Personal attacks

[jasd]

>>You're saying this means you will 'not never die',<<

No, I’m saying that Jesus Christ said this and the meaning is self-evident when taken with His preceding statement, to wit:

Jn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

In the above, Jesus Christ addressed one who was dead. Contrastively, in John 11:26 – He addressed one who “liveth and believeth...”

Jn 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

He introduced Martha, and His reader, to a Sea Change in the doctrine of the disposition of the soul and the spirit at the demise of the living soul.

>>that is, that you will die ?<<

Read again, the words of Jesus Christ, “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”

>>What do you think this means ?<<

St Paul echoed Jesus Christ with the words, “Absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” – immediately. That is, the spirit of man, unshackled, leaves its corporeal tent and is directly with the Lord.

[BibleOnly]

You're saying what happens exactly when someone dies ?

[jasd]

>>You're saying what happens exactly when someone dies ?<<

No, not m-moi. Jesus Christ said this is what happens... Again, He said, "Shall never, NOT EVER... die."

[BibleOnly]

So, Paul did not die ? Peter did not die ? I am at a loss. You're saying the dead are where, exactly ? Are they conscious right now ?

[jasd]

>>So, Paul did not die ? Peter did not die ? I am at a loss.<<

You’re being obtuse. It is Jesus Christ whose words are referenced. Not mine.

“Paul did not die ? Peter did not die ?” ...and everyone who “liveth and believeth” thenceforward per Jesus Christ’s own words.

>>You're saying the dead are where, exactly ?<<

Agin, it wasa St Paul who said, “Absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” It is one or the other, yes? No indeterminacy.

>>Are they conscious right now ?<<

Of course, else why did Jesus Christ walk Martha through that bit of exegesis? If they were not conscious, He may well have left well enough alone with the explication of verse 25.

[BibleOnly]

"You’re being obtuse. It is Jesus Christ whose words are referenced. Not mine."

No, you're dancing around explaining to me what you think the significance of these words are.

"“Paul did not die ? Peter did not die ?” ...and everyone who “liveth and believeth” thenceforward per Jesus Christ’s own words"

where does Stephen fall in all this ?

Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Act 8:1 ¶ And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

It's pretty clear from here and other verses that the dead 'sleep in Christ', they don't rise again until He returns.

"Of course, else why did Jesus Christ walk Martha through that bit of exegesis? If they were not conscious, He may well have left well enough alone with the explication of verse 25.

That's not what the Bible says

1Th 4:13 ¶ But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

1Th 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

So, Jesus plainly did not mean what you think He meant, or Paul is a liar. There are some who think that, are you one of them ?

[ClubV12]

The death we all face on this planet is irrelevant, Jesus is speaking about those who believe in Him, like Lazarus, are merely sleeping. He will awaken them, in due time, to life eternal.

As opposed to those who do not believe in Him, concerning those He said they were already dead!! "Let the DEAD bury their DEAD." They will die on earth, like everyone else, and Jesus WILL awaken them also, in due time. But not to everlasting life, but to everlasting eternal death from which there is no awakening. Fear not the death of this world, fear the SECOND eternal death.

[BibleOnly]

Yes, ClubV12, I agree, completley.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

You’re being obtuse. It is Jesus Christ whose words are referenced. Not mine.

>>No, you're dancing around explaining to me what you think the significance of these words are.<<

The passage is self-evident; no "dancing" required on my part. Jesus Christ used two conditions contrastively (Jn 11:25 versus 26) to exegete for Martha – and for you – the absolute change, which occurred because of Himself. The believers who were already in their graves would arise in the Resurrection – “yet shall he live.” Those who then presently lived and believed would NOT NEVER die, as we perceive dying. Their spirits, shed of corporeal flesh continued, with the Lord – fully sentient.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

“Paul did not die ? Peter did not die ?” ...and everyone who “liveth and believeth” thenceforward per Jesus Christ’s own words.

>>where does Stephen fall in all this ?<<

Surely!—you could not have missed my above quote, “...everyone...” That would include Stephen.

>>Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.<<

So, St Luke used a euphemism. What is grammatically wrong with that. If Stephen had died, body, soul, and spirit, then Jesus Christ’s words to Martha would have been just so much bulldust. Texts must harmonize.

