his life to save a stranger, doesn't have a good heart if he also lied to save someone, or called a criminal a jerk. Yet it's morally god-approved for a murderer to enter heaven because he "gave his heart to Jesus". But that atheist is going to BURN! You've been mind-fucked and don't see it, LNC!

[centauri]

There is none who is righteous, not even one. It is not that some don't need Jesus, it is that some won't admit their need (or often, even see their need).

The Bible also says that some people are righteous, Noah and Lot among them.

They didn't need Jesus.

Biblical righteousness comes from obeying God, not from needing to believe in a vicarious human sacrifice.

[bdp]

some won't admit their need .

 

 

This 'need' is fictional, bred of fear. Fuck you and your 'need.'

[Crazy Donna]

It is interesting that you told me that you have a good heart, yet go on to call this guy names and insult him, no matter how bad the guy is...

 

An atheist who risked his life to save a stranger, doesn't have a good heart if he also lied to save someone, or called a criminal a jerk. Yet it's morally god-approved for a murderer to enter heaven because he "gave his heart to Jesus". But that atheist is going to BURN! You've been mind-fucked and don't see it, LNC!

Corrie Ten Boom lied to the Nazis about having Jews hiding behind a secret wall on her property. Is she going to burn, LNC? Because doing the right thing by those desperate human beings required her to lie. And if your sick monstrosity of a god exists (which he doesn't) then he'd be a complete bastard for requiring her to lie (and thus sin) to protect defenceless human beings, and then burn her in hell for it.

 

Obviously christianity isnt' about doing the right thing. It's about saving your own arse from burning in hell, and fuck anyone else. ISn't that right, LNC?

[Guest I Love Dog]

 

It is not that some don't need Jesus, it is that some won't admit their need (or often, even see their need).

 

LNC

 

LNC, you do ramble on with your proselytising waffle! I can't understand why you think everyone "needs" Jesus.

 

Go and tell the above to the 5 billion people on this planet who don't believe in your godman Jesus, many of whom have never even heard of the man and that will laugh at your suggestion, I'm sure, as they all get along fine without Jesus!

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Phanta!

 

Hi BAA! Thanks for the interesting reply.

Are you saying that Abraham will see the earthly nation that has formed during his sleep-time upon his resurrection (on Judgement day)?

 

Yes, that's what standard Judaism holds to.

Abraham will become a great nation - Israel. This explains why the Jews place so much store on being counted as the children of Abraham. So, when the Day of the Lord arrives, all of (dead) Israel will be raised from Sheol and God will make good on His many promises, as listed in the OT. In fact, there's a post-Biblical Jewish tradition that the physical resurrection of the dead will begin at the Mount of Olives, in Jerusalem, radiating out from there to all the graves in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_of_Olives

 

Ok, I read the text. It's a bit confusing. I'm going to need to sit with the text and your interpretation for a bit.

No probs. Lmk if you want any further input here.

 

Yes, his literal take on scripture is too inflexible to see that certain parts of scripture aren't history, but metaphor. Also, he reads, "Abraham saw my day" in a rigidly literal way.

You mean...he sees it that Abraham went immediately to Heaven and saw Jesus...?

 

Yes.

Ray's cites two examples - Lazarus and the Rich man and the crucified thief. In both cases his position is that these are actual historical events, faithfully and accurately reported in the Bible, which is God's perfect and infallible word. Therefore, the Bible is telling it to us straight - all true believers go directly to Christ's presence in Paradise/Heaven/Abraham's bosom, when they die. He takes this as Gospel. (Pun intended!)

 

Having decided that this is the truth, Ray then applies this model retroactively to every true believer mentioned in scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. He also applies it to every Christian who's ever lived, from the time of the Book of Acts, thru to today.

The catch with this though Phanta, is that doing this creates contradictions within scripture. Contradictions which I've challenged him about. Firstly, none of the OT personages I've mentioned ever expected to go right on up to heaven when they died. Sheol was where they all expected to go and sleep until the the Day of the Lord. In the New Testament, Jesus, Paul, Peter and John make it clear that the dead do not rise until the appointed time.

