Truly, truly; He will never see death

a reply to: DISRAELI

originally posted by: windword
[He died for our sins] IS certainly relevant to this thread, as you introduced the chapter in the OP, as an additional explanation to Jesus' teachings on eternal life.

No, that is not how the topic of a thread is defined.

No. You're putting words in my mouth.

The topic of this thread is the promise of eternal life. I quoted from 1 Corinthians ch15 only with reference to that topic, and that is all I'm going to discuss.

No. You're cherry picking what you want to accept and ignoring what doesn't fit.

You introduced Chapter 15 as an expansion of the Jesus' teachings. I used Chapter 15 to show you that Paul's teachings and model for eternal life is different than Jesus' and deviate from the Gospels' narrative. Paul's "Christ" is entirely different than the Jesus of Nazareth of the Gospels.

You did indeed accuse me of making it up.

Nope. I accused you of a leap in logic, calling it an apologetic stretch.

In short, you refused to believe that the early church thought that way, accused me of inventing that line of interpretation myself, and demanded to see commentaries to prove that I wasn't.
I then vindicated myself by producing the relevant commentaries.

Again, your commentaries fail to address the question at hand. You've merely introduced commentary on the "3 day rule", which was never the question in the first place. Then you declared victory and allude to me being a bully for sticking to the point, the point you continually fail to address.

When you've discovered a difference, you can then move on to explaining the similar differences between "freed from the captives" and "liberated captive"; between "money taken out of the safe" and "extracted money".

Again, I'm not arguing with you about the how, I'm arguing with you about the when! Jesus of Nazareth offers eternal life, and freedom from the slavery of sin, today, now! Paul's model of eternal life only begins after the end of the world.

It's not a complicated, convoluted process, like you and Paul insist. It's simple and straight forward, according to Jesus of Nazareth.

originally posted by: windword
Nope. I accused you of a leap in logic, calling it an apologetic stretch.

And then I told you that it was not MY stretch; it was coming from the early church.
And THAT was the statement which you labelled BS, thus calling me a liar.
And THAT was also the statement which I vindicated by demonstrating the scholarly consensus about how the early church was thinking.
Therefore I was not lying when I said "It was not my stretch; it comes from the early church", and you were wrong to suggest that I was.
However, I suppose there's no point in expecting you to have enough grace to admit that you made a false accusation. You don't have the humility that would be required.

I'll just get on with discussing the topic of eternal life (while refusing to be drawn into off-topic areas).

It's simple and straight forward, according to Jesus of Nazareth.

Even the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is more complex than you're willing to recognise.
In the fifth chapter of this gospel he approaches the question of eternal life from two different angles.
I expounded the whole thing in detail in my thread a couple of weeks back, but I don't think you looked in on that one.

Part A]
"Truly, truly, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." (v25)
This is the aspect which you're focussing upon. The offer of life eternal which begins now, for those who are willing to hear and believe.

Part B] "The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgement" (vv28-29)
There are two important differences here.
One is that he does not use the phrase "and now is". This is not about "now". It is about some future time.
The other is that word "all". In the hour "that now is", some hear his voice and others do not. But everybody responds to that future summons. That is about a universal resurrection followed immediately by a universal judgement. We have not yet seen either of those events.

Taking those two aspects together, there is a sense in which we begin to live eternally now, and another sense in which our bodies, at least, are dead until the general resurrection.
Since Jesus is teaching BOTH these things, it behoves us to hold them together (rather than holding on to one of them and discarding the other).

If we compare this teaching with the teaching of Paul, what Paul is doing is focussing on Part B of the teaching of Jesus.
That is not a contradiction, just a shift in emphasis.
The reason for this emphasis lies in the fact that 1 Corinthians is not a purpose-written theology manual. It is one portion of a long dialogue between Paul and the church people in Corinth. Everything he says in that letter is driven by questions and issues arising in Corinth.
So he talks about the resurrection in ch15 because that's one of the topics which is causing problems for people (as he tells us himself in v12). If they had been having problems with the doctrine of being "born again", he might well have been telling them about that one instead.

It's just a question of reading people with the intention of understanding them, instead of looking for things to quarrel with.

a reply to: DISRAELI

And then I told you that it was not MY stretch; it was coming from the early church.

It IS your stretch, as you used it to answer a question that the commentary did NOT address.

But everybody responds to that future summons.

The future summons refers to those who are NOT born again. In theory, those who are dead will be raised to be judged, because people, in the end, need to believe that there will justice, even if doesn't come until the end of the world.