>>It's pretty clear from here and other verses that the dead 'sleep in Christ', they don't rise again until He returns.<<

By George!—I think he’s got it. By George he’s got it. Those who sleep in Christ-the-promised-Meshiach are the OT believers. Christ Messiah had now come and was called Immanuel Yeshua – Jesus the Christ, Jesus Christ. Big difference. One was a promise. One was actually Redemptor.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Of course, else why did Jesus Christ walk Martha through that bit of exegesis? If they were not conscious, He may well have left well enough alone with the explication of verse 25.

>>That's not what the Bible says<<

But it did. In John 11:25,26.

>>1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.<<

>>1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:<<

Compare:

Jn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

>>1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.<<

This speaks of the translated believers.

>>So, Jesus plainly did not mean what you think He meant, or Paul is a liar.<<

Those who are dead in Christ shall rise first in the Resurrection. Those who ‘sleep’ – EUPHEMISM! – in Jesus – Gd will bring with Him in the clouds of the Parousia.

>>There are some who think that, are you one of them ?<<

St Paul was an admitted beguiler and became all things to all men; yet, he wrote incisively.

[BibleOnly]

"So, St Luke used a euphemism"

He used the word 'death'. This is no euphemism

"Texts must harmonize."

They do, just your readings do not.

"Those who sleep in Christ-the-promised-Meshiach are the OT believers. Christ Messiah had now come and was called Immanuel Yeshua – Jesus the Christ, Jesus Christ. Big difference. One was a promise. One was actually Redemptor."

So when Paul wrote this:

1Th 4:13 ¶ But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

They were not sorrowing over their own dead, but the dead of past generations ? Really ? Why doesn't he indicate a third state, apart from sleeping in Christ, and rising in life to meet Him when He comes ?

"Those who ‘sleep’ – EUPHEMISM! – in Jesus – Gd will bring with Him in the clouds of the Parousia."

It's clearly a euphemism, comparing the end of Acts 7 and the beginning of Acts 8, it's a euphemism for death, and it's used because we know nothing, but we will wake again.

"St Paul was an admitted beguiler and became all things to all men; yet, he wrote incisively."

More riddles.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

So, St Luke used a euphemism

>>He used the word 'death'. This is no euphemism<<

Acts 7:59 ...Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

Acts 7:60 ...he fell asleep.

Jesus Christ said, “shall never, NOT NEVER die”. You would have Jesus Christ a liar?—and St Luke the truthteller? It's not necessary to separate them, they harmonize. And,

it is a euphemism.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Texts must harmonize.

>>They do, just your readings do not.<<

You are treating texts minimalistically. Let me say it, “It is Jesus Christ’s words I reference.” I have referenced them as an indisputable resource; whereas, you’ve recoursed to once and twice removed authors... attempting to lend them more legitimacy than possessed by Jesus Christ Himself.

Clarify Jesus Christ’s words and lexical manner. Forget dogmatic secondary and tertiary sources if they disagree with the very words of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, texts must agree/harmonize.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Those who sleep in Christ-the-promised-Meshiach are the OT believers. Christ Messiah had now come and was called Immanuel Yeshua – Jesus the Christ, Jesus Christ. Big difference. One was a promise. One was actually Redemptor.

>>So when Paul wrote this:

1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

They were not sorrowing over their own dead, but the dead of past generations ?<<

They were sorrowing because of their ignorance. St Paul sought to remedy their ignorance per the state of their dead – by correcting their Theology.

>>Really ?<<

Yes, really. The grammatical structure has him addressing their ignorance [per the matter].

>>Why doesn't he indicate a third state,<<

He does at another time, “I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, ...” (2 Cor 12:2)

Sounds like an OBE, eh? The spirit continues, sans the flesh...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Those who ‘sleep’ – EUPHEMISM! – in Jesus – Gd will bring with Him in the clouds of the Parousia.

>>It's clearly a euphemism, comparing the end of Acts 7 and the beginning of Acts 8, it's a euphemism for death, and it's used because we know nothing, but we will wake again.<<

No, you will, according to Holy Writ, shed the shackle of your corporeal body and immediately be with the Lord, which texts indicate will be in the third heaven. That is, if you are to have wings of feathers and not wings of leather... Mebbe, rather, gossamer wings, eh? ;-)

Quote:

Quote:jasd

St Paul was an admitted beguiler and became all things to all men; yet, he wrote incisively.

