Born sinful.

reply to post by Seede

Paradise exists in the new Jerusalem as I have posted (according to John the Revelator) and if all the righteous were removed from Abraham’s Bosom and resurrected to the New Jerusalem then they are to this day alive and sustained by the food and water of life.

All that stuff is metaphorical and not literal, and it doesn't give specific locations because that is beside the point in a metaphor.

There is only one paradise and both Paul and John describe this In a very clear and precise way.

John gives details but they are not clearly of the real world.

. . . the new testament is a transition of knowledge to the apostles and disciples from rabbinic teachings . . .

What in the world are you basing this on?
That is just ridiculous because they were every one of them ordinary people who were not rabbis or studied rabbinical rhetoric.
Paul was of the Greek diaspora and probably knew more about stoicism than rabbinicism.

jmdewey60
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

Eph 2:6
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God"

You are allowed admission into the congregation of the saved (the church) by only meeting one criteria, which is faith in the one who created it (Jesus).
You, the members of the church, did not create it on your own initiative or by your own power, it was God that provided that, free of charge.

Rom 10:9
"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"

The heart and the mouth, as opposed to being saved by another body part, the one that the Jews think has to be circumcised.

edit on 27-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Dewey, I am telling you this to be honest. You interpretations are off the wall. Not one scholar I have ever read has agreed with most of what you are saying . You distort the text far to much for valid interpretation. Believer priest gave you you a very valid well documented response and it seems that out of pride you argue. I tell you this out of love work on your interpretations

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Not one scholar I have ever read has agreed with most of what you are saying .

What scholars?
I can give you page numbers from the best commentaries on Ephesians and Romans where I got those interpretations from.

Word Biblical Commentary; Vol. 42, Ephesians by Andrew T. Lincoln

Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible) by Robert Jewett

DeadSeraph

ServantOfTheLamb

DeadSeraph
Personally I don't think we are "born sinful". If you have kids, you know that when they are born they are completely innocent. Babies aren't "sinful" because they are incapable of comprehending the ideas of right and wrong, or much of anything at first. I think it is more accurate to say that we are born into a sinful world, and because we are only human, it rubs off on us as we grow older. So while "original sin" is a valid concept, it isn't something that just stamps you across the forehead the moment you exit the womb, but rather something that affects the world and those in it, and eventually you become a part of that world as you grow up in it and are influenced by it.

Our ability to be considered "sinful" or be held responsible for our "sinful nature" is directly proportionate to our comprehension of morality. It's impossible to say that someone has committed a wrong, if they can't comprehend that moral standard in the first place. This is why many people outside of catholic dogma believe that children who pass away go directly to heaven, since they haven't matured enough to understand moral principles and thus be held accountable to them. This is very much alluded to in Genesis by very virtue of the name of the tree from which Adam and Eve are said to have eaten: "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Neither Adam or Eve could be considered "sinful" prior to eating of the fruit, since they had no knowledge of good and evil. Many people (myself included) have speculated that this state of grace in Eden was a period of time when people were much closer to animals than modern humans. A primitive state we once lived in, in which our morals had not really developed as we were still very close to the animal kingdom and had not yet evolved to become civilization builders.

My 2 cents, at any rate.

Just a question. I see that you don't think we are born sinful. However, I have a question. Does a child need to be taught to lie?

Since you can see that I don't think we are born sinful, can a baby lie? Further, you seem to consider yourself covered by the blood of Christ. Can YOU lie? What about being disingenuous? You clearly consider yourself inspired by the holy spirit, so why would you lay a snare for me after I made my position perfectly clear?

Can a newborn baby lie? Yes or no?

edit on 8-3-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

Friend it was no snare. I was merely trying to get you to see a point. I completely agree that a new born baby is sin free . My point was we don't have to be taught to sin because its is something we do naturally. Sin is when we choose not to listen to god. Every human eventually makes this choice of their own accord.

Can I lie ? Of course, I am a sinner. Not sure what point your trying to make here.

jmdewey60
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Not one scholar I have ever read has agreed with most of what you are saying .