But, the faithful have eternal life and will NEVER experienced death or judgement, according to Jesus of Nazareth.

Taking those two aspects together, there is a sense in which we begin to live eternally now, and another sense in which our bodies, at least, are dead until the general resurrection.

Let it go! He who loves his life, and all that....

Our bodies are going to decay and rot. That's what the "3 day rule" is all about, the faith that God will not degrade the spirits/souls of the saints by allowing them to linger in rotting and decaying bodies. They (bodies of flesh and bones) are not what's resurrected. It's the spirit/soul that is reborn/resurrected. That resurrection occurs on the 3rd day, traditionally, for everyone who is born in the spirit, not at the end of the world.

John 3
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Those born in the spirit are like the wind, without flesh and bone bodies.

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Jesus' appearance in the flesh is symbolic of his having overcome death, not that OUR bodies will be resurrected in their flesh and bones state of corruption in 3 days or at the end of the world.

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Jesus is saying that there is no resurrection of the dead, because God is God of the living.

It's just a question of reading people with the intention of understanding them, instead of looking for things to quarrel with.

The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and his model of eternal life is not the same as the model that Paul presents of the "Christ", resurrection and eternal life. The main difference being, that Jesus of Nazareth offers eternal life immediately, while Paul has no such faith in a living God. In his mind the saints are asleep in their graves, in a state of stasis, waiting to be awaken, at the end of the world, to realize the gift of eternal life, finally.

originally posted by: windword
The future summons refers to those who are NOT born again.

No, the future summons applies to everybody.
Jesus specifically states that it includes those destined for “the resurrection of life”, who are THEN split off from the others, those destined for “the resurrection of judgement”.

That resurrection occurs on the 3rd day, traditionally, for everyone who is born in the spirit, not at the end of the world.

People may have been cooking up a tradition, but it certainly isn’t the teaching of the New Testament. Not any part of it.

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”
Those born in the spirit are like the wind, without flesh and bone bodies.

Actually, no. It is dangerous to rely on the AV alone, because the wording may be misleading.
It is the HOLY SPIRIT itself that is being compared with the wind. It comes and goes, we can’t see its movements, we can only see the effects.
The end of the verse means that the person experiencing the Holy Spirit is like the person who is experiencing the wind. In both cases, he is subject to a power which he can know only obliquely.

Jesus' appearance in the flesh is symbolic of his having overcome death, not that OUR bodies will be resurrected in their flesh and bones state of corruption in 3 days or at the end of the world.

Nobody is talking about being resurrected into flesh-and-bones corruption.
The teaching is that our bodies will be transformed.
Even those who happen to be still alive at the time it happens will be transformed from a state of “corruption” to a state of “incorruption” (1 Corinthians ch15 vv51-54).

“ I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
Jesus is saying that there is no resurrection of the dead, because God is God of the living.

A very odd and careless interpretation.
Jesus is talking to the Sadducees, who doubt the resurrection, and the whole point of what he is telling them is to explain why their doubt is wrong.
His argument is;
“You may think Abraham and Isaac are dead.
But God calls himself “their” God.
This means that they must be amongst the living.
This proves that there is a resurrection from the dead.”.
He says to those who DOUBT the resurrection; “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew ch22 v29)

originally posted by: windword
The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and his model of eternal life is not the same as the model that Paul presents of the "Christ", resurrection and eternal life. The main difference being, that Jesus of Nazareth offers eternal life immediately, while Paul has no such faith in a living God. In his mind the saints are asleep in their graves, in a state of stasis, waiting to be awaken, at the end of the world, to realize the gift of eternal life, finally.

I think I've answered this once already, but I'm willing to repeat my previous answer;

Even the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is more complex than you're willing to recognise.
In the fifth chapter of this gospel he approaches the question of eternal life from two different angles.
I expounded the whole thing in detail in my thread a couple of weeks back, but I don't think you looked in on that one.

Part A]
"Truly, truly, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." (v25)
This is the aspect which you're focussing upon. The offer of life eternal which begins now, for those who are willing to hear and believe.

Part B] "The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgement" (vv28-29)
There are two important differences here.
One is that he does not use the phrase "and now is". This is not about "now". It is about some future time.
The other is that word "all". In the hour "that now is", some hear his voice and others do not. But everybody responds to that future summons. That is about a universal resurrection followed immediately by a universal judgement. We have not yet seen either of those events.

Taking those two aspects together, there is a sense in which we begin to live eternally now, and another sense in which our bodies, at least, are dead until the general resurrection.
Since Jesus is teaching BOTH these things, it behoves us to hold them together (rather than holding on to one of them and discarding the other).

