Is death just another life?

way 2 go

Well-known member
For the person, who is made of 2 things:
dust and breath of life, according to Genesis.
body soul and spirit that's 3
is Genesis the only book in the bible or can we use other books too
Perhaps. But the context seems to be immediate, or very close to it.
we are talking about our spirit returning to God and still existing which is all you can get from that verse
I don't. Rather, the scripture seems to indicate there WERE angels (plural), called "elohim" by the witch. @way 2 go was the one who said no angels.
what did "a god" look like ?

and what does it say before that
[12] And when the woman saw Samuel,

denial of the obvious

(I Samuel 28:11-14) [11] Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up to thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. [12] And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice. And the woman spoke to Saul, saying, Why have thou deceived me? For thou are Saul. [13] And the king said to her, Be not afraid, for what do thou see? And the woman said to Saul, I see a god coming up out of the earth. [14] And he said to her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man comes up, and he is covered with a robe. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground, and did obeisance.
No, it says that Abraham saw Christ's day. You have to insert the "was born" part, and then you have to make the scripture "imply" something. Implications is where we have to start speculating. My speculation is just as valid as yours at that point.
you say Jesus lied and Abraham does not exist
(Luke 16:23) And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Not according to Hebrews, which says he say it afar off. That's not "distance" but "time", imo.
so you're going with Jesus lied and Abraham didn't see Jesus
(John 8:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and He saw and was glad.
In other words, immortality doesn't start until the rapture. So why do you say it starts earlier?
immortality speaks of the body which is changed in the rapture
spirit can and does continue on with out the body
(II Corinthians 5:8) then we are confident and we are pleased rather to go away from home out of the body, and to come home to the Lord.
Same thing. Paul doesn't say, "Comfort one another by saying our loved ones are already with Jesus in heaven," but "Comfort one another by saying that our loved ones will be with Jesus forever after the resurrection."
wrong
(Luke 23:43) And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise.


I agree. @way 2 go's point was that Elijah and Moses were both in spirit form on the Mt of Transfiguration. So if Moses was a spirit because he died, then why was Elijah a spirit, since he never died.
Moses was in spirit form and we know that because he is not the 1st resurrected ,Jesus is
Lazarus was resurrected but died again if Moses was resurrected then Jesus murdered him or Moses is the 1st resurrected.
I agree. Although I don't know what it will be like to be immediately changed from mortal to immortal. Is it like death???
new physical body ,non flesh
(I Corinthians 15:50) And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
I agree, therefore @way 2 go needs to explain how Elijah got to be a spirit.
I don't know what form Elijah was , Moses was spirit for reasons stated above ,
Clearly? Why do you say that? There's no indication that Moses and Elijah were any less corporeal than Jesus was at the time.
no evidence Moses and Elijah were in shock as Peter was , indicating they existed before they appeared
and were taken, like spirits
(Matthew 17:8) And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus alone
True. But if Samuel can be called up from the grave and presented to Saul in some form that he recognized, which wasn't ever called a "spirit", so could Moses, who also wasn't ever called a spirit. A temporary reconstruction of his body, perhaps?
debunked
the woman saw Samuel first and Saul asked what he looked like indicating she could see something Saul could not
Samuel coming up could only be by spirit
(I Samuel 28:15) And Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up?
Agreed.

Agreed.
no , we don't agree
I'm not discounting the possibility. But that assumes the spirit is a shadowy representation of the flesh. This is Greek mythology kind of stuff. Where in scripture is that discussed clearly? It isn't. And as we have learned from discussions about Open Theism, we don't like it when Greek ideas trump scripture.
Samuel spirit dressed like he used to dress and Saul recognized Samuel.
(I Samuel 28:14) And he said to her, What is his form? And she said, An old man comes up, and he is covered with a cloak. And Saul saw that it was Samuel, and he bowed his face to the ground, and prostrated himself.
Or the idea of them exists. They haven't been forgotten by God.
:alien:
Only if you already accept the idea of the immortal soul, which is possibly contrary to what God created. That's why I call it a preconception, or presupposition. Those things regularly get us in trouble.
in the second death everyone still exists
and are permanently with no chance for repentance , separated from God.
you don't understand what death is .

what triggered Adam & Eves death, answer, eating and how long did eating take answer , minutes
when did they feel the effect answer that day , when were their eyes opened, that day
when was the 1st time God looked for them, that day, when did they hide themselves, that day
when were they afraid of God, that day

but want me to believe they didn't die that day because on or in or is it in or on , don't care as it makes no difference

and if all you have is on or in or where a comma goes in "today you will be with me in paradise"
then you have nothing

death happened on the day they ate from the tree ,spiritual death ,separation from God , like the second death
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Jesus went to Paradise, not Hell!

Debate over.

It could be argued that "Paradise" is a certain portion of Hell, reserved for the righteous dead. "Paradise" because compared to its surroundings, it is indeed a paradise.

It would explain why the rich man could see Lazarus across the gulf in Abraham's Bosom (which is another name for the place called Paradise), because they were both in Hell, awaiting the death of the High Priest (Jesus)... Which ties into the cities of refuge God required back in the Old Testament (see Numbers 35), with "Paradise" being the "city of refuge" for the righteous dead, separated from the unrighteous dead.

In which case, "Paradise" (the place) is either currently empty, or it was moved out of Hell.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
It could be argued that "Paradise" is a certain portion of Hell, reserved for the righteous dead. "Paradise" because compared to its surroundings, it is indeed a paradise.
Perhaps, but anyone that teaches that Jesus was tortured in Hell for three days, enduring the same sort of punishment that those who are permanently sent to Hell will endure, is a blasphemer.

If that is not the intent of saying that Jesus went to Hell then whoever is saying it needs to realize that he's speaking to 21st century English speaking people and to use terminology that conveys the meaning that he intends.

It would explain why the rich man could see Lazarus across the gulf in Abraham's Bosom (which is another name for the place called Paradise), because they were both in Hell, awaiting the death of the High Priest (Jesus)... Which ties into the cities of refuge God required back in the Old Testament (see Numbers 35), with "Paradise" being the "city of refuge" for the righteous dead, separated from the unrighteous dead.