>>More riddles.<<

No, not riddle. A succinct answer describing the man – when the question was asked if St Paul was a liar – and did I agree.

Beguile in any language freights deceit. Can one deceive and not lie? The answer depends upon one’s biases.

And, "become all things to all men" shames even the two-faced Janus.

However, I accept St Paul's writings, though gimlet-eyed.

[BibleOnly]

I so don't have time for this.

[jasd]

>>I so don't have time for this.<<

So, you don't place coin upon truth and knowledge?--or their investigation, eh? You'd rather discuss "personal attacks"? That's okay,

we all have our druthers.

Be happy with whatever company you keep or wherever you find yourself.

Sounds as though you have many important things to occupy yourself. And here I am,

the old geezer with some time on his hands. Oh well...

Thank goodness for and bless those who silently read these threads.

;-)

[BibleOnly]

Well, you can phrase it any way you like. You don't speak with sufficient clarity or authority, or on issues that I regard as vital or interesting enough, for me to give time to them on top of the time I am spending discussing more important issues already on these boards. I don't mean to be rude, I'm being honest.

[jasd]

>>Well, you can phrase it any way you like.<<

I phrased it honestly. Can't do better than that, eh?

>>You don't speak with sufficient clarity or authority,<<

What? You require diagrams and felt boards for clarity? And what greater authority do you need than the very words of Jesus Christ?

All I did was bring them to the thread's attention as specifically responding to Lysimachus' post.

>>or on issues that I regard as vital or interesting enough,<<

Oh, okay, so now we know that you consider "personal attacks" more vital and interesting that parsing the words of Gd, as penned by St John.

>>for me to give time to them on top of the time I am spending discussing more important issues already on these boards.<<

Such as "personal attacks", eh? Well, we all prioritize.

>>I don't mean to be rude, I'm being honest.<<

By all means, be honest. After all, the subject of the 'state of the dead' as exegeted by Jesus Christ is small potatoes compared to other - ummm, errr, "vital" matters. And, as I said,

the parsing of texts was in response to Lysimachus' post. I marvel that you even joined in, if ever so briefly. ;-)

[BibleOnly]

Yes, what happens to the dead between now and Jesus' return is indeed a lot less important than what happens to them AFTER He returns, and I'm not interested in your deep reading of one verse to contradict everything the NT says on the topic. I wish you well.

[phkrause]

The death we all face on this planet is irrelevant, Jesus is speaking about those who believe in Him, like Lazarus, are merely sleeping. He will awaken them, in due time, to life eternal.

As opposed to those who do not believe in Him, concerning those He said they were already dead!! "Let the DEAD bury their DEAD." They will die on earth, like everyone else, and Jesus WILL awaken them also, in due time. But not to everlasting life, but to everlasting eternal death from which there is no awakening. Fear not the death of this world, fear the SECOND eternal death.

Absolutely Club, what's being spoken of here is the 2nd death and not when we die the first death.

[jasd]

Oh, Hi!—I thought we’d lost you to other more vital concerns.

>>Yes, what happens to the dead between now and Jesus' return<<

Funny, I thought that the meantime determined the disposition of those who 'went' before us. But then, it must be a small matter...

>>is indeed a lot less important than what happens to them AFTER He returns,<<

Oh, THAT is a matter of the simplest exegesis: they are, by textual witness, OT believers resurrected and caught up to be with the Lord in the air – the NT believer having already been to, at least, the third heaven – and come back with Jesus Christ in the clouds of the Parousia.

Others are thought to remain in their graves for another millennium.

>>and I'm not interested in your deep reading of one verse<<

Re: the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Gd said it only once. Genesis 2:17. And it turned out that that was of utmost importance!

Sometimes, the most important nuggets of truth are stated but once; however, that is not the case with John 11 – it is validated throughout Writ.

>>to contradict everything the NT says on the topic.<<

It is my thinking that in general – it proves best that we parse Writ for ourselves, rather than accept that done by others. In many instances, those who preceded us were faulty in their treatment of Holy Writ.

It would seem to be rather more than mundane importance.

>>I wish you well.<<

You’re too kind. I, in turn, wish you well, and hope that you may enliven and broaden your perspectives re the written word.

[phkrause]

Its actually pretty interesting to me that the one that started this thread is the one that has done the most attacking! :(