Butch5 said:

I would like to have a serious discussion as to why Christians choose Church doctrine over the Scriptures. I've said may times that when Scripture runs up against Church doctrine, Church doctrine always wins. This should not be. The Scriptures should "ALWAYS" trump Church doctrine. So, I'd like to have a serious and honest conversation about this, and why it happens. We've discussed the Trinity doctrine so let's give that a break. Let's take the Heavenly Destiny doctrine. Christians claim that they go to Heaven when they die. That is stated "NOWHERE" in Scripture. On the contrary what is stated is Jesus telling the apostles that where He was going, they could not come. So, If Jesus explicitly told the disciples that they could not go to Heaven. Why do Christians believe and teach that people go to Heaven when they die?

Click to expand...

'Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,
The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him,
Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this.
The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers,
Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them:
but gather the wheat into my barn.'
(Mat 13:24-30)

Hello @Butch5.

The words that came to my mind in relation to your opening post is that found above in the quotation from Matthew 13, and the parable of the Tares:-
'An enemy hath done this'.

The first study I made was on the word, 'Hell' (root meaning:- 'to hide away' or 'gravedom', ie., 'the place of the dead' ), and in doing so I realised that what I was finding from the Word of God did not match with what I had been taught from the pulpit, which was that Hell was a place of eternal conscious punishment: This led to me to pursuing the subject of, 'the soul', and, 'the state of the dead', with the same result. The only way that we can be sure that we are standing on solid ground doctrinally, is to do what the Bereans did in Acts 17,

'These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.'
(Act 17:11)

Comparing Scripture with Scripture to find out how the Holy Spirit Himself uses words within the context they are found, and thereby determining the meaning of what is written. For God means what He says and says what He means.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

'The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
Thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever.
(Psa 12:6-7)

Hello @Butch5,

The only other thing I would like to say is that care must be taken if or when consulting the works of man, whether it be dictionaries, concordances, expositional writings, even the records of venerable writers of the early church. For they are still the words of man, and not tried and true as The Word of God is.
Punctuation and rules of grammar must be called into question, and considered for accuracy, in the light of the testimony of all scripture. The original wording consulted too. Earlier someone referred to the record of the thief on the cross, and our Lord's reply to Him, which is thrown out of true by the wrong positioning of a mere coma ! (Luke 23:43)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

'And no man hath ascended up to heaven,
but He that came down from heaven,
even the Son of man which is in heaven.'
(Joh 3:13)

complete said:

'The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
Thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever.
(Psa 12:6-7)

Hello @Butch5,

The only other thing I would like to say is that care must be taken if or when consulting the works of man, whether it be dictionaries, concordances, expositional writings, even the records of venerable writers of the early church. For they are still the words of man, and not tried and true as The Word of God is.
Punctuation and rules of grammar must be called into question, and considered for accuracy, in the light of the testimony of all scripture. The original wording consulted too. Earlier someone referred to the record of the thief on the cross, and our Lord's reply to Him, which is thrown out of true by the wrong positioning of a mere coma ! (Luke 23:43)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Click to expand...

A point on Luke 23:43, when I checked the translations on my Bible software programs, surprisingly had two that misplaced the comma:

The Peshitta translated into English, by 3 different translators

John W. Etheridge
Luke 23:43 - Jeshu saith to him, Amen I say to thee, That to-day with me thou shalt be in Paradise.

James Murdock
Luke 23:43 - Jesus said to him: Verily I say to you, That this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

George Lamsa
Luke 23:43 - Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.

The best known Peshitta translation, George Lamsa, incorrectly placed the comma, as did Rotherham's translation.

From Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
And he said unto him––Verily, I say unto thee this day: With me, shalt thou be in Paradise. (Luke 23:43 EBR)

It does pay to check lesser known translations with the common, standard translations.

complete said:

Earlier someone referred to the record of the thief on the cross, and our Lord's reply to Him, which is thrown out of true by the wrong positioning of a mere coma ! (Luke 23:43)

Click to expand...

Dylan569 said:

A point on Luke 23:43, when I checked the translations on my Bible software programs, surprisingly had two that misplaced the comma:

Click to expand...