In which case, "Paradise" (the place) is either currently empty, or it was moved out of Hell.
I see no reason to suspect that it was ever part of Hell. It was neither Heaven nor Hell. It seems, even by your own description, to always have been a distinct place for the righteous dead and I don't have any problem with the idea that Jesus went to Abraham's Bosom (a.k.a. Paradise) during His time in the grave.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Perhaps, but anyone that teaches that Jesus was tortured in Hell for three days, enduring the same sort of punishment that those who are permanently sent to Hell will endure, is a blasphemer.

Agreed!

If that is not the intent of saying that Jesus went to Hell then whoever is saying it needs to realize that he's speaking to 21st century English speaking people and to use terminology that conveys the meaning that he intends.

(y)

I see no reason to suspect that it was ever part of Hell.

I do. The following passage is clearly talking about Jesus.

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore He says:“When He ascended on high,He led captivity captive,And gave gifts to men.” (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

The "lower parts of the earth" usually refers to the place of the dead, in scripture, no? The grave, the pit, Sheol. Hell is just the part "the grave" where the unrighteous are held until the day of Judgement.

Even the ones speaking in Psalm 49 don't seem to think that there are different places for the righteous vs unrighteous dead:

Hear this, all peoples;Give ear, all inhabitants of the world, Both low and high,Rich and poor together. My mouth shall speak wisdom,And the meditation of my heart shall give understanding. I will incline my ear to a proverb;I will disclose my dark saying on the harp. Why should I fear in the days of evil,When the iniquity at my heels surrounds me? Those who trust in their wealthAnd boast in the multitude of their riches, None of them can by any means redeem his brother,Nor give to God a ransom for him— For the redemption of their souls is costly,And it shall cease forever— That he should continue to live eternally,And not see the Pit. For he sees wise men die;Likewise the fool and the senseless person perish,And leave their wealth to others. Their inner thought is that their houses will last forever,Their dwelling places to all generations;They call their lands after their own names. Nevertheless man, though in honor, does not remain;He is like the beasts that perish. This is the way of those who are foolish,And of their posterity who approve their sayings. Selah Like sheep they are laid in the grave;Death shall feed on them;The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave,For He shall receive me. Selah Do not be afraid when one becomes rich,When the glory of his house is increased; For when he dies he shall carry nothing away;His glory shall not descend after him. Though while he lives he blesses himself(For men will praise you when you do well for yourself), He shall go to the generation of his fathers;They shall never see light. A man who is in honor, yet does not understand,Is like the beasts that perish.

It was neither Heaven nor Hell.

It definitely wasn't Heaven, but I'm not seeing anywhere in Scripture where it implies a third place, besides Heaven and Hell, except without intentionally reading it into the text.

What evidence do you have for Abraham's Bosom being not a separate chamber (for lack of a better term) of Hell?

aIt seems, even by your own description, to always have been a distinct place for the righteous dead and I don't have any problem with the idea that Jesus went to Abraham's Bosom (a.k.a. Paradise) during His time in the grave.

Agreed.

But He was still in "the grave." The Pit. The "lower parts of the earth."

Same shopping mall, different store, no?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I do. The following passage is clearly talking about Jesus.

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore He says:“When He ascended on high,He led captivity captive,And gave gifts to men.” (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

The "lower parts of the earth" usually refers to the place of the dead, in scripture, no? The grave, the pit, Sheol. Hell is just the part "the grave" where the unrighteous are held until the day of Judgement.
Jesus DID NOT go to Hell, JR.

He was dead and He went to the same place that all the other righteous dead went to. Calling that Hell is a great way to be confusing and to communicate something other than what is actually meant.

Even the ones speaking in Psalm 49 don't seem to think that there are different places for the righteous vs unrighteous dead:

Hear this, all peoples;Give ear, all inhabitants of the world, Both low and high,Rich and poor together. My mouth shall speak wisdom,And the meditation of my heart shall give understanding. I will incline my ear to a proverb;I will disclose my dark saying on the harp. Why should I fear in the days of evil,When the iniquity at my heels surrounds me? Those who trust in their wealthAnd boast in the multitude of their riches, None of them can by any means redeem his brother,Nor give to God a ransom for him— For the redemption of their souls is costly,And it shall cease forever— That he should continue to live eternally,And not see the Pit. For he sees wise men die;Likewise the fool and the senseless person perish,And leave their wealth to others. Their inner thought is that their houses will last forever,Their dwelling places to all generations;They call their lands after their own names. Nevertheless man, though in honor, does not remain;He is like the beasts that perish. This is the way of those who are foolish,And of their posterity who approve their sayings. Selah Like sheep they are laid in the grave;Death shall feed on them;The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave,For He shall receive me. Selah Do not be afraid when one becomes rich,When the glory of his house is increased; For when he dies he shall carry nothing away;His glory shall not descend after him. Though while he lives he blesses himself(For men will praise you when you do well for yourself), He shall go to the generation of his fathers;They shall never see light. A man who is in honor, yet does not understand,Is like the beasts that perish.
This passage simply teaches that everyone dies.

It definitely wasn't Heaven, but I'm not seeing anywhere in Scripture where it implies a third place, besides Heaven and Hell, except without intentionally reading it into the text.
What?

Abraham's bosom, which you yourself brought up, not to mention paradise that Jesus specifically stated He was going to.

What evidence do you have for Abraham's Bosom being not a separate chamber (for lack of a better term) of Hell?
Because it's paradise. Hell isn't paradise! Right?

Agreed.

But He was still in "the grave." The Pit. The "lower parts of the earth."

Same shopping mall, different store, no?
NO!

Just because there's more than one way to translate a word into English doesn't mean that every way is correct given the context. Hell, in the English speaking world, means the place were people go to be separated from God forever. Think fire and brimstone, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. You know, FIRE!

iu
 

Derf

Well-known member
Jesus DID NOT go to Hell, JR.

He was dead and He went to the same place that all the other righteous dead went to. Calling that Hell is a great way to be confusing and to communicate something other than what is actually meant.


This passage simply teaches that everyone dies.


What?

Abraham's bosom, which you yourself brought up, not to mention paradise that Jesus specifically stated He was going to.


Because it's paradise. Hell isn't paradise! Right?


NO!

Just because there's more than one way to translate a word into English doesn't mean that every way is correct given the context. Hell, in the English speaking world, means the place were people go to be separated from God forever. Think fire and brimstone, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. You know, FIRE!

iu
"Hades" is one of the Greek words translated as "hell" in the KJV. If Hades was where Lazarus was, then you seem to be denying your own view.

