Does the bible teach immortality of the soul?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 05:04 AM by miriam0566

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
God created Eden. It's his garden and he didn't destroy it. Show us where he states he destroyed it. You can't,

nothing to say he preserved it either.

its just a garden....

but listen to what God himself says in Isaiah 51:3

"The Lord will surely comfort Zion and will look with compassion on all her ruins; he will make her deserts like EDEN, her wastelands like the GARDEN OF THE LORD."

What it does not say is 'like Eden was' or like the Garden of the Lord used to be."

There is nothing to imply he is talking in past tense and everything to imply he was talking in present tense.

"this place feels like home"

"he must be as strong as hercules!"

"that person is as noble as a saint"

no of those are put in past tense. if your whole arguement that the garden is still around relies on passage that simply compares the two, id say you case is thin.

noah's flood was to destroy the world not the world minus eden.

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 11:10 AM by Myrtales Instinct

reply to post by jmdewey60

I agree with you. It is someplace we can't see. I still believe heaven and paradise are two seperate places, according to what the Lord taught.

Later

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 11:14 AM by miriam0566

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
reply to post by jmdewey60

I agree with you. It is someplace we can't see. I still believe heaven and paradise are two seperate places, according to what the Lord taught.

Later

where did the lord teach that paradise what anywhere but earth?

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 11:20 AM by Myrtales Instinct

reply to post by miriam0566

To the thief on the cross. The Lord Jesus told the thief, 'today you will be with me in paradise.' My opinion is the garden exists and is paradise and the place Jesus went to prepare us a room is in his Father's house - which is attached to that garden.

God came and walked in his garden in the cool of the day. From his house to his garden.

Why would God destroy his own front yard? He wouldn't. He would put people off his property, but he's not going to destroy his dwelling place.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Myrtales Instinct]

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 11:40 AM by miriam0566

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
To the thief on the cross. The Lord Jesus told the thief, 'today you will be with me in paradise.' My opinion is the garden exists and is paradise and the place Jesus went to prepare us a room is in his Father's house - which is attached to that garden.

God came and walked in his garden in the cool of the day. From his house to his garden.

Why would God destroy his own front yard? He wouldn't. He would put people off his property, but he's not going to destroy his dwelling place.

genesis very clearly states that eden was a physical place on earth with animals and food even rivers. even after being expelled, it was refered to

gen 4:[16] And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

physical. on earth.

the place that jesus was to prepare is spiritual, in heaven.

separate things.

jesus said he would return and that after there would be a resurrection. if death is non-existence, then to the thief, his reunion with christ would feel very quick, as he wouldnt be aware of how much time had past.

paradise is what will be restored. not reappear.

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 12:19 PM by jmdewey60

Here is a verse I found today when I was looking for something else.

Revelation 2:7
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

It looks like it is talking about paradise in the present tense.
Maybe you who know Greek grammar can break this down.
I seriously do not think it is on earth.(now)
There seems to be a conflict in Revelations.
In one place, it talks about the river that flows from the Temple.
In another place it says there will be no Temple in the New Earth.
The way I have been taught is there is the Temple and then there is the New Jerusalem, two separate things.
The tree of life and the river are at the temple.
The city descends to earth and the temple stays in heaven.
Once the earth is cleansed, after the city is established on earth, the river and the tree in the garden are reestablished on earth and kind of spreads out.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 01:09 PM by miriam0566

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Here is a verse I found today when I was looking for something else.