Dylan569 said:

The best known Peshitta translation, George Lamsa, incorrectly placed the comma, as did Rotherham's translation.

Click to expand...

THERE IS NO COMMA. (So one cannot incorrectly place something that did not exist.)

Up until the ninth century, Greek manuscripts were written entirely in upper-case letters, without spaces between the words (save for a few examples), and punctuation consists of high and middle points; colon; diaeresis on initial iota and upsilon; and at times, the initial letter is placed into the margin as a start of the paragraph (rarely). I provide an example:



- The Significance of a Comma: An Analysis of Luke 23:43

Sigh,
Rhema

complete said:

The only other thing I would like to say is that care must be taken if or when consulting the works of man, whether it be dictionaries, concordances, expositional writings, even the records of venerable writers of the early church. For they are still the words of man, and not tried and true as The Word of God is.

Click to expand...

Just a side note. If one does not read Koine Greek, then there will always be a dependence upon Greek dictionaries (aka Lexicons) and Greek rules of grammar, at least by whomever is doing your translation.

But what the heck is meant by "tried and true"? The only "Word of God" (although I know you mean Bible) that would fit this description is the Latin Vulgate and to some extent the Four Great Uncials.

And to dispel another Protestant "vituperism." The Vulgate was named such because it was published in the common tongue of the Roman Empire, in order that it could be read by any all who could read. It wasn't until the crash of the Empire and the Dark Ages, where languages all over Europe morphed into Spanish and French and Italian, etc. that Latin became obscure to the common folk, and then the Roman Catholic church held primacy to the Vulgate as standard so that scripture itself would not be morphed. Nobody speaks a 400 year old English dialect today. But "Vulgate" Latin is still the official language spoken at the Vatican.

In peace,
Rhema

Rhema said:

THERE IS NO COMMA. (So one cannot incorrectly place something that did not exist.)

Up until the ninth century, Greek manuscripts were written entirely in upper-case letters, without spaces between the words (save for a few examples), and punctuation consists of high and middle points; colon; diaeresis on initial iota and upsilon; and at times, the initial letter is placed into the margin as a start of the paragraph (rarely). I provide an example:

The comma, for example, was introduced as late as the ninth century; before that, short pauses were sometimes indicated by means of a point on the line ( . ), while full stops were indicated by a high point ( ˙ ).​

​

There is not a single instance in which the Bible writers try to comfort the believers by saying that the dead in Christ have already been taken to heaven. Comfort in the face of death is always related to the resurrection, not to the idea that at death the spirit or the soul is liberated from the body to be in God’s presence.​

- The Significance of a Comma: An Analysis of Luke 23:43

Sigh,
Rhema

Click to expand...

Of course there were no English punctuation marks in the Greek! Just as there were no chapters or verses marked out. Just a little common sense shows the traditional translations are correct. Write the verse with no commas:

"and he said unto him verily I say unto thee to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)

The malefactor was asking when Christ comes into his kingdom. Jesus answered the "when" that the malefactor would be with Christ in his kingdom. Jesus did not need to tell the malefactor the day when he was speaking, for that would be ridiculous.

Dylan569 said:

Of course there were no English punctuation marks in the Greek!

Click to expand...

Well there's no need for you to lose your ... composure. Nobody ever said that there were English punctuation marks in the Greek. But that's what y'all had been discussing. The English comma. It's a fools debate.

Dylan569 said:

Of course there were no English punctuation marks in the Greek! Just as there were no chapters or verses marked out. Just a little common sense shows the traditional translations are correct. Write the verse with no commas:

"and he said unto him verily I say unto thee to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)

Click to expand...

But do you see what you just did? You used English parlance to impute that a comma should be there "in the traditional place." I would be surprised, though, if you of all people had no clue that word order in Greek is rather different than that of English. No?

So allow me to write the verse with no commas:

και ειπεν αυτω ο ιησους αμην λεγω σοι σημερον μετ εμου εση εν τω παραδεισω

Where should the comma go? With which verb should the adverb "to-day" be paired? Unless one understands the parlance of Greek how would one know? So let's try an interlinear representation.

και ειπεν αυτω ο ιησους αμην λεγω σοι σημερον μετ εμου εση εν τω παραδεισω
And said to him | the Jesus | amen I say to you to-day with me you will be in the paradise.