Peter quoted this verse as talking about Jesus:
Psalm 16:10 KJV — For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Jesus DID NOT go to Hell, JR.

Yes.

Lazarus went to Abraham's Bosom.

Jesus also went to Abraham's Bosom.

That's not a place of suffering, obviously.

Both Abraham's Bosom (Paradise) and Hell are in "the grave." Hence my "same mall, different store" analogy.

He was dead and He went to the same place that all the other righteous dead went to.[;

Agreed.

Calling that Hell is a great way to be confusing and to communicate something other than what is actually meant.

I didn't call it Hell, though, did I?

I said "the grave, the Pit, Sheol."

Again, my position is that, let's call it "the grave" for simplicity's sake, which is in "the lower parts of the earth, has different chambers or levels (depending on how you want to interpret the rich man's position relative to Abraham's Bosom), Hell is one of them, and Paradise is the other, and those two chambers are separated from each other by an uncrossable chasm.

This passage simply teaches that everyone dies.

Indeed.

But the wording is rather specific, I think.

Read the following verses from that chapter again:


Those who trust in their wealth
And boast in the multitude of their riches,
None of them can by any means redeem his brother,
Nor give to God a ransom for him—
For the redemption of their souls is costly,
And it shall cease forever—
That he should continue to live eternally,
And not see the Pit.

. . .

This is the way of those who are foolish,
And of their posterity who approve their sayings. Selah
Like sheep they are laid in the grave;
Death shall feed on them;
The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;
And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.
But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave,
For He shall receive me. Selah

Do not be afraid when one becomes rich,
When the glory of his house is increased;
For when he dies he shall carry nothing away;
His glory shall not descend after him.
Though while he lives he blesses himself
(For men will praise you when you do well for yourself),
He shall go to the generation of his fathers;
They shall never see light.
. . .


In this one passage, we have:
1) a reference to redeeming souls from death
2) a cessation of opportunity to redeem (iow, once you die, your eternal destination is final, and cannot ever be changed)
3) "eternal life" contrasted with "the Pit"
4) being laid in the grave (burying the dead)
5) "death" as an entity, consuming the dead
6) the beauty of the "upright" being consumed in the grave (and my NKJV has a footnote there that says "or Sheol")
7) the above being contrasted with the author's soul being redeemed from "the power of the grave"
8) the rich man's glory will not descend after him. Descend. Sheol is in the lower parts of the earth.
9) the foolish rich man will go to the generation of his fathers, who will never see light (fn: "the light of life")

Jesus went down into the lower parts of the earth. We both agree He went to Abraham's Bosom, Paradise, and that He never went to Hell.

Yet clearly both Paradise and Hell are in the "lower parts of the earth," AKA "the grave." else Jesus would not have "descended."

What?

Abraham's bosom, which you yourself brought up, not to mention paradise that Jesus specifically stated He was going to.

I meant "general location," sorry if that wasn't clear.

Heaven is "up."

Hell is "down."

Abraham's Bosom is also "down."

The lower parts of the earth, the grave, the pit, Sheol, etc, are all "down."

Because it's paradise. Hell isn't paradise! Right?

What is Abraham's Bosom a paradise compared to?

Clearly not heaven! Heaven is a far better place!

It's a contrast to Hell!

Which is far off from, but in the same general location of Abraham's Bosom, BOTH of which are in "the lower parts of the earth"!

Just like the cities of refuge God implemented in Numbers 35 are on the same surface of the earth that the other cities are on.

NO!

Just because there's more than one way to translate a word into English doesn't mean that every way is correct given the context. Hell, in the English speaking world, means the place were people go to be separated from God forever. Think fire and brimstone, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. You know, FIRE!

Words have spheres of meaning, which can sometimes mean that the lines between their meanings can get blurred, especially when you have things like figurative usages of literal terms, and literal usages of figurative terms, and synecdoches ("Hell", for example is one part of "the lower parts (plural!) of the earth," yet in general conversation means all of it, especially now that "Abraham's Bosom" is now empty, if it even exists anymore, let alone in the same place if it does...)

Also, Hell is, technically speaking, not "forever," as it will be cast into the lake of fire on the last day, separate from those who were in it. But that's a rabbit trail that we don't need to go down.

Question, Clete, where do you think Abraham's Bosom AKA Paradise was located? (IE, before Jesus' three days in the tomb)

Your answer to that question might help sort some things out.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Psalm 16:10 KJV — For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

THAT'S the verse I was trying to think of earlier!
 

Derf

Well-known member
Yes.

Lazarus went to Abraham's Bosom.

Jesus also went to Abraham's Bosom.

That's not a place of suffering, obviously.

Both Abraham's Bosom (Paradise) and Hell are in "the grave." Hence my "same mall, different store" analogy.



Agreed.



I didn't call it Hell, though, did I?

I said "the grave, the Pit, Sheol."

Again, my position is that, let's call it "the grave" for simplicity's sake, which is in "the lower parts of the earth, has different chambers or levels (depending on how you want to interpret the rich man's position relative to Abraham's Bosom), Hell is one of them, and Paradise is the other, and those two chambers are separated from each other by an uncrossable chasm.



Indeed.

But the wording is rather specific, I think.

Read the following verses from that chapter again:


Those who trust in their wealth
And boast in the multitude of their riches,
None of them can by any means redeem his brother,
Nor give to God a ransom for him—
For the redemption of their souls is costly,
And it shall cease forever—
That he should continue to live eternally,
And not see the Pit.

. . .

This is the way of those who are foolish,
And of their posterity who approve their sayings. Selah
Like sheep they are laid in the grave;
Death shall feed on them;
The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;
And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.
But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave,
For He shall receive me. Selah

Do not be afraid when one becomes rich,
When the glory of his house is increased;
For when he dies he shall carry nothing away;
His glory shall not descend after him.
Though while he lives he blesses himself
(For men will praise you when you do well for yourself),
He shall go to the generation of his fathers;
They shall never see light.
. . .