What scholars?
I can give you page numbers from the best commentaries on Ephesians and Romans where I got those interpretations from.

Word Biblical Commentary; Vol. 42, Ephesians by Andrew T. Lincoln

Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible) by Robert Jewett

edit on 9-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

It won' t take me long to prove my point, but I fear that you will miss it.
I am going to ask you a few questions . Please respond to them and give me the verses you believe explain you belief on the subject.

Did God create the universe?

Did Jesus die for your sins?

Is the Church a building on earth?

What is being born again?

Is salvation works based or faith based?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

It won' t take me long to prove my point . . .

Then just do that, and leave off with the character assassination.

All your questions are dependent on how you define the words, and you are apparently not satisfied with how the Bible defines them.
I agree with what the Bible says.

jmdewey60
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

It won' t take me long to prove my point . . .

Then just do that, and leave off with the character assassination.

All your questions are dependent on how you define the words, and you are apparently not satisfied with how the Bible defines them.
I agree with what the Bible says.

edit on 9-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Please answer and define your terms for me then. If I am wrong I will gladly admit it. I am only here to further Truth.

BELIEVERpriest
I have a prophecy for you, spoken throught the Lord's Prophet, Iris Nasreen, and confirmed via calculation. Jesus is returning to resurrect the Church on 9/16/2016. You can either accept Christ as your saviour and come with us, or you can take your chances and wait for His return sometime in mid September of 2023.

- There is no such thing as a pre-tribulation rapture.
- Your 'prophet' Iris is trying to sell a book.
- Scripture is clear .. no one knows the hour of Jesus return. To claim to know is against Jesus own words.


That being said - in order for everyone to be 'born into original sin' .. there would have to be an Adam and Eve, and the Genesis story would have to be literally true. It is not. Therefore, no one is born with Adam and Eve generated 'original sin'.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Please answer . . .

Not really interested in participating in your Grand Inquisitor role-playing.

Please stick to the subject matter, and not my personality, I would thank you.

jmdewey60
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Please answer . . .

Not really interested in participating in your Grand Inquisitor role-playing.

Please stick to the subject matter, and not my personality, I would thank you.

edit on 9-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I am trying, but you obviously dont seem to want to discuss it. I wouldn't be loving if I didn't tell you that I believe your interpretations are not sound. I asked very simple questions for Christians to answer. Its not like I am trying to trick you or something. I am merely starting a conversation that you seem afraid to join.

jmdewey60
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Please answer . . .

Not really interested in participating in your Grand Inquisitor role-playing.

Please stick to the subject matter, and not my personality, I would thank you.

edit on 9-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I am trying, but you obviously dont seem to want to discuss it. I wouldn't be loving if I didn't tell you that I believe your interpretations are not sound. I asked very simple questions for Christians to answer. Its not like I am trying to trick you or something. I am merely starting a conversation that you seem afraid to join.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

I asked very simple questions for Christians to answer.

I believe what the Bible says in regards to those questions, I already said that.
What you want is to make everyone believe whatever your cult says you are to believe about them.

jmdewey60
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I asked very simple questions for Christians to answer.

I believe what the Bible says in regards to those questions, I already said that.
What you want is to make everyone believe whatever your cult says you are to believe about them.

Lol my cult? I am a 20 year old college student. I just love God bro. I don't know everything. What do you think the Bible says on those regards?
Why are you so scared to answer?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Lol my cult?

Whatever is your source of interpretation of the Bible.

You did mention that you have read "scholars".

Why are you so scared to answer?

Start a separate thread for each of those questions and I will answer them.

Text So "paradise" just means something nice.

reply to post by jmdewey60


@ jimdewey

In my previous posts I have given you the scriptures pertaining to paradise. There are only three scriptures in the entire bible of the 1611 KJV which give the word paradise. Once again I give them to you. Luke23:43, 2nd Corinthians 12:4, and Revelation 2:7. All three apostles who are Luke, Paul and John verify paradise with Luke repeating what Jesus said. So actually we have Jesus and three of His apostles telling us about a paradise.