Not so easy when using the actual Greek word order, is it.

Now in English, is there ever a time when someones says TODAY, that it means RIGHT NOW ?? "I say to you right now, with me you will be in the paradise."

I have my own views, and did the deep dive on the phrase αμην λεγω σοι but the way I feel right now, you can go do your own homework.

Rhema
(Like people being crucified are going to have a theological discussion anyway....)

Dylan569 said:

Of course there were no English punctuation marks in the Greek! Just as there were no chapters or verses marked out. Just a little common sense shows the traditional translations are correct. Write the verse with no commas:

"and he said unto him verily I say unto thee to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)

The malefactor was asking when Christ comes into his kingdom. Jesus answered the "when" that the malefactor would be with Christ in his kingdom. Jesus did not need to tell the malefactor the day when he was speaking, for that would be ridiculous.

Click to expand...

There are several issues here. One is that you've assumed dead people are alive. Unless of course by paradise you mean a garden, a memorial garden.

The other is that three days after this event Jesus said that He had not yet ascended to the Father.

The third is that the thief asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into His Kingdom. He didnt ask Jesus where he'd be later that afternoon. So, Paradise must then refer in some way to the Kingdom. We know Jesus didn't enter His Kingdom on the day of the crucifixion. Given these three reasons it's only logical to translate the passage as, truly truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.

To translate it the way many do requires that Jesus and their were alive somewhere that day after they died. Unless one claims that paradise is reference to a cemetery. However, the text says they died.

Butch5 said:

Yeah, you gave an example. What does that prove?

Click to expand...

Evading. You are ignoring my response to your line.

Butch5 said:

Are you suggesting that God has sinned?

Click to expand...

No, but you are suggesting God can punish someone who hasn't sinned and is still righteous and just. Or, you don't believe He is righteous and just and cant type your true belief here for fear of being banned.

Butch5 said:

I think you're getting dizzy trying to figure out your doctrine. You said, "God sent Jesus as a Lamb to the slaughter. How is that not punishing Him?"

You made the claim, so the onus is on you to prove it. Did you God send Him or did Jesus offer?

Click to expand...

I have explained many times before and kindly repeated myself in post # 61.

God planned and sent Jesus and Jesus offered. Both are true.

Butch5 said:

Do you know what moving the goal posts is? I don't think you do because no one is moving the goal posts.

Click to expand...

Well what should I call you not wanting to settle on a definition of what Jesus endured? You most certainly are guilty of moving the goal posts on Jesus's suffering, God sending Him and God being responsible for His death.

And now instead of telling me your A-Z belief so that the goal posts can remain in place, you resort to this ad hominem.

Must be hard being unable to type your true belief here for fear of being banned. That is the real truth, isn't it?

Butch5 said:

If Jesus paid that penalty, why do Christians die?

Butch5 said:

And yet every Christian dies.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The death from sin is simply excommunication from God's presence as we see with paradise, sheol and Adam and Eve removed from Eden.

Christians do not suffer this death. We are immediately reconciled with God in heaven.

Your bias view requires you to believe death = death by fire / annihilation. Which makes me wonder why you asking the question...

Butch5 said:

You obviously don't understand the Ransom or Classic view as it is vastly different than Penal Atonement. Vastly!

Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand that it is irrelevant to the point I am making. Vastly!

Butch5 said:

It's not sane. To say that God tortured and killed His Son, is not sane. Not only is it not sane, but it also impugns God's Character. In another post you listed the signs of false teachers. You can bet your bottom dollar that any doctrine that impugns God's character is a false doctrine.

Click to expand...

So good to hear you say this, finally. Correct!!!! we agree!!!!!

Now, face the reality that your belief taints God as Jesus did NOT sin and deserved NO punishment. Now since Jesus 1. Did not sin, 2. Did suffer a cruel death and 3. Was sent by God. We are left with only two possibilities.

1. God remains just and righteous as He made Himself flesh.
2. God is not just and righteous, He is a mix of good and evil.

You are leaving the reader to assume number 2 of you, and that per both of us, is false teacher space!