In this one passage, we have:
1) a reference to redeeming souls from death
2) a cessation of opportunity to redeem (iow, once you die, your eternal destination is final, and cannot ever be changed)
3) "eternal life" contrasted with "the Pit"
4) being laid in the grave (burying the dead)
5) "death" as an entity, consuming the dead
6) the beauty of the "upright" being consumed in the grave (and my NKJV has a footnote there that says "or Sheol")
7) the above being contrasted with the author's soul being redeemed from "the power of the grave"
8) the rich man's glory will not descend after him. Descend. Sheol is in the lower parts of the earth.
9) the foolish rich man will go to the generation of his fathers, who will never see light (fn: "the light of life")

Jesus went down into the lower parts of the earth. We both agree He went to Abraham's Bosom, Paradise, and that He never went to Hell.

Yet clearly both Paradise and Hell are in the "lower parts of the earth," AKA "the grave." else Jesus would not have "descended."



I meant "general location," sorry if that wasn't clear.

Heaven is "up."

Hell is "down."

Abraham's Bosom is also "down."

The lower parts of the earth, the grave, the pit, Sheol, etc, are all "down."



What is Abraham's Bosom a paradise compared to?

Clearly not heaven! Heaven is a far better place!

It's a contrast to Hell!

Which is far off from, but in the same general location of Abraham's Bosom, BOTH of which are in "the lower parts of the earth"!

Just like the cities of refuge God implemented in Numbers 35 are on the same surface of the earth that the other cities are on.



Words have spheres of meaning, which can sometimes mean that the lines between their meanings can get blurred, especially when you have things like figurative usages of literal terms, and literal usages of figurative terms, and synecdoches ("Hell", for example is one part of "the lower parts (plural!) of the earth," yet in general conversation means all of it, especially now that "Abraham's Bosom" is now empty, if it even exists anymore, let alone in the same place if it does...)

Also, Hell is, technically speaking, not "forever," as it will be cast into the lake of fire on the last day, separate from those who were in it. But that's a rabbit trail that we don't need to go down.

Question, Clete, where do you think Abraham's Bosom AKA Paradise was located? (IE, before Jesus' three days in the tomb)

Your answer to that question might help sort some things out.
The location of paradise is given only twice. Once when Paul said he was "caught up" (raptured) to it, and once when Jesus talked about the tree of life being in it. Theres no indication that it was ever under the earth. The reason you think it was is because of your presuppositions about what Christ said to the thief. If paradise is not to be compared to heaven, then why would it be in heaven? If it is comparable to heaven, why would dead spirits there want to go to heaven?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The location of paradise is given only twice. Once when Paul said he was "caught up" (raptured) to it,

First, go read 2 Corinthians 12 again.

It was not Paul who was "caught up."

"I know a man in Christ who..."

"... how he was caught up into Paradise..."

Second, I have already mentioned in post #942 that it could have been moved after Christ's resurrection.

and once when Jesus talked about the tree of life being in it.

I just read Revelation 2, where this passage (verse 7) is located, and I don't see anywhere where it says where Paradise itself is located. Verse 7 only says where the Tree of Life is located, not Paradise itself. And again, Paradise could have been moved after Christ's resurrection.

There's no indication that it was ever under the earth.

See post #944, where I give scripture to back up my claim.

See also the passage of scripture where Samuel is called up from beneath the earth by the witch. Unless you're arguing that Samuel was also not one of the righteous dead...

The reason you think it was is because of your presuppositions about what Christ said to the thief.

Christ said "you'll be with me in paradise."

Paul said "Christ first descended, then ascended."

If Christ did not go to Paradise first, then to Heaven, but instead went straight to Heaven, then why did Paul say He first descended? Where did He descend to? If He did not descend, then why did Paul say He did?

And before you say "it just means He came down to Earth from Heaven"...

The "lower parts of the earth" consistently refers to either: (literally) the grave, the Pit, Sheol, and (figuratively) the womb.

It NEVER means the plane of existence we live in, the surface of the earth.

If paradise is not to be compared to heaven, then why would it be in heaven?

That's what I'M asking!

Why not just say "Heaven" if it's Heaven.

Why say "Paradise" and confuse hundreds of millions of people, if it's not a different place than Heaven?

Or why not just say "Heaven is Paradise" somewhere, in some way?

But that's not what Scripture says!

If it is comparable to heaven, why would dead spirits there want to go to heaven?

Because they weren't able or allowed to.

Go read Numbers 35, the part about Cities of Refuge. The people who go to those cities (in Numbers 35) are NOT permitted to leave until the death of the high priest of that day. Abraham's Bosom was a refuge for the righteous dead, a temporary place for them to live while they await the death of the High Priest, which is Christ, because their sins had not yet been paid for!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
"Hades" is one of the Greek words translated as "hell" in the KJV. If Hades was where Lazarus was, then you seem to be denying your own view.

Peter quoted this verse as talking about Jesus:
Psalm 16:10 KJV — For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Yes, yes, yes. I am fully aware of the bible's use of the word "Hell". I'm also aware of how every person teaching from those passages has to explain that the verse doesn't mean "Hell" as virtually all modern English speaking people think of when we hear the word.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Yes.

Lazarus went to Abraham's Bosom.

Jesus also went to Abraham's Bosom.

That's not a place of suffering, obviously.

Both Abraham's Bosom (Paradise) and Hell are in "the grave." Hence my "same mall, different store" analogy.



Agreed.



I didn't call it Hell, though, did I?

I said "the grave, the Pit, Sheol."

Again, my position is that, let's call it "the grave" for simplicity's sake, which is in "the lower parts of the earth, has different chambers or levels (depending on how you want to interpret the rich man's position relative to Abraham's Bosom), Hell is one of them, and Paradise is the other, and those two chambers are separated from each other by an uncrossable chasm.



Indeed.

But the wording is rather specific, I think.

Read the following verses from that chapter again:


Those who trust in their wealth
And boast in the multitude of their riches,
None of them can by any means redeem his brother,
Nor give to God a ransom for him—
For the redemption of their souls is costly,
And it shall cease forever—
That he should continue to live eternally,
And not see the Pit.

. . .

This is the way of those who are foolish,
And of their posterity who approve their sayings. Selah
Like sheep they are laid in the grave;
Death shall feed on them;
The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;
And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.
But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave,
For He shall receive me. Selah

Do not be afraid when one becomes rich,
When the glory of his house is increased;
For when he dies he shall carry nothing away;
His glory shall not descend after him.
Though while he lives he blesses himself
(For men will praise you when you do well for yourself),
He shall go to the generation of his fathers;
They shall never see light.
. . .