If we compare this teaching with the teaching of Paul, what Paul is doing is focussing on Part B of the teaching of Jesus.
That is not a contradiction, just a shift in emphasis.
The reason for this emphasis lies in the fact that 1 Corinthians is not a purpose-written theology manual. It is one portion of a long dialogue between Paul and the church people in Corinth. Everything he says in that letter is driven by questions and issues arising in Corinth.
So he talks about the resurrection in ch15 because that's one of the topics which is causing problems for people (as he tells us himself in v12). If they had been having problems with the doctrine of being "born again", he might well have been telling them about that one instead.

a reply to: DISRAELI

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”
Those born in the spirit are like the wind, without flesh and bone bodies.

Actually, no. It is dangerous to rely on the AV alone, because the wording may be misleading.
It is the HOLY SPIRIT itself that is being compared with the wind. It comes and goes, we can’t see its movements, we can only see the effects.
The end of the verse means that the person experiencing the Holy Spirit is like the person who is experiencing the wind. In both cases, he is subject to a power which he can know only obliquely.

This is your eisegesis of the scripture, and you are wrong.

....so is every one that is born of the Spirit.....if one is born into something, like a family, one is a member, a part of that family.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

When one is born of spirit, one is spirit. There is no "experiencing", there is only "being". Jesus of Nazareth never teaches that the flesh begets a spiritual body, not in life nor in the resurrection.

Nobody is talking about being resurrected into flesh-and-bones corruption.
The teaching is that our bodies will be transformed.

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Our bodies will be transformed to dust.

People may have been cooking up a tradition, but it certainly isn’t the teaching of the New Testament. Not any part of it.

Hosea 6:2
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.

John 2:19
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

A very odd and careless interpretation.
Jesus is talking to the Sadducees, who doubt the resurrection, and the whole point of what he is telling them is to explain why their doubt is wrong.
His argument is;
“You may think Abraham and Isaac are dead.
But God calls himself “their” God.
This means that they must be amongst the living.
This proves that there is a resurrection from the dead.”.

No. You don't understand. The flesh dies, ALWAYS! God raptures the souls of his faithful, who never experience death. Abraham and Isaac are not dead and never were, because their God is the God of the living, according to Jesus of Nazareth.

There are two important differences here.
One is that he does not use the phrase "and now is". This is not about "now". It is about some future time.
The other is that word "all". In the hour "that now is", some hear his voice and others do not. But everybody responds to that future summons.

Again, you're confused. The time is NOW and ALWAYS, is more like it. What is true NOW will be true for the next generation, and the next generation.

According to Jesus, those that don't hear his voice are already dead. Those are the dead that will be awaken by the trumpets on that terrible day.

According to Jesus of Nazareth, the faithful are with him in Paradise TODAY!

You are missing very significant points.Yahoshua said that the hour is coming NOW is.You are correct he was saying NOW not a future time the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of the creator God.He is clearly distinguish “those” dead and those that will be dead in the grave (everyone).First those that were dead and will hear his voice.

Before the preamble to the explanation of the parable of the seed sown in the soils the disciples ask Yahoshua why he speaks in parables.He clearly states because it has ONLY been given to “you”(the disciples) to “know” (hear) the mystery of the Kingdom of their heavens.That is the hearing he is always speaking of.It is not about an afterlife mystical experience in a place called heaven.The heaven are the mind(for lack of another term …consciousness) of man.

You have extrapolated both cases to mean “you”(and Christians who believe as you do) in this “now” when he is clearly not saying that at all.Only the disciples have “heard” from the Father because they alone were the chosen few.Yahoshua expounded on that in the John 14-17 discourse.

In John 5:28-29 Yahoshua goes on to say the hour will come when ALL that are in the grave(The meaning of Hades..the realm of death.. which means ALL of mankind because ALL of mankind WILL positively die.)shall hear his voice ..Yahoshua…( which means Yahweh is deliverance/salvation) and those that have done good which is translated from the Greek word agathos..which means of useful nature.Yahoshua isn’t making a moral or ethical judgment.Mans nature is missing the mark of maturity (sin) and is not useful for them to “hear” the creator God so the “good” are Yahoshua and the disciples

……… and those that have done evil which translated from the Greek word phaulos means easy or ordinary ( all of mankind). The Greek word poneros is the word most commonly translated evil and means full of labors,annoyance,hardships.This is completely different than the modern meaning of the word evil that is crammed in Yahoshua's mouth he never said.