Revelation 2:7
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

It looks like it is talking about paradise in the present tense.
Maybe you who know Greek grammar can break this down.
I seriously do not think it is on earth.(now)
There seems to be a conflict in Revelations.
In one place, it talks about the river that flows from the Temple.
In another place it says there will be no Temple in the New Earth.
The way I have been taught is there is the Temple and then there is the New Jerusalem, two separate things.
The tree of life and the river are at the temple.
The city descends to earth and the temple stays in heaven.
Once the earth is cleansed, after the city is established on earth, the river and the tree in the garden are reestablished on earth and kind of spreads out.

wow, that is a can of worms you've opened 5 mins before i have to get ready to leave lol.

ill state it in layman's terms (without my usual references) if you want me to post references on something, let me know and i will

adam and eve sinned. their sin passes onto their children.

jesus redeem mankind through his blood. perfect man for perfect man. having bought mankind, he arranges for some to bought from earth and to be brought to heaven as kings and priests. but remember, this is all through his blood.

revelation is a revealing of what jesus does in the future.

so we have new jerusalem. literal city or is it figurative? i say figurative because

-its dimensions are massive. basically the distance from the south of england to the southern part of spain cubed. meaning it would tower several hundred miles into outerspace.

-its made of refined gold and precious metals which are usually figurative in the bible. there are passages about god refining his servants like gold. if you consider those who corule with christ, they must be "refined" or suffer persecution while on earth.

-no day or night. red flag that its not literal.

-refered to as christ's bride. his corulers or saints are also refered to as his bride.

-term coming down to earth can be cross referenced with other scriptures to mean "turning attention to earth" not a literal descent.

then consider the water of life flowing from it. the saints are said to be kings and priests. what did priests do? they cleansed the nation. so the benefits of jesus' blood would be passed on mankind through the saints. so in that way the water is not literal.

tress of life sprout next to the water. saints too are refered to as trees also

basically the whole thing is an illustration of how jesus will help everyone

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 02:21 PM by Myrtales Instinct

miriam said "tress of life sprout next to the water. saints too are refered to as trees also

basically the whole thing is an illustration of how jesus will help everyone"

Can help everyone right now. Jesus is the vine, people are the branches and God is the Gardner. If a branch isn't producing fruit, God will cut it out to make room for one who will. Jesus has asked for time to fix this problem. His word is the fertilizer trying to make people produce fruit. If a person is not producing real fruit they are like dead branches.

Eternal life is real. It has certain real physical qualites. Like water, that flows over rocks in a brook and sort of makes a soft bubbling sound. That is why he called it living water. It's like yeast and the mustard seed, they both well up to something verry special, that can be attained in the here and now.

Why do you think the gospel of John is so different than the other gospels? Why was he known as the beloved disciple? Because some people won't taste death.

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 02:29 PM by jmdewey60

reply to post by miriam0566

Sorry about the timing.
I did not expect an answer, right away.
My religion took a look at these verses a hundred and fifty years ago.
These were Yankees from farming backgrounds and took a common sense approach to understanding prophesy.
So, these people of the earth looked at all these references in concrete terms.
If the Bible says something is real, then we believe it is something real.
I am not a theologian and there probably is a name for this style of interpretation.
Here is my attempt to explain it: You can use symbolism to explain a concept, but in the end, you still end up with something real.
Let's take the city for an example.
The new Jerusalem.
Ok, you have a description of this city, in the Bible.
The concrete method would say, "The description has symbolism built into it, but in the end, you have a city."
Your Interpretation method would say, "The description of the city is symbolic of something that is unnamed in this verse, and the city is a way of explaining a concept that you have to figure out on your own, how to apply."

I am not trying to be mean or knock your religion.
Just trying to point out the difference in aproach.
My version could be evidence of simple minds, like what Sonya says.

Yeah that is because your mind is a bit simple. You want it nice. Reality is not always nice,

[edit on 28-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 05:03 PM by Matrix1111

You just missed out on getting all the answers. Reached my character limit and ATS deleted everything.

Oh well. Pray about. The key is we reap what we sow. (We get what we deserve.) And love covers a multitude of sins. Everything else is splitting hairs.

[edit on 7/28/2008 by Matrix1111]

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 06:01 PM by jmdewey60

reply to post by Matrix1111

Wow that sucks.
I hate it when I hit the wrong button and loose everything.
If I have long complicated posts I write it in Word, then copy it.
Thanks for the recap.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

reply posted on 28-7-2008 @ 07:27 PM by PreTribGuy

reply to post by miriam0566

so we have new jerusalem. literal city or is it figurative? i say figurative because

-its dimensions are massive. basically the distance from the south of england to the southern part of spain cubed. meaning it would tower several hundred miles into outerspace.