In this one passage, we have:
1) a reference to redeeming souls from death
2) a cessation of opportunity to redeem (iow, once you die, your eternal destination is final, and cannot ever be changed)
3) "eternal life" contrasted with "the Pit"
4) being laid in the grave (burying the dead)
5) "death" as an entity, consuming the dead
6) the beauty of the "upright" being consumed in the grave (and my NKJV has a footnote there that says "or Sheol")
7) the above being contrasted with the author's soul being redeemed from "the power of the grave"
8) the rich man's glory will not descend after him. Descend. Sheol is in the lower parts of the earth.
9) the foolish rich man will go to the generation of his fathers, who will never see light (fn: "the light of life")

Jesus went down into the lower parts of the earth. We both agree He went to Abraham's Bosom, Paradise, and that He never went to Hell.

Yet clearly both Paradise and Hell are in the "lower parts of the earth," AKA "the grave." else Jesus would not have "descended."



I meant "general location," sorry if that wasn't clear.

Heaven is "up."

Hell is "down."

Abraham's Bosom is also "down."

The lower parts of the earth, the grave, the pit, Sheol, etc, are all "down."



What is Abraham's Bosom a paradise compared to?

Clearly not heaven! Heaven is a far better place!

It's a contrast to Hell!

Which is far off from, but in the same general location of Abraham's Bosom, BOTH of which are in "the lower parts of the earth"!

Just like the cities of refuge God implemented in Numbers 35 are on the same surface of the earth that the other cities are on.



Words have spheres of meaning, which can sometimes mean that the lines between their meanings can get blurred, especially when you have things like figurative usages of literal terms, and literal usages of figurative terms, and synecdoches ("Hell", for example is one part of "the lower parts (plural!) of the earth," yet in general conversation means all of it, especially now that "Abraham's Bosom" is now empty, if it even exists anymore, let alone in the same place if it does...)

Also, Hell is, technically speaking, not "forever," as it will be cast into the lake of fire on the last day, separate from those who were in it. But that's a rabbit trail that we don't need to go down.

Question, Clete, where do you think Abraham's Bosom AKA Paradise was located? (IE, before Jesus' three days in the tomb)

Your answer to that question might help sort some things out.
So we're almost, if not entirely, in agreement except that you seem to put more emphasis on the "up" or "down" -ward direction than I do. I agree that Abraham's bosom is not Heaven but neither is it Hell. The only thing the two have in common is that it's dead people who go/went there. One is paradise the other is most decidedly not paradise and so it's not as if they're two different rooms of the same house. In fact, we know that there is a great gulf between the two.

As for "up" vs. "down", I'm not sure that those terms amount to much more than figurative language really. These places are supernatural and so I'm not so sure the "up" or "down" has a literal meaning. "Up" or "down" from where, the surface of the Earth? God's heaven isn't in outer space and likewise, I see no reason to think Hell is in some subterranean cavern. It seems to more or less refer simply to the fact that we put dead people in the ground (i.e. down) and perhaps also further indicate the going to Abraham's bosom or Paradise was not the equivalent to going to be in God's presence (i.e. to heaven).
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The location of paradise is given only twice. Once when Paul said he was "caught up" (raptured) to it, and once when Jesus talked about the tree of life being in it. Theres no indication that it was ever under the earth. The reason you think it was is because of your presuppositions about what Christ said to the thief. If paradise is not to be compared to heaven, then why would it be in heaven? If it is comparable to heaven, why would dead spirits there want to go to heaven?
Paradise can refer to several things. Eden was paradise and the New Earth will also be paradise. Abraham's bosom is paradise as is God's Heaven. The fact that these various places are referred to as, or can be rightly describes as a paradise, is not even evidence, never mind proof, that they're the same place. In fact, we know with certainty that the Tree of Life will not be in Heaven but it will be in the New Jerusalem which is on the New Earth.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Paradise can refer to several things.
Can, but does it? The word is used only 3 times in the KJV. Two of those are talking about things either in heaven or related to the eternal dwelling place of the saints. The one I didn't include is about the thief on the cross, but it is likely referring to the exact same place, at least by the usage, since Jesus talked about it in terms that make it sound like a final, comfortable, joyful place related to His kingdom.
Request: "Remember me when You come into your kingdom."
Answer: "You will be with me in Paradise."

So there's little reason to search for other meanings when there's a single meaning that fits all three.
Eden was paradise and the New Earth will also be paradise. Abraham's bosom is paradise
Abraham's bosom, as part of Hades, is also revered to as a shadowy realm of the dead, if I understand your usage. This is NOT paradisical. So you have something of a conflict. Just saying "It's a whole lot better than the other part of Hades," is hardly a comfort.

as is God's Heaven. The fact that these various places
Or just a single place, as I've shown.
are referred to as, or can be rightly describes as a paradise, is not even evidence, never mind proof, that they're the same place. In fact, we know with certainty that the Tree of Life will not be in Heaven but it will be in the New Jerusalem which is on the New Earth.
The New Jerusalem comes down from heaven. If it is currently in heaven, then Paradise is there, but will move to the earth.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Can, but does it?
Yes.

Paradise is not a technical term. It's an adjective.

The word is used only 3 times in the KJV.
So what?

Two of those are talking about things either in heaven or related to the eternal dwelling place of the saints. The one I didn't include is about the thief on the cross, but it is likely referring to the exact same place, at least by the usage, since Jesus talked about it in terms that make it sound like a final, comfortable, joyful place related to His kingdom.
You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. The paradise Jesus spoke of is/was the place of the righteous dead. It is elsewhere refered to as Abraham's bosom. The implication being that it is where Abraham was, which makes sense since Abraham was a righteous dead guy.

Request: "Remember me when You come into your kingdom."
Answer: "You will be with me in Paradise."
Seems pretty straight forward.

So there's little reason to search for other meanings when there's a single meaning that fits all three.
What? Why assume there is one and only one place that qualifies as a paradise?

Abraham's bosom, as part of Hades, is also revered to as a shadowy realm of the dead, if I understand your usage.
Where is it refereed to as a "shadowy realm of the dead"?

And it is only "part of Hades" in the sense that it's a place where dead people go. It is not a compartment of Hell, as we think of Hell today.

This is NOT paradisical.
Because you say so?

If Jesus called it paradise, then that's what it is.