And finally the word damnation is translated from the Greek word krisis(where English derives crisis) which literally means the turning point or separation,sundering.The religious agenda is very obvious when the same word is translated judgment a few verse before.

Yahoshua was clearly stating to the Pharisees that they were not chosen to hear (nor was anyone else except the disciples) since that time because the hour was coming(the disciples still didn’t fully understand Yahoshua) and is NOW.You don’t get to fudge when NOW is.He was speaking in present tense and making a clear point.

It should be obvious Yahoshua was clearly stating the pharisees,saducees of the Jews were not chosen to hear the creator God.The 12 disciples(minus Judas which is the exact same name as Judah ) were chosen to hear because they were the fulfillment of the 12 patriarchs of Israel.The nation of Israel was the archetype of ALL mankind.The disciples are the archetype of the first fruits(the seed that was sown on the good soil that produced 30 60 ,100 fold fruit).

What Yahoshua said is very different from what Christianity believes.No religion including (and especially)Christianity was given to know(hear) the mystery of their heavens because they are dead and will remain dead(not hearing) and then will physical die and be in Hades(the grave).The chosen few disciples were chosen to hear the Kingdom of their heavens in their lifetime … their NOW.Yahoshua is clearly speaking of Hades…the realm of death(physical death) and imperception(religion) and delineating between them .He was saying the disciples were dead (did not perceive) but the hour was coming and NOW IS when those dead( the imperception of Hades) would hear.Everyone else will hear at their turning point(krisis/judgement) after the resurrection.

Yahoshua wraps it up in John5:39 when he clearly states:

“You search the scriptures thinking that in them you have life yet you fail to come to me whom they testify of that I would deliver you”.

Salvation does not come by studying the scriptures because there is no life in them.They are a testimony that testifies of Yahoshua.Salvation is NOT just about being saved from the eternal punishment of hell(which Yahoshua never said) salvation is being delivered from bondage.In this specific case (John 5)Yahoshua is speaking of the “great” bondage of Hades….the realm of death and imperception.

The religious pharisees believed studying the scriptures was how you”hear’ God (life) yet Yahoshua clearly states they are not being delivered from imperception death and the same can be said of all the religious especially Christianity since they “believe” they hear and have already been saved.However the Good news is ALL of mankind WILL be delivered from Hades physical death (resurrection and be born anew with a NEW nature that is not religion) and be freed from their imperception by what is called baptism by fire (the lake of fire or eternal fire) of the spirit.

Nothing Yahoshua says is EVER a methodology of religion.It has clearly been so distorted beyond recognition yet a person like me who is not a Greek scholar can simply read the meaning of the Greek words that were written and perceive it is not what Christianity believes at all because it ain't rocket surgery religion theology... it is just common reason.

originally posted by: windword
This is your eisegesis of the scripture, and you are wrong.
....so is every one that is born OF the Spirit.....if one is born INTO something, like a family, one is a member, a part of that family.

No again. I am reading the Greek text, rather than an archaic translation, and I’m following and in agreement with the best commentaries.
Your own interpretation above, on the other hand, is one of the most blatant examples of eisegesis that I have ever seen.
I refer to what you do to the prepositions.
The text says “born OF the Spirit”, correctly translating the Greek genitive case. “Of” means “out of” or “from”. This indicates the Holy Spirit as the ORIGIN of what is happening. The power of the Holy Spirit is the driving force.
But you are reading “INTO”.
Let me explain something about the English language. “Into” and “out of” are exact opposites.
Just as “up” and “down” are exact opposites, and similarly “black” and “white”, “yes” and “no”.
If you look at a word and carefully read the opposite of what it says, you are going to get confused about the meaning of whole paragraphs.

Any scholarly commentator is going to interpret the text in the same way that I’m doing it.
Thus Westcott;
“The action of the Spirit on the believer is like the action of the wind in the material world. As the tree (for example) by waving branches and rustling leaves witnesses to the power that affects it, “so is everyone that hath been born of the Spirit”. The believer shows by deed and word that an invisible influence has moved and inspired him. He is himself a continual sign of the action of the Spirit, which is freely determined, and incomprehensible to man as to source and end, though seen in its present results”.