There is no definite scripture telling us that paradise was or is in Sheol. I have assumed this but it is not scriptural. The only scriptural location of a paradise is that of John and Paul. All Jesus said was that this man beside Him would be in paradise that same day. He never mentions exactly where that would be. I can assume it was in Sheol but it is not theologically accurate. I assume that it was in the third heaven simply because that is where Paul states it is.

You objected to Paul’s statement on the grounds that Paul did not specify a particular paradise. Are you serious or simply trying to play mind games? I gave you the scriptures several times with all due explanations of paradise. There is only one paradise or haven’t you understood that yet. I will repeat this. There is only one paradise that exists and that is the one and same that Luke, Paul and John write about. They are all three talking about the same paradise. Paradise is the place where the spirits of the righteous dead live forever. According to Paul, paradise is located in the celestial third heaven. According to John, paradise is located in the New Jerusalem and contains the trees of food and water of life. According to Luke paradise is where Jesus and His dying companion entered at their death. All three accounts are the same paradise.

Now if the spirits of the righteous dead exist in a celestial paradise then I assume that would be the literal kingdom of heaven (God). No there is no scripture that says “The kingdom of God is in paradise.” That verse does not exist but it is understood by many sermons of Jesus that He does tell us that His kingdom is in heaven and if the finality is paradise then that would be the kingdom of God.

My final rant is that of Saul of Tarsus. Paul (Paulas) is a Roman name and in Romans 16:7,21 we are told that Paul had at least two relatives with Roman names of Junia and Lucius. He was of the tribe of Benjamin and spoke Hebrew as opposed to the Jews of the dispersion. Paul sat under the great Gamaliel in his studies and was a Pharisee but also learned his trade of tent making as every Jewish lad must have a trade. He and his family were registered Roman citizens which held great esteem. Out of about 80,000,000 people in Rome only about 6.000,000 were citizens so being a citizen had a great many advantages in life.

History becomes blurred in details but it is believed by many scholars that Paul would have been the successor of the great Gamaliel had he not converted to Christianity. He was a contender to the school of Gamaliel which was in opposition to the school of Shammai. Gamaliel was not only the grandson of the great Hilliel,who was the founder of the school, but was the president of the Sanhedrin at this time. The reason I said that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin was that Paul sat under Gamaliel as Saul the Hebrew and Gamaliel was the president of the Sanhedrin council. Rabbi Saul was next in line to become the president of the council and you would have to have been a member to accomplish this. The Sanhedrin was the highest court of Jewish authority that existed at this time.

I do wish that you would comment with a theological discussion. I( would like to hear your input.

reply to post by Seede


"

Q. In the apostles’ creed it says that Jesus descended into hell in the three days between death on the cross and resurrection. Do you believe 1) that He did descend into hell (since it’s a creed and not scripture, and 2) if He did, what do you believe the purpose of the visit was?

A. Yes, I believe Jesus descended into Hell in the sense that the word Hell comes from the Greek Hades which means the abode of the dead. Before the resurrection it included places for both the saved and the unsaved. The place where the saved went was also called Paradise and that’s why Jesus told one of the criminals beside Him, “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) After His resurrection Jesus took the saved dead to Heaven.

As for what He did, 1 Peter 3:18-20 tells us that Jesus visited the unsaved dead from the time of Noah during the 3 days He was there, and 1 Peter 4:6 says that He also preached to the saved dead.
"

gracethrufaith.com... ell/

TextA. Yes, I believe Jesus descended into Hell in the sense that the word Hell comes from the Greek Hades which means the abode of the dead. Before the resurrection it included places for both the saved and the unsaved. The place where the saved went was also called Paradise and that’s why Jesus told one of the criminals beside Him, “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) After His resurrection Jesus took the saved dead to Heaven.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


@ SevantOfTheLamb

Yes, I believe that we can understand each other with out nit picking. When some one refers to the rapture I understand what that references without nit picking. I am not a scholar by any measure but have read many scholarly papers and in fact have stacks of them all about. There are some that are so deep that I cannot really grasp the brilliant minds of these men and women. But that comes from lack of education on my part. When I discuss scripture I understand the layman's intent without trying to ridicule that person.