So you have something of a conflict.
I see no conflict, whatsoever.

Just saying "It's a whole lot better than the other part of Hades," is hardly a comfort.
The word Hades is not an English word. You are using it as though it is synonymous with the English word "Hell", which it is not. If there is an English equivalent, (which there isn't a perfect one) it would be "grave". In other words, its a place, populated with physically dead people. That, and it seems clear that its separated from the Father's presence.

Or just a single place, as I've shown.
Shown?

Shown were?

The New Jerusalem comes down from heaven. If it is currently in heaven, then Paradise is there, but will move to the earth.
What?

Just as the whole Earth prior to the fall of Adam, as well as Eden itself, was a paradise, the entire New Earth is going to be a paradise! Heaven is already a paradise and it too will be destroyed and recreated into a brand new paradise both with and without the paradisaical New Jerusalem in it. In fact the term "Heaven" is very often a synonym of "paradise". This is all true on its face. Presuming that there is only one paradise is simply ridiculous.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Yes.

Paradise is not a technical term. It's an adjective.
Technically, paradise is a noun.
So you can use the three instances to see if they all are trying to convey a single idea. And they are.
You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.
I'm not the one saying there are multiple paradises.
The paradise Jesus spoke of is/was the place of the righteous dead.
So you say. But the proof is lacking. This is the only, I repeat, the only instance where the place of the dead is called "paradise". Notice that you use the definite article in your statement. I'll come back to that later.
It is elsewhere refered to as Abraham's bosom.
So you say. But again, the phrase "Abraham's bosom" is only used a single time in the whole bible. It might be "the place of the righteous dead", but it might be the place where the saints will be after judgment. The text is used as a story to convict the pharisees of their hypocrisy, and it starts out the same way as the parable of the wicked steward in the same chapter, just a few lines earlier. As a parable, it is possible that it isn't intended to convey truths about the afterlife, but truths about the current life for those pharisees.

What was the truth being conveyed? It appears to be that if they won't listen to Moses (and Jesus is implying that they haven't), then they won't listen if someone returns from the dead (and Jesus is implying that they won't).
The implication being that it is where Abraham was, which makes sense since Abraham was a righteous dead guy.
Or it's a story about the state of Abraham and Lazarus-type poor people in the resurrection.
Or it's a story the is intended to convey to the pharisees how far their self-righteousness will get them.
Jesus didn't give the meaning of the parable. To assume that your meaning is what Jesus intended is to miss the purpose of the story.
Seems pretty straight forward.


What? Why assume there is one and only one place that qualifies as a paradise?
For one, the word is used 3 times in the New Testament. In two cases it represents the place where God is. In the third (to the thief) it seems to represent the same thing. If it represents the place where God IS, then when Jesus told the story to the Pharisees, God wasn't there. Perhaps that was why He called it "Abraham's Bosom", since God wasn't there. But you've assumed that it was called "Paradise" even before Jesus got there.

When Jesus told the thief he would be with Jesus in Paradise, it was in response to the thief's plea about Jesus in His kingdom. Surely the thief would think of Jesus's kingdom and paradise as the same place, right? But not the place of the dead.

Where is it refereed to as a "shadowy realm of the dead"?
It's a bunch of spirits that used to have bodies, that someday will have bodies again, and that currently have the same kind of features bodies have, like "bosoms" and "fingers" and "tongues", but without bodies. That seems kind of "shadowy" to me.

Edited to add:
Plus Job calls it shadowy:
Job 10:21 KJV - Before I go [whence] I shall not return, [even] to the land of darkness and the shadow of death;
Job 10:22 KJV - A land of darkness, as darkness [itself; and] of the shadow of death, without any order, and [where] the light [is] as darkness.
And it is only "part of Hades" in the sense that it's a place where dead people go. It is not a compartment of Hell, as we think of Hell today.
I'm not arguing with you about that. But the rich man was tormented in flames, which is exactly what we think of as Hell today. You are saying they are all (Lazarus, Abraham, and later the thief and Jesus) in the same place, only in a different compartment.

And there's something odd about the rich man being already tormented in the flames prior to judgment, don't you think? If God were fair, wouldn't He first judge the man, then, having judged him fairly, start the torment? Therefore the judgment must have already occurred. But Jesus said judgment comes after resurrection.
John 5:27 KJV - And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
John 5:28 KJV - Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
John 5:29 KJV - And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Because you say so?

If Jesus called it paradise, then that's what it is.
I agree. If Jesus called something "paradise", then that's what it is. Now let's look at what he called by that noun. First, he didn't call it "paradise", but "the paradise". From what I understand, the definite article in New Testament Greek isn't always translated into English, because it's used a little differently. Oftentimes, when a non-specific noun is first introduced in a passage, it is introduced without the definite article. (The British still do something like this, for instance, when they say "I have to go to hospital", without the definite article.) Then (in Greek, but not necessarily the British), once introduced, later uses of the word will include the definite article. It seems to be a way of saying "that hospital that I mentioned previously." In this case, the definite article is included at the first (and only) mention of "paradise". That means Jesus wasn't speaking of some general concept of paradise, but of a specific paradise. If specific, and if it is where His kingdom is, then it would definitely NOT be in a compartment of the grave/Hades, or Hell, or any place except something like where Paul was taken to--and probably the same place, since both of those uses include the definite article.
I see no conflict, whatsoever.


The word Hades is not an English word. You are using it as though it is synonymous with the English word "Hell", which it is not.
I'm using it as it is described. A place of torment in flames. Reread the text if you need to.
If there is an English equivalent, (which there isn't a perfect one) it would be "grave". In other words, its a place, populated with physically dead people. That, and it seems clear that its separated from the Father's presence.
As I said, not the type of paradise one would expect Jesus to refer to.
Shown?

Shown were?
My last post.
What?

Just as the whole Earth prior to the fall of Adam, as well as Eden itself, was a paradise,
You haven't been reading your bible very carefully, have you??