 

So...Jesus is affirming this death-sleep idea?

 

As far as I can see, but Ray'd dispute that.

 

Well...that doesn't really prove that it isn't literal, does it? What it suggests is that the author of whatever scripture we are discussing uses complex literary forms to convey ideas. It refutes plain language, not literalism.

?

 

Hmmm.

Here's what I think Ray's doing.

He reads Luke 16:19-31...

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

...and because Jesus is God, He cannot speak anything except the absolute and total truth. Therefore, because Jesus names a person (Lazarus), this MUST have happened. MUST! Got that? It is an actual account of real events, involving real people. It cannot be a parable or a story or an allegory or a fable or a myth or a lesson or anything except the perfect and complete truth.

 

To illustrate the point further, consider this. If no names had been mentioned, then this passage could be taken as a parable. It would then be referred to as 'The Parable of the Beggar and the Rich Man'. A name equals history, no name equals a parable.

Likewise, if we look at Luke 16:1-14, otherwise known as The Parable of the Shrewd Manager, we see no names. Therefore, this passage can be taken as a lesson and not reportage of actual events.

 

1 Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’

 

But suppose that verse 1 said this...

 

1 Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man (called Melvin) whose manager (Howard) was accused of wasting his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’

 

Then, using Ray's measure, this would no longer be a parable. Because Jesus uses the names Melvin and Howard, this can no longer be a lesson, but MUST be history. Catch?

 

Ray's stumbling block isn't plain language - it's a number of a priori assumptions he makes about the Bible. He assumes that the Bible is perfect and inerrant. He assumes that whenever Jesus mentions a name, this person really lived and this is therefore a reliable and faithful account of real events from God's own lips. He assumes that Jesus cannot use a person's name in a parable to teach a lesson because that would be tantamount to God telling an untruth.

 

Taken together, these assumptions force him to conclude that Lazarus and the rich man were real people and this is eyewitness testimony of their actual words, accurately reported to us by Jesus. Therefore, when the rich man died, he went straight to hell and Lazarus went straight to heaven. Therefore, ALL believers go to heaven or hell when they die. Therefore, even though it disagrees with the OT concept of Sheol and soul-sleep, all Biblical characters went directly to heaven or hell. Do you see how destructive Ray's brand of literalism is?

(Sorry Phanta, but I can't in all honesty agree with you. It's not the plain meaning of language that Ray uses. It's a relentlessly, slavishly robotic take on what scripture MUST do, MUST be and MUST say.)

 

 

 

Agreed and accepted. Thanks for the input. This Genesis passage is not up to the task.

On it's own, no. But as a member of the collection of examples, it is worthy of consideration.

 

Thanks again,

BAA.

 

You're welcome. Thanks for the conversation!

 

Phanta

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Phanta]

Joseph sold by His Brothers

29When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he(AA) tore his clothes 30and returned to his brothers and said, "The boy(AB) is gone, and I, where shall I go?" 31Then they took(AC) Joseph’s robe and slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. 32And they sent the robe of many colors and brought it to their father and said, "This we have found; please identify whether it is your son’s robe or not." 33And he identified it and said, "It is my son’s robe.(AD) A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces." 34Then Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days. 35All his sons and all his daughters(AE) rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No,(AF) I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him. 36Meanwhile(AG) the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh,(AH) the captain of the guard.

 

I'm just thinking idly on this...(I am not in the right frame of mind for deep thought this week...too much fun going on!)...

 

Some claim that Shoel is, literally, the grave itself. Does that make sense here, if Joseph was eaten by animals? Jacob would not have his body to put into a grave.

 

Also, what does it mean to tear garments and put sackcloth on one's loins? I get that the tearing clothes thing is a big grief show, but what does it mean?

 

Ray, if you are around, what do you think is meant by references to Shoel? I'm interested in reading your view firsthand.

 

P

[bornagainathiest]

Posted 27 September 2010 - 10:57 AM

Ok, it's not my turn yet - but I can't let this pass!

 

The idea of someone being guilty for the sins of another is not a foreign or unjust concept.