Yes, I have even read some papers of scholars who do refer to Abrahams Bosom as paradise and their intent is justified by each other simply because they use so much outside literature that also refers this intent. So when we say a certain word is not scriptural it may not be but can be used in honest dialogue if it does not detract from its purpose. Rapture is a good example. That should always be accepted by honest dialogue don't you think? I firmly believe that what you have stated is a true intent and that Jesus was in the underworld for three days and three nights. I have called this paradise many times even knowing that the word paradise is not the scriptural name for this underworld. I believe what you wrote is what I believe.

reply to post by Seede

All Jesus said was that this man beside Him would be in paradise that same day. He never mentions exactly where that would be. I can assume it was in Sheol but it is not theologically accurate. I assume that it was in the third heaven simply because that is where Paul states it is.

Jesus would have meant the place where he would be when he was dead.
That would have meant to the person that he was talking to, Sheol.
What Paul was talking about was something that existed when Jesus was not dead but had been taken up into heaven.
He just lifted up into the sky, then got further and further away until he could not be seen anymore.
He would now be in some place not of this world, but not under the earth, either.
So to Paul, he would be in some mid heaven place which would seem like some kind of paradise to us.

You objected to Paul’s statement on the grounds that Paul did not specify a particular paradise.

I don't object to Paul, but your use of Paul to try to support something that he doesn't say.

Are you serious or simply trying to play mind games?

Not unless you think being logical is "playing mind games".

I gave you the scriptures several times with all due explanations of paradise.

You need to also show how the verse supports your explanation.

There is only one paradise or haven’t you understood that yet.

Repeating a theory multiple times does not make it easier to accept. You need to demonstrate how it is likely to be true.

Paradise is the place where the spirits of the righteous dead live forever. According to Paul, paradise is located in the celestial third heaven. According to John, paradise is located in the New Jerusalem and contains the trees of food and water of life. According to Luke paradise is where Jesus and His dying companion entered at their death. All three accounts are the same paradise.

Obviously they aren't the "same place" since there is this thing called the Resurrection, where people have actual physical bodies and don't just have spirit existence in some place.

You will know you are right inside when it hurts you to harm others.

Many don't feel that today but they will learn. They always learn; one way or another.

reply to post by Seede

Now if the spirits of the righteous dead exist in a celestial paradise then I assume that would be the literal kingdom of heaven (God). No there is no scripture that says “The kingdom of God is in paradise.” That verse does not exist but it is understood by many sermons of Jesus that He does tell us that His kingdom is in heaven and if the finality is paradise then that would be the kingdom of God.

The kingdom exists within us, that is what we are told in the gospels.
The reality of this whole thing, in my view, is that religion, including Judaism and Christianity (and you can throw in Islam too) exist to influence how we live, and that means here on this earth and in this life.
It is not about how we are going to live in the afterlife, other than to say that the quality of your afterlife experience is dependent on what you do now.

My final rant is that of Saul of Tarsus. Paul (Paulas) is a Roman name and in Romans 16:7,21 we are told that Paul had at least two relatives with Roman names of Junia and Lucius. He was of the tribe of Benjamin and spoke Hebrew as opposed to the Jews of the dispersion. Paul sat under the great Gamaliel in his studies and was a Pharisee but also learned his trade of tent making as every Jewish lad must have a trade.

We don't know if a single bit of that is true because it is based on the Book of Acts which was written as much as a hundred years later.
The "tribe of Benjamin" thing we know is true because it is in one of the letters written by Paul.
Paul obviously spoke Greek since his letters were all in Greek.
In Acts it mentions someone speaking "Hebrew" but that is not strictly accurate and just meant a dialect of Aramaic spoken in Judea.
The "Gamaliel" thing is the basis of one of the major arguments against the accuracy of Acts, since it couldn't possibly have been true, but was thrown in by the writer to give Paul credibility among the Pharisees.