The fact that this city is measured and its dimensions are given, implies to me that the city is literal. For a long time I thought the city was a "cube", also, but some scholars seem to say a pyramid also fulfills the description.

I also understand the (often overlooked) 'height' difficulties. This city is about 1500 MILES tall!

-its made of refined gold and precious metals which are usually figurative in the bible. there are passages about god refining his servants like gold. if you consider those who corule with christ, they must be "refined" or suffer persecution while on earth.

I've wondered about that also. "Are the layers REAL jewels (which, in my opinion, are worthless if God is there with me), or are they figurative of the jewels of:

Mal 3:17 And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

Right now, I believe they are figurative, as shown above in Mal. 3:17

-no day or night. red flag that its not literal.

Perhaps meaning that there won't be any need for 'time' being kept?

-refered to as christ's bride. his corulers or saints are also refered to as his bride.

This is not quite true. Nowhere, in the NT, is the Church ever specifically described as being the "Bride of Christ".

I realize that Paul describes the relationship between a husband and a wife as being like Jesus and His Church, but Paul doesn't specifically call the Church "the Bride of Christ". The only direct mention of the "Bride" is the city of New Jerusalem in Revelation.

Further proof:

Was John the Baptist a part of the Church? If so, why did John the Baptist call himself a FRIEND of the Bridegroom?

John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

As a man, in his early 40's, with a wife and 3 (almost 4) children, I find it exceedingly dreadful and almost "sick" to imagine myself "the Bride of Jesus Christ". In fact, I think it to be an "unlawful" question for a man to ponder upon. (Yes, I think there are questions that are unlawful to ask about.)

I have a fantastic article (that was sent to me by my Elder) that goes into greater depth over this subject that I will post, if you'd like.

-term coming down to earth can be cross referenced with other scriptures to mean "turning attention to earth" not a literal descent.

I believe it to be a literal city.

I also will claim that I believe the Bible puts mankind (the Earth) and Jesus Christ, at the front and center of the whole universe. Or, rather, the whole REASON the Universe exists is BECAUSE of us.

We aren't some 'speck' in a giant universe with no more value that an ANT...we are HIS creation and if the Earth does not exist, there is no need for the rest of the Universe.

God spent most of His workweek (in Genesis 1) working on the Earth.

YEAH!

WE are THAT important!

reply posted on 29-7-2008 @ 06:35 AM by miriam0566

Originally posted by PreTribGuy
This is not quite true. Nowhere, in the NT, is the Church ever specifically described as being the "Bride of Christ".

i started a new thread because new jerusalem is a heavy topic, i explain this with alittle more depth in that thread

www.belowtopsecret.com...'

basically 2 cor 11:2

Was John the Baptist a part of the Church? If so, why did John the Baptist call himself a FRIEND of the Bridegroom?

hebrews 10:[19] Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
[20] By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
[21] And having an high priest over the house of God;
[22] Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

the veil in verse 20 is the veil that separated the holy and most holy compartments. that veil symbolized jesus' body which prevented entrance into heaven. when jesus died, the literal veil was torn in 2 meaning that now the "firstfruits" could be gathered in preparation for the first resurrection.

john died before jesus' death.

As a man, in his early 40's, with a wife and 3 (almost 4) children, I find it exceedingly dreadful and almost "sick" to imagine myself "the Bride of Jesus Christ". In fact, I think it to be an "unlawful" question for a man to ponder upon. (Yes, I think there are questions that are unlawful to ask about.)

its not an earthly marriage, but a spiritual one, denoting singleness in purpose

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 03:11 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct

Tradition teaches the fable myth of the immortality of the soul,when we read the bible however we can clearly see that the bibles meaning of a soul is much d ifferent than what is traditionally accepted and taught in most churches.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^