Genesis 2:8 KJV - And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Genesis 2:10 KJV - And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

2:8 tells us that the Garden was in Eden, and 2:10 tells us that the river came OUT from Eden to water the Garden. With those two verses, we know for sure that the whole earth wasn't a garden. The word most bibles translate "garden" was translated in the Septuagint as "Paradise".
the entire New Earth is going to be a paradise!
Not "a paradise", according to the bible, but "the paradise". And whether it is the whole earth or not is unclear. Be careful about letting your preconceptions cloud your study of the biblical texts.
Heaven is already a paradise and it too will be destroyed
Most of heaven that we know about is NOT a paradise. There are stars and black holes and vacuum of space. Hard to grow stuff there. There is a part of heaven that Paul visited, called "the third heaven", which he also called "the paradise"
2 Corinthians 12:2 KJV - I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
2 Corinthians 12:4 KJV - How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Or here it is in the Young's Literal Translation showing the definite article, if that helps:
2 Corinthians 12:2 YLT - I have known a man in Christ, fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I have not known, whether out of the body I have not known, God hath known -- such an one being caught away unto the third heaven;
2 Corinthians 12:4 YLT - that he was caught away to the paradise, and heard unutterable sayings, that it is not possible for man to speak.

If Paul associates "the third heaven" with "the paradise", that seems to work well. But he doesn't, and nowhere else in the bible does either, associate all heavens with "the paradise", unless you care to offer some reference.
and recreated into a brand new paradise both with and without the paradisaical New Jerusalem in it. In fact the term "Heaven" is very often a synonym of "paradise".
True, because we think of "heaven" as the place where God dwells. But Paul specifies that it isn't all of "the heavens", but only "the third heaven".
This is all true on its face. Presuming that there is only one paradise is simply ridiculous.
Because you say so, in spite of what the bible actually says? hardly convincing.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
"Does not"...I agree. "Will not"...I disagree.
idk why a passage which is specifically Messianic would ever apply to anybody else but Him. I don't even know why you'd entertain that thought. But that aside, if it does or will apply to others and not only to Christ the Messiah, then I'd concede you'd made a point. If.
So if it does not currently apply to David, then David's soul is still in "hell" (Hades), right?
No. Specifically it doesn't have anything to do with the disposition rn of David's soul. That was my point previously. It doesn't even admit that David is in Hades, Hell, or any other H-word at all, since it doesn't say anything about David or about the category David is in. Jesus is the One in the Messiah category, which only contains One member, and David is not in that category, and the Psalm applies only to the Messiah.
The common Christian story says that Christ took captivity (those in the good part of Hades) captive (He took them to heaven), but not in body, only in spirit. He did this sometime between His death and His ascension. Peter quoted
--Psalm 16:10 KJV — For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.--
saying it did not apply to David BECAUSE David was still dead, his body was still in the sepulchre, not because his soul never went to hell (Hades).
No. Not "BECAUSE," he was not saying it is BECAUSE, he was proving that the verse was Messianic and didn't apply to David, yes, but not BECAUSE David hasn't risen from the dead. That's just proof but it isn't the reason why. For instance a smoking gun is proof of who shot the victim, but it's not because of the smoking gun that he shot him, even though the smoking gun is positive proof. Proof is like evidence that is only consistent with one position, that proves a position, in argument and debate, but it's not the same as the reason why. It's powerful to have proof, and that can't be overstated, but it's just not identical to the reason why, or the causality or etiology or provenance.
That means that the phrase "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" is referring to resurrection
No. It only means it refers to Jesus the Messiah.
, not some disembodied spirit going to heaven.
The only subject of the Psalm is Jesus.
The corollary is that anyone who has died and who has not been resurrected IS IN HELL (Hades) today.
No because the Psalm doesn't apply to anyone else. It doesn't mention anyone else or anyone else's circumstances either. Everybody else is the wrong context. If the Psalm does apply to anybody or everybody else too, then it's not because the Psalm or the context of the Psalm or the context of Peter's quoting the Psalm says, it's being imported from somewhere else (and not necessarily illicitly, just that it must be being imported, just logically).
That implies that there is no spirit-existence for the Christian between death and resurrection.
The scene with the thief on the cross conflicts with that interpretation you have of the Psalm. You're pitting what I think is a clear statement about the disposition of people after death, uttered by Christ Himself, as He Himself is in the process of dying with him, against your interpretation of a Psalm which is specifically claimed by Peter the Apostle to apply to Jesus only. As in, the Psalm says what's going to happen to Him, but He says what will be happening to everybody else, when he speaks to the thief on the cross.
Yes, because if Jesus suffered in hell for our sins, then His statement was false that "It is finished" with His death. ...
Depends on, "What is It"? Also confer Revelation 21:6 "It is done" (KJB) What is It there? Same It, or different It? Maybe It is just the Earthly portion of His sufferings as the suffering servant from Isaiah the Prophet.
... And if all of His suffering was in the body, then He didn't suffer the final penalty for sin that we are all threatened with, sans Christ (second death): He only suffered the penalty we were first threatened with, death.
You seem to be arguing my position here (so I can't be reading you right). Can you reword it, by any chance?
That doesn't prove Jesus didn't go somewhere different from David, but from the other scriptures He did not, and certainly not to hell absent of David.

I get that.
Foaming at the mouth lol.
 

Derf

Well-known member
idk why a passage which is specifically Messianic would ever apply to anybody else but Him. I don't even know why you'd entertain that thought. But that aside, if it does or will apply to others and not only to Christ the Messiah, then I'd concede you'd made a point. If.

No. Specifically it doesn't have anything to do with the disposition rn of David's soul. That was my point previously. It doesn't even admit that David is in Hades, Hell, or any other H-word at all, since it doesn't say anything about David or about the category David is in. Jesus is the One in the Messiah category, which only contains One member, and David is not in that category, and the Psalm applies only to the Messiah.

No. Not "BECAUSE," he was not saying it is BECAUSE, he was proving that the verse was Messianic and didn't apply to David, yes, but not BECAUSE David hasn't risen from the dead. That's just proof but it isn't the reason why. For instance a smoking gun is proof of who shot the victim, but it's not because of the smoking gun that he shot him, even though the smoking gun is positive proof. Proof is like evidence that is only consistent with one position, that proves a position, in argument and debate, but it's not the same as the reason why. It's powerful to have proof, and that can't be overstated, but it's just not identical to the reason why, or the causality or etiology or provenance.

No. It only means it refers to Jesus the Messiah.

The only subject of the Psalm is Jesus.

No because the Psalm doesn't apply to anyone else. It doesn't mention anyone else or anyone else's circumstances either.
It does, because it is written by David in first person.