Butch5 said:

On a final note, there is nothing in this post about your flawed premise.

Click to expand...

Which one, you have raised two. And I don't know how else to say to you that at this point, I am just thoroughly convinced that you are closing your eyes when you read me explain why it is not false. Your accusations of a false premise are so ''insanely'' silly.

For the last time.

False premise accusation 1 - God did not send Jesus

God created Jesus Isa 9:6, planned Him for the cross before the foundations of the earth Eph 1:4 and impregnated Mary Luke 1:35.

My whole body cringes when I read this accusation!!

False premise accusation 2 - God did not punish Jesus, the devil did and Jesus offered Himself as a ransom.

Imagine thinking a father who sends his daughter (who volunteered) to a very cruel Mexican drug cartel to settle a debt he created, being not guilty of her violent and cruel murder.

My whole body cringes when I read this accusation!!

Rhema said:

Because you have no answer and are running away.
You do the same thing, avoiding a discussion, as you accuse @Butch5
That's the Irony.

An honorable man would address post 52, not to mention post 77 and 80.

Click to expand...

Any person with a working brain can see that you are dancing around points made, only criticizing others beliefs and not presenting the A-Z of your actual belief for fear of being banned. See reply # 7 in above post # 111.

@Butch5 In case your comeback is to re-visit your other premise argument, I remind you of the below...

@Butch5 said:
Your argument: God is unjust if He punishes and innocent one. That's your argument. My response, again, God did not punish Jesus. Your argument is based on a false premise. That premise is that God MUST punish someone for sin.

Click to expand...

KingJ said:

Well, yes, is it not a 'duh' fact that a just Being would only punish someone for their sin? Or that a sinner deserves a punishment? What am I missing?

Is there some way a judge can be called 'just' for giving the death penalty to an innocent person? Not punishing a sinner?

God has not given us the knowledge of good and evil Gen 3:22 and working brains to discern good and evil Heb 2:7?

Click to expand...

@Butch5 said:
Yeah, you gave an example. What does that prove?

Click to expand...

KingJ said:

Evading. You are ignoring my response to your line.

Click to expand...

You have not addressed what is a '''duh''' response.

Try focus, we are trying to see if God remains just and righteous with our beliefs. Jesus was punished. Fact. A just judge must punish a sinner. Fact. A judge is not just if he punishes someone for crimes they did not commit. Fact.

If you were intellectually honest, you would agree with the above and stop wasting my time.

I feel like you are on the verge of sending me a pm saying ''Yes KingJ, I believe God has an evil side to Him, but can't type it in the open forum''.

Rhema said:

Now in English, is there ever a time when someones says TODAY, that it means RIGHT NOW ?? "I say to you right now, with me you will be in the paradise."

I have my own views, and did the deep dive on the phrase αμην λεγω σοι but the way I feel right now, you can go do your own homework.

Click to expand...

In context .no cherry picking

Today right now 24/7.

The Bible defines words according to "context" for the living word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart


Today, (24 \7) The time period when one does not harden their heart, they are resting in the eternal the seventh day rest

Hebrews 4:1-12Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.;For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with (Christ) faith in them that heard it.;For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.;For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.;And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.;For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


The other thief heard the gospel but did not mix it with the faith of Christ who works within them that do not harden their hearts
Just as it is written . . . . . . . the living word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with Christ's faithfulness in them that heard it.

Rhema said:

And now all ya have to do is offer up a human blood sacrifice, right?

Hi Curtis,
I'm not sure you quite understand what "redeemed" means. (LUTROW)
(From the Liddell Scott Lexicon)

II. Pass., to be released from an obligation​

We are released from all the Jewish obligations their leaders had made up by following only the teachings of Jesus.

God bless,
Rhema

Click to expand...

You keep mentioning blood sacrifice drink the blood cannibalism.

What's that all about?

Is that literal blood?

Like that used of Catholic round sugar wafers become literal blood or Jehovah Witnesses no literal blood transfusion?

What does the bible teach in respect to the use of literal blood?

Butch5 said:

There are several issues here. One is that you've assumed dead people are alive. Unless of course by paradise you mean a garden, a memorial garden.

The other is that three days after this event Jesus said that He had not yet ascended to the Father.