Hosea 6:2
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
John 2:19
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

My first thought was to remark that Hosea is not in the New Testament, and then I noticed the juxtaposition.
I don’t do emoticons, but I nearly started looking for a “turning cartwheels for joy” icon.
I was in ecstasy at the wonderful irony of this development.
You are offering the resurrection of Jesus as a fulfilment of Hosea ch6 v2?
I got abuse, not for making that connection myself, but for suggesting that Paul would have made it.
And now you come forward, looking as though butter would not melt in your mouth, and present it as part of your own argument.
That kind of U-turn would get you arrested for dangerous driving, if you attempted it in a speeding vehicle.
The cream of the joke is that it doesn’t even help your case.
The response made by Jesus is specifically about his own resurrection, which is what Paul was talking about.
You needed to find New Testament evidence for a three-day resurrection for everybody else, and this doesn’t get you any closer.

Abraham and Isaac are not dead and never were, because their God is the God of the living, according to Jesus of Nazareth.

You are carefully ignoring what Jesus was setting out to do in that conversation.
He was talking to a class of people who did not believe in the resurrection.
He was telling them they were WRONG to doubt the resurrection (“You do not know the scripture nor the power of God”).
The argument about Abraham and Isaac is brought forward to show that they are wrong.
Therefore the purpose of the argument must be to prove that there IS a resurrection.
Therefore that is what it means.

Again, you're confused. The time is NOW and ALWAYS, is more like it. What is true NOW will be true for the next generation, and the next generation.
According to Jesus, those that don't hear his voice are already dead. Those are the dead that will be awaken by the trumpets on that terrible day.
According to Jesus of Nazareth, the faithful are with him in Paradise TODAY!

No, you are the one who is confused between two kinds of voice-calling and two kinds of death.
Jesus deliberately talks about both sets, with two kinds of expression, and you are trying to obliterate one of them by merging them together.
The voice-calling which “now is” gets addressed to those who are spiritually dead (though physically alive). Their reaction divides them into two groups; those who “live” and those who remain “dead”. We agree on that part of it.
But the second voice-calling is addressed to the physically dead and involves BOTH groups.
It INCLUDES those who are alive in the spiritual sense.
I know you are not good at reading things if you don’t want to see them, but the words are there in black and white and I’ve quoted them already;
Those who hear the second voice-calling include the first group, the one that is destined for “the resurrection of life”.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The text says “born OF the Spirit”, correctly translating the Greek genitive case. “Of” means “out of” or “from”. This indicates the Holy Spirit as the ORIGIN of what is happening. The power of the Holy Spirit is the driving force.
But you are reading “INTO”.

Nope. You're making this much more complicated that it needs to be. One is OF the one who gives birth to them. Spirit gives birth to spirit. The key word isn't "of" or "out of", it's BORN. No eisegesis. It's right there.

He was talking to a class of people who did not believe in the resurrection.

"He" was talking to us all.

I know you are not good at reading things if you don’t want to see them, but the words are there in black and white and I’ve quoted them already;
Those who hear the second voice-calling include the first group, the one that is destined for “the resurrection of life”.

Oh dig! You're one to talk, cherry picking what scripture you will address and what you won't, when such scripture doesn't support you theory.

I'm not misunderstanding, I'm flat out disagreeing with you. Jesus of Nazareth taught eternal life that begins as soon as one accepts it, NOW, and the same is true for every generation to come. I've already quoted you tons of scriptures that validates this simplicity.

But the second voice-calling is addressed to the physically dead and involves BOTH groups.....

"Part B] "The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgement"

2000 years and you're still waiting for the hour to come. You think this literally happens to everyone who ever lived, simultaneously, all at once, at the end of the world, when "The Great Work" has been finished?

And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

Nope. It's an individual thing that, supposedly, happens to everyone upon their death, within 3 days, according to tradition.

What ever Dude. The "end times", end of the world nonsense is irrelevant when it comes to the gift of eternal life that is offered through the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

This need to see retribution toward your fellow human being comes from an unwillingness to surrender to the fact that you aren't going to see justice in your lifetime. So you need to imagine that there will be a great judgement at the end of the world, where everyone you perceive to be unworthy will be dealt with most viciously.

originally posted by: windword
One is OF the one who gives birth to them. Spirit gives birth to spirit. The key word isn't "of" or "out of", it's BORN. No eisegesis. It's right there.

You were the one who first highlighted “of”.
Yes, I agree in the importance of “born” in what I called the “Part A” teaching of Jesus.
That isn’t a reason for ignoring the other half of what he says.

Nope. It's an individual thing that, supposedly, happens to everyone upon their death, within 3 days, according to tradition.

“Tradition” is not an authority. I’m only interested in what the New Testament says on the subject

So you need to imagine that there will be a great judgement at the end of the world, where everyone you perceive to be unworthy will be dealt with most viciously.

No, just looking over the New Testament and reporting what it says.