 

It may not be foreign to us, but it is unjust.

Demonstrably so. For instance, anything human (except for the life of Jesus Christ) falls short of God's perfection. Care to disagree with this? This is a foundational, basic tenet of Christianity.

Can God act imperfectly or unjustly? No! Can God be anything less than perfectly wise, perfectly holy, perfectly pure, perfectly good or perfectly anything? Again, No!

Yet, according to your personal theology, He can judge using a demonstrably imperfect standard and still be perfectly just.

R-e-a-l-l-y?

 

All human models of justice are inherently unjust.

Especially so, when measured against the perfect standard of justice that your God is supposed to embody. Shouldn't we aspire to be just and fair and impartial, like God? Not the other way round.

Yet, you are arguing the opposite. You cite flawed models of human justice and then claim them as being fit for God to use. I don't think so! That which is perfect should not emulate or take it's cue from imperfection. It should be demonstrably superior. Where is the Biblical precedent for God dropping His standards? Ok, He became a man, but at no point in His time on Earth did He ever, ever, EVER fall into sinful imperfection. Care to disagree with that, either?

 

If God truly is the embodiment of perfection, then He wouldn't sully His hands by applying something so debased, unfair and biased as human justice - as you claim He can 'legitimately' do.

Sorry! But you can't have it both ways. Either God is perfect and stays that way, or He isn't and therefore He never was. The God/man you champion as the one and only way to deflect the Father's JUST and RIGHTEOUS wrath was perfect, no? So why then does his Dad choose (by your line of argument) to act imperfectly? Hmmmm....?

 

Congratulations!

Your argument has succeeded in bringing God down to the human level of us sinners. Is that what you really wanted to say? It's ok for Him to operate by our standards and still call Himself a holy, pure and just God, is it?

If the standard of human justice is good enough for God to operate by, how does this demonstrate that He his morally and ethically superior to us and therefore fit to be our judge? I note that Abraham asked him to His face, "Will not the judge of all the Earth do right?" Right as in perfectly right, fair, impartial and just. Did Abraham ask, "Will not the judge of all the Earth pass judgement as mere men do?"

 

Nations are judged to be guilty for the actions of their leaders all the time and the people all suffer the consequences.

 

An example of human, not divine justice. Just because we do it, that does not make it right. Nor just, nor fair, nor impartial. Often these sanctions are applied in the full knowledge that innocent parties (those not responsible for the actions of their leaders) will suffer. Sanctions are a means of political and diplomatic leverage, enacted in the clear knowledge that innocents may well suffer. This kind of 'collateral damage' is regretted by often unavoidable. Such 'clear' knowledge confirms that sanctions are not a valid example of perfect justice. As such, God cannot bind himself to such a ruling. Sanctions are examples of human models of justice, not divine ones.

 

We put sanctions on nations for the actions of their rogue leaders which affects all the people (although, generally the leaders suffer least because they have all the power and money).

 

Yes, but these sanctions are demonstrably unjust. They must be so, because they affect the innocent many for the crimes of the few. This injustice clearly demonstrates their imperfection. Yet, because it's the imperfect, done thing, here on Earth, it's ok for a perfect God to follow this example? Which standard will He apply, when it's time to for Him to judge Satan and the rebellious angels? His own, unchanging and perfect standard? A human standard? A third and different standard that is fit for the purpose of judging immortal, angelic beings? How many standards does He operate by? I thought that the triune God was the embodiment of perfect unity. So why all these different standards when only one should operate? I'm confused! Can you tell?

 

Families also suffer when a member is punished. If a father or mother commits a crime, the family suffers the loss of that family member and the support that he or she provides.

 

Ditto. Agreed, that parents are responsible for their actions and their children may well suffer because of them. However, the point you are making here is one of responsibility, not justice. If the parents break a law, who is to say that this law is a just one? In fact, I'd go so far to say that any human law which any set of parents might be under, will be unjust, because all human laws fall short of the perfect justice found only in God. So, once again, your example does not stand up when you compare human standards to divine ones.