The third is that the thief asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into His Kingdom. He didnt ask Jesus where he'd be later that afternoon. So, Paradise must then refer in some way to the Kingdom. We know Jesus didn't enter His Kingdom on the day of the crucifixion. Given these three reasons it's only logical to translate the passage as, truly truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.

To translate it the way many do requires that Jesus and their were alive somewhere that day after they died. Unless one claims that paradise is reference to a cemetery. However, the text says they died.

Click to expand...

'And he said unto Jesus,
Lord, remember me
when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.
And Jesus said unto him,
Verily I say unto thee To day
shalt thou be with Me in paradise.'
(Luke 23:42-43)

Hello @Butch5,

The words, 'I say unto thee today', is a Hebraism, which is used many times in Scripture: e.g., in Deuteronomy 4:26, 'I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day', it is a solemn idiom, used to emphasise the solemnity of an occasion, or of the facts being stated; like an apostrophe in grammar. Apparently it is used on forty-two occasions in Deuteronomy alone (e.g., Deut 30:19; 2 Sam. 20:20; Job 27:5; Isa. 14:24; Isa. 62:8; Jer.22:5; 27:5; Ezek. 5:11; 33:11; 34:8).

* Paul's words are also noted for the use of the same idiom, in Acts 20:26:- ' Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Butch5 said:

There are several issues here. One is that you've assumed dead people are alive. Unless of course by paradise you mean a garden, a memorial garden.

The other is that three days after this event Jesus said that He had not yet ascended to the Father.

The third is that the thief asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into His Kingdom. He didn't ask Jesus where he'd be later that afternoon. So, Paradise must then refer in some way to the Kingdom. We know Jesus didn't enter His Kingdom on the day of the crucifixion. Given these three reasons it's only logical to translate the passage as, truly truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.

To translate it the way many do requires that Jesus and their were alive somewhere that day after they died. Unless one claims that paradise is reference to a cemetery. However, the text says they died.

Click to expand...

'To whom also He shewed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs,
being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:'
(Act 1:3)

Hello again @Butch5,

Yes, they died, both the thief and our Lord Himself. Praise God! That our Lord rose from the dead, and had 40 more days with His disciples in which He taught them concerning the Kingdom.

Paradise is referred to again in Revelation 2:7:- 'He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.'

There is no life after death without the power of the resurrection, so it is in the paradise of God that the thief will be with His Lord, following his being raised from the dead.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

KingJ said:

No, but you are suggesting God can punish someone who hasn't sinned and is still righteous and just.

Click to expand...

But you stated that God was punishing Himself. Doesn't that mean that God sinned?

If God hasn't sinned and is still rightist and just, how could he punish Himself?

Rhema
(evasion in 3..2..1..)

KingJ said:

God created Jesus Isa 9:6,

Click to expand...

- Isaiah 9:6 Brenton

KingJ said:

planned Him for the cross before the foundations of the earth Eph 1:4

Click to expand...

And yet that's not what the text says...

- Ephesians 1:4 KJV

Absolutely nothing in that verse says anything about a Plan or a Cross. (Please, at least be honest and admit that.)

What always befuddles me is why people think "before" means "prior to" rather than "in front of." Isn't Foundation a noun? So the text was NOT written "prior to the FOUNDING of the world."

Take the common phrase, "He put the cart before the horse." This cannot possibly mean the cart was "prior to" the horse. That doesn't make sense. The horse could have been standing there for hours prior to (before) someone bringing along a cart. But the phrase certainly means that the cart was put "in front" of the horse, (rather than behind the horse where it belongs).

In both English and Koine Greek, the word "before" can either denote a time relation to a verbal event (prior to), OR a location referent to an object (in front of).

So what (or who) is your FOUNDATION? Who is the Foundation of the World but Christ? We build upon a foundation.

- 1 Corinthians 3:11 KJV

- Ephesians 1:4 KJV-advanced

Indeed,
Rhema

KingJ said:

God created Jesus

Click to expand...

Just to note that any Trinitarian would cringe to hear you say that God created Jesus.

The Doctrine of the Trinity states that all three persons are (and always have been) co-eternal. None, then, were created.

Kindly,
Rhema