Everybody else is the wrong context. If the Psalm does apply to anybody or everybody else too, then it's not because the Psalm or the context of the Psalm or the context of Peter's quoting the Psalm says, it's being imported from somewhere else (and not necessarily illicitly, just that it must be being imported, just logically).
I think Peter wasn't distancing David from every part, just the "not see corruption" part. The "leave my soul in Hades part" was used by Peter to say that Christ fulfilled that, while David hadn't yet (probable by looking at the tomb). Entry into Hades, however you want to define it, was a given for anyone who died before Christ. I think Peter wasn't distancing David from every part, just the "not see corruption" part. The "leave my soul in Hades part" was used by Peter to say that Christ fulfilled that, while David hadn't yet. Entry into Hades, however you want to define it, was a given for anyone who died before Christ.


The scene with the thief on the cross conflicts with that interpretation you have of the Psalm. You're pitting what I think is a clear statement about the disposition of people after death, uttered by Christ Himself, as He Himself is in the process of dying with him, against your interpretation of a Psalm which is specifically claimed by Peter the Apostle to apply to Jesus only.
If the psalm talks about resurrection, then it isn't just talking about Jesus. But prophetically it is, at least in the time period Peter is addressing.

As in, the Psalm says what's going to happen to Him, but He says what will be happening to everybody else, when he speaks to the thief on the cross.
You assume. But all we have is that statement, issued to that man, at that particular time. It probably extrapolates to a larger group of people, but definitely not everybody else-remember the other thief?

Depends on, "What is It"? Also confer Revelation 21:6 "It is done" (KJB) What is It there?
Good point. Obviously there's more work to do, after the cross, because death, the final enemy, had not yet been defeated. So the cross was something that was necessary prior to resurrection. I'd suggest the thing that was necessary was His death.

Same It, or different It? Maybe It is just the Earthly portion of His sufferings as the suffering servant from Isaiah the Prophet.

You seem to be arguing my position here (so I can't be reading you right). Can you reword it, by any chance?
You have to go back to Genesis to determine what Christ was rectifying on the cross. Genesis clearly points to "death" as the thing that Adam would suffer. Not "second death", but the kind where he returns to dust (corruption).

"Second death", or lake of fire, was reserved for the devil and his angels, and Jesus didn't die for them. So He only needed to experience the first death.

So there is only the "earthly portion", which ends with death.

Does that answer your question?

Foaming at the mouth lol.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It does, because it is written by David in first person.
No. It doesn't. Because Peter said so. Acts 2:31 " He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
"
You're overriding an Apostle.
I think Peter wasn't distancing David from every part, just the "not see corruption" part. The "leave my soul in Hades part" was used by Peter to say that Christ fulfilled that, while David hadn't yet [(probable by looking at the tomb)]. Entry into Hades, however you want to define it, was a given for anyone who died before Christ.
Christ's soul was in Hell, Acts 2:31 above.

If the psalm talks about resurrection, then it isn't just talking about Jesus. But prophetically it is, at least in the time period Peter is addressing.
It talks about Christ's Resurrection, Acts 2:31 above.

You assume. But all we have is that statement, issued to that man, at that particular time. It probably extrapolates to a larger group of people, but definitely not everybody else-remember the other thief?
Of course I remember the other thief on the cross, but Christ didn't say anything to him, so I don't know what happened to him that day, but I have a good idea what happened to the first thief on the cross, he's a Saint.


Good point. Obviously there's more work to do, after the cross, because death, the final enemy, had not yet been defeated. So the cross was something that was necessary prior to resurrection. I'd suggest the thing that was necessary was His death.


You have to go back to Genesis to determine what Christ was rectifying on the cross. Genesis clearly points to "death" as the thing that Adam would suffer. Not "second death", but the kind where he returns to dust (corruption).

"Second death", or lake of fire, was reserved for the devil and his angels, and Jesus didn't die for them. So He only needed to experience the first death.

So there is only the "earthly portion", which ends with death.

Does that answer your question?
It does. I think the cross was for everything, for all fire, all burning and torment (but not all the refining and purifying flames ---- I'm not sure if these are different flames or if we are ontologically different and so encounter them categorically differently). The lake of fire isn't just for the Devil and his cohorts, is it?

lol Clete.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
So you say. But the proof is lacking. This is the only, I repeat, the only instance where the place of the dead is called "paradise".
nothing about the place of the dead here.
(Luke 23:43) And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise.

and you're mixing up the living and the dead as always
(Matthew 22:32) "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
So you say. But again, the phrase "Abraham's bosom" is only used a single time in the whole bible. It might be "the place of the righteous dead", but it might be the place where the saints will be after judgment. The text is used as a story to convict the pharisees of their hypocrisy, and it starts out the same way as the parable of the wicked steward in the same chapter, just a few lines earlier. As a parable, it is possible that it isn't intended to convey truths about the afterlife, but truths about the current life for those pharisees.

What was the truth being conveyed? It appears to be that if they won't listen to Moses (and Jesus is implying that they haven't), then they won't listen if someone returns from the dead (and Jesus is implying that they won't).
"after judgement" :ROFLMAO: you don't even believe that , hell gets thrown into the lake of fire , so it's not possible to be after judgement.

the text can be used for many lessons none of which have Jesus lying about hell and Abraham's bosom and spirits existing after death



For one, the word is used 3 times in the New Testament. In two cases it represents the place where God is. In the third (to the thief) it seems to represent the same thing. If it represents the place where God IS, then when Jesus told the story to the Pharisees, God wasn't there. Perhaps that was why He called it "Abraham's Bosom", since God wasn't there. But you've assumed that it was called "Paradise" even before Jesus got there.
or the thief went to heaven which is paradise and also where God is
but you don't believe the thief went anywhere as you are of the opinion he has ceased to exist
And there's something odd about the rich man being already tormented in the flames prior to judgment, don't you think? If God were fair, wouldn't He first judge the man, then, having judged him fairly, start the torment? Therefore the judgment must have already occurred. But Jesus said judgment comes after resurrection.
John 5:27 KJV - And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
John 5:28 KJV - Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
John 5:29 KJV - And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
are you going with God isn't fair ?
we put people in jail before we put them in prison
God knows his own people
judgement day is for people not for God

the jail "hell" is thrown into the "lake of fire" which is the second death and people are dead and still existing

(Revelation 20:13-14) [13] And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works. [14] And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
 
Top