 

Even in sports, when a hockey player commits a penalty, the team suffers. Ditto the above. Individual misdemeanor resulting in group punishment. Not a just measure. A human measure, yes. Fit for God to use? Think again!

 

So, I'm not sure where you get your sensibilities on this topic, but they don't seem to be in keeping with what we generally know and experience.

 

What we generally know and experience helps us understand God's justice? I thought that's what the Bible and the Holy Spirit were for? Since when did everyday knowledge and experience become a reliable way of knowing God?

No sir! As I said before, all examples of human justice fall short of God's perfect standard. Therefore, to use them to formulate a working argument that describes God's nature and behavior is at best, unworkable and at worst, misleading.

 

There are two views on Adam's sin: one is that he was the legal representative of the rest of humanity who would follow and his guilt is passed onto us; the second is that we shared in his sin in that we receive our souls from a descendant of Adam. In either case, I see nothing unjust about that.

 

You see nothing at all unjust in either view of Adam's sin?

 

So, let me see if I've got this right.

 

You cite current examples of human INjustice and then retroactively apply them to a Bronze-Age narrative about a mythical First Man, who's existence is a logical necessity only if a historical Jesus is the only way to deflect the Father's wrath? Yes?

You claim that because some humans think it is lawful and just to apportion punishment to the many for actions of the one, that this sets an acceptable precedent for a perfectly just God to employ? Yes?

You promote the demonstrably unjust notion that those who did not commit a crime, who knew nothing about it and who could not have carried out, should be punished because of the flawed concept of group responsibility for individual action? Yes?

How am I doing so far?

 

In this case, God provides a simple way to have the guilt expunged. It is our fault if we pass on that offer, isn't it? If you don't believe this to be true, explain why.

No. According to you, God hold innocent billions guilty for the sole misdemeanor of one.

 

Can you cite any human examples of how it is perfectly just and lawful to do this?

 

You can't, can you?

There are no examples in, 'what we generally know and experience' that can demonstrate perfect justice. Perfect justice does not exist in human life. That is another basic tenet of Christianity. Care to argue against that?

My friend, the only possible place you would claim to find a description of perfect justice would be in the pages of the Bible. So, if you invoke this book (and not any human examples) you are engaging in a circular argument, using the so-called perfect justice seen in the Bible to argue for God's so-called perfect justice - as described in the Bible.

 

Also, if you're puzzled as to why I'm focusing so tightly on perfection - that's what you claim your God to be.

If you respond by saying that you don't have to demonstrate God's perfect justice, fine. We both know that you can't do that. You might say that all you have to do is demonstrate that God's justice is fit for purpose. That is, fair and impartial enough for the job, but not necessarily or recognizably perfectly fair and impartial by us. Then how have you proven anything? If God claims to be perfectly just, but this cannot be demonstrated, are we supposed to just accept this by faith? Or just because you say so?

 

In case you hadn't noticed, you've touched a raw nerve!

 

Since you have adopted children, let me put a hypothetical to you.

Let's suppose that these kids were your natural children. Would it be just and fair (even in human terms) for you to set a regulation for one child while the other is in your wife's womb, then when the older one breaks it, wait until the younger one is born and then punish the babe for the other's misdemeanor? Would it also have been fair not to tell the older what you had planned?

Well?

 

If I believed in such things, I'd say that the innocence of my unborn sister accuses you from beyond the grave. Shame on you!

 

BAA.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm reposting this in it's entirety, so than when LNC replies to it (any day now) it'll be easier to check to see if he's responded to all of it.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Joseph sold by His Brothers

29When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he(AA) tore his clothes 30and returned to his brothers and said, "The boy(AB) is gone, and I, where shall I go?" 31Then they took(AC) Joseph’s robe and slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. 32And they sent the robe of many colors and brought it to their father and said, "This we have found; please identify whether it is your son’s robe or not." 33And he identified it and said, "It is my son’s robe.(AD) A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces." 34Then Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days. 35All his sons and all his daughters(AE) rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No,(AF) I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him. 36Meanwhile(AG) the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh,(AH) the captain of the guard.

 

I'm just thinking idly on this...(I am not in the right frame of mind for deep thought this week...too much fun going on!)...

 

Lucky you!

 

Some claim that Shoel is, literally, the grave itself. Does that make sense here, if Joseph was eaten by animals? Jacob would not have his body to put into a grave.

 

Also, what does it mean to tear garments and put sackcloth on one's loins? I get that the tearing clothes thing is a big grief show, but what does it mean?

 

Ray, if you are around, what do you think is meant by references to Shoel? I'm interested in reading your view firsthand.

 

P

 

Hey Phanta!

 

Did you want to me reply to any of this or would you rather I hang back and wait on Ray?

 

BAA.

[Phanta]

Joseph sold by His Brothers

29When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he(AA) tore his clothes 30and returned to his brothers and said, "The boy(AB) is gone, and I, where shall I go?" 31Then they took(AC) Joseph’s robe and slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. 32And they sent the robe of many colors and brought it to their father and said, "This we have found; please identify whether it is your son’s robe or not." 33And he identified it and said, "It is my son’s robe.(AD) A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces." 34Then Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days. 35All his sons and all his daughters(AE) rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No,(AF) I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him. 36Meanwhile(AG) the Midianites had sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh,(AH) the captain of the guard.

 

I'm just thinking idly on this...(I am not in the right frame of mind for deep thought this week...too much fun going on!)...

 

Lucky you!

 

Some claim that Shoel is, literally, the grave itself. Does that make sense here, if Joseph was eaten by animals? Jacob would not have his body to put into a grave.

 

Also, what does it mean to tear garments and put sackcloth on one's loins? I get that the tearing clothes thing is a big grief show, but what does it mean?

 

Ray, if you are around, what do you think is meant by references to Shoel? I'm interested in reading your view firsthand.

 

P

 

Hey Phanta!

 

Did you want to me reply to any of this or would you rather I hang back and wait on Ray?

 

BAA.

 

Hey BAA.

 

Sure, I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on:

 

Some claim that Shoel is, literally, the grave itself. Does that make sense here, if Joseph was eaten by animals? Jacob would not have his body to put into a grave.

 

Also, what does it mean to tear garments and put sackcloth on one's loins? I get that the tearing clothes thing is a big grief show, but what does it mean?

 

Phanta

[Guest Spinoza]

I really don't care if Jesus, Moses or any of these people really existed or not.

 

I am interested to learn about who actually wrote them .... John, Paul, George ?? Ringo ?

 

James Boanerges ? Cicero ?

 

Whoever wrote these stories down was pure genius.

 

So now - let's get down to the real research.

[bornagainathiest]

I really don't care if Jesus, Moses or any of these people really existed or not.

 

I am interested to learn about who actually wrote them .... John, Paul, George ?? Ringo ?

 

James Boanerges ? Cicero ?

 

Whoever wrote these stories down was pure genius.

 

So now - let's get down to the real research.

 

So now - let's get down to the real research?

 

No. Let US not.

 

Spinoza, with all due respect, please go to the beginning of the thread and take a look at the question posed.

 

If you want to comment on that, fine. But please don't try and hijack this thread with what interests only you. Please start up a new thread or use the one given to you by Antlerman. Some of us have put in a lot of time and effort into pinning certain Christian apologists down on various theological issues. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I do not welcome your intrusion here. Please contribute to the ongoing debate or go elsewhere.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Hey BAA.

 

Sure, I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on:

 

Some claim that Shoel is, literally, the grave itself. Does that make sense here, if Joseph was eaten by animals? Jacob would not have his body to put into a grave.

 

Also, what does it mean to tear garments and put sackcloth on one's loins? I get that the tearing clothes thing is a big grief show, but what does it mean?

 

Phanta

 

Ok Phanta.

 

I can help on the first, but for the second, you'd have to ask Davka. He's of Jewish descent and upbringing, so he could help out with the culture nuances you're asking about.

 

Anyway, If you look here... http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen37.pdf

...and scroll down, you'll come to the relevant verses, 34 to 36.

 

In 35, the direct translation reads, " ...and . he-is-saying that I-shall-go-down to son-of . me mourning unseen . ward and . he-is-lamenting >> . him father-of-him"

 

Please note that 'unseen.ward' is the pivotal word here. It is rendered as shal·e and derives from the Hebrew word Sheol. Do you see how well the OT notion of the 'unseen' dead abiding in Sheol agrees with the NT concept of the 'unseen/unperceived' dead abiding in Hades? Peas-in-a-pod, really.

 

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rev1.pdf Please look at verse 18, where it translates as... "...I-AM-HAVING THE LOCKers (keys) OF-THE UN-PERCEIVED (unseen) AND OF-THE DEATH."

The key word in this case is 'unperceived'. It is rendered as hadou and derives from the Koine (NT Greek) word Hades.

 

See what I mean?

 

Scripture, from Genesis thru to Revelation is in good agreement that the spirits of the dead are unseen by the living, going to their temporary place of waiting (Sheol in the OT and Hades in the NT) and not waking until the Last Day.

 

So, Sheol can colloquially mean the grave, that is, a hole or burial pit dug into the ground, but it's more proper meaning is the abode of the sleeping spirits of the dead. Therefore, your point about Jacob not having his son's body to put into Sheol, is correct. If Joseph had been killed by a wild animal (as Jacob believed), his body would have been torn to pieces and probably eaten. But Joseph's animating spirit would then have been securely ensconced with the rest of the sleeping dead in Sheol.

 

This explains why Jacob expected to live out the rest of his life in mourning and sadness, then, when he died, he would join Joseph in Sheol. Please note Phanta, that Sheol was not considered to be a place of mourning. If you look at Ecclesiastes 9:10, king Solomon wrote...

 

10Whatever your hand finds to do,(O) do it with your might,(P) for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

 

No. Sheol is a place of sleep, not activity. Jacob expected to mourn for the rest of his life and then join his son in sleep. I shall go down mourning..." means that he will mourn until his dying breath.

 

That help?

 

BAA.

[Guest Spinoza]

If you were God would you send Anne Frank to Hell where she would suffer forever for being Jewish?

Yes or No

 

No.

 

God doesn't send people to hell. People send people to Hell. The only Hell that exists is the one you create.

 

Hell or Heaven is Now. You don't need to wait for it.

 

And I'm a Christian, studying the original texts in Aramaic.

 

Anne Frank is blessed because she is Jewish.

[Guest Spinoza]

If you were God would you send Anne Frank to Hell where she would suffer forever for being Jewish?

Yes or No

 

No.

God doesn't send people to hell. People send people to Hell. The only Hell that exists is the one you create.

Hell or Heaven is Now. You don't need to wait for it.

And I'm a Christian, studying the original texts in Aramaic.

Anne Frank is blessed because she is Jewish.

 

 

The original teachings are Non-dual. Everything is God. There is only Eternal Life. אין עוד מלבדו אין עוד מלבדו אין עוד מלבדו

[Crazy Donna]

If you were God would you send Anne Frank to Hell where she would suffer forever for being Jewish?

Yes or No

 

No.

 

God doesn't send people to hell. People send people to Hell. The only Hell that exists is the one you create.

 

Hell or Heaven is Now. You don't need to wait for it.

 

And I'm a Christian, studying the original texts in Aramaic.

 

Anne Frank is blessed because she is Jewish.

So what are you saying here? Being 'blessed' doesn't mean cobblers. Does she go to hell, or not? Not because she was a jew, but because she doesn't believe that jesus is the son of god, and 'lets him into her heart'. Does she qualify for salvation on being a jew? Or does she burn because she's not a christian?

 

Christianity is a sick, depraved mindset, a mental disease, and you've got it bad. You'll either try to alleviate your the horrible implications of the rules of christianity (only 'christians' are saved) by making up some bullshit that makes you feel better, or you'll admit the reality of the sick teachings of christianity, and show yourself to be an object of moral contempt for holding such disgusting, hate filled values.

 

Your choice. But don't come here and post wishy washy, testicle-free BS like "Anne Frank is blessed because she is Jewish." Man up and answer the fucking question. Grow some fucking cobblers, you coward.