Is death just another life?

[Derf]

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.

Don't forget that without Christ's resurrection, our hope in our own resurrection is vain. The two go hand in hand, with Christ as the firstfruits, and then we at His coming. Without His, our hope is gone. Without ours, our hope is gone.

Christ's soul was in Hell, Acts 2:31 above.

Yes, but it was the same condition as David was in, yes? Wasn't he in Sheol/Hades/KJV-hell? The word is common in David's psalms, as he seems to expect to be there (or in that condition, if not a place) when he dies. If not, then where did David go? My answer is that it is a condition of death, and not a place for disembodied spirits.

It talks about Christ's Resurrection, Acts 2:31 above.


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.

You wouldn't be expecting him (the other thief) to be in Paradise that day with Jesus, would you?

St. Dismas: A penitent thief and the paradise of belief | Denver Catholic

denvercatholic.org

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).

Can you quote the verse so we can talk about it? The refining and purifying flames, that is. It may diverge into a different topic, but it seems important.

The lake of fire isn't just for the Devil and his cohorts, is it?

I think it was originally planned for them, but becomes the destiny of any who reject Christ.

lol Clete.

 

[Idolater]

Don't forget that without Christ's resurrection, our hope in our own resurrection is vain.

Right.

The two go hand in hand

Yes.

, with Christ as the firstfruits, and then we at His coming.

Yep.

Without His, our hope is gone.

Yes.

Without ours, our hope is gone.

So you didn't override anything I said there, which means you agree that you were attempting to override an Apostle, in your interpretation?

Yes, but it was the same condition as David was in, yes?

No. That Psalm doesn't apply to David at all, according to an Apostle. So we cannot conclude anything at all about David's soul upon his own death from this Psalm.

Wasn't he in Sheol/Hades/KJV-hell?

idk. Maybe maybe not. But this Psalm only applies to Christ, according to an Apostle.

The word is common in David's psalms, as he seems to expect to be there (or in that condition, if not a place) when he dies. If not, then where did David go? My answer is that it is a condition of death, and not a place for disembodied spirits.

I know what your answer is, but in part due to the account of the thief on the cross, in part due to God being "of the living" and not of the dead, and in part, of being absent from the body being present with the Lord, 2nd Corinthians 5, plus Psalm 16 not applying to David, I don't think you have substantiated it.

You wouldn't be expecting him (the other thief) to be in Paradise that day with Jesus, would you?

Nope.

Can you quote the verse so we can talk about it? The refining and purifying flames, that is. It may diverge into a different topic, but it seems important.

While 2nd Corinthians 5 mentions a judgment after death, I think 1st Corinthians 3 is also alluding to that same judgment, and with more detail:

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The thief on the cross is in paradise, so he either encountered the fire already, or he didn't, either because he will encounter it later, or because he won't have to encounter it at all because our Lord granted him a plenary indulgence right before death (which is well within His power to do, of course).

I think it was originally planned for them, but becomes the destiny of any who reject Christ.

OK.

 

[Derf]

Right.

Yes.

Yep.

Yes.

So you didn't override anything I said there, which means you agree that you were attempting to override an Apostle, in your interpretation?

No. That Psalm doesn't apply to David at all, according to an Apostle. So we cannot conclude anything at all about David's soul upon his own death from this Psalm.

idk. Maybe maybe not. But this Psalm only applies to Christ, according to an Apostle.

I think a lot of commentaries will support me. Matthew Henry is one such:
"

This psalm has something of David in it, but much more of Christ. It begins with such expressions of devotion as may be applied to Christ; but concludes with such confidence of a resurrection (and so timely a one as to prevent corruption) as must be applied to Christ, to him only, and cannot be understood of David, as both St. Peter and St. Paul have observed, ​

Acts 2:24​

; ​

13:36​

. For David died, and was buried, and saw corruption.​

This psalm has something of David in it, but much more of Christ. It begins with such expressions of devotion as may be applied to Christ; but concludes with such confidence of a resurrection (and so timely a one as to prevent corruption) as must be applied to Christ, to him only, and cannot be understood of David, as both St. Peter and St. Paul have observed, Acts 2:24; 13:36. For David died, and was buried, and saw corruption."

Paul makes the distinction much more precise in Acts 13
Acts 13:35-36 KJV — Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

The corruption part distinguished the death of Christ from David's.

I know what your answer is, but in part due to the account of the thief on the cross

Previously answered

, in part due to God being "of the living" and not of the dead

Previously answered.

, and in part, of being absent from the body being present with the Lord,

Previously answered.

2nd Corinthians 5, plus Psalm 16 not applying to David,

Supra

I don't think you have substantiated it.

Perhaps not to your satisfaction

Nope.

While 2nd Corinthians 5 mentions a judgment after death, I think 1st Corinthians 3 is also alluding to that same judgment, and with more detail:

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Does "every man" actually mean "absolutely every man"? I dont think so, as it for sure excludes unbelievers. If you read it carefully, it seems to be pointed at the leaders of churches.

The thief on the cross is in paradise

While David is still in Hades?

, so he either encountered the fire already, or he didn't, either because he will encounter it later, or because he won't have to encounter it at all because our Lord granted him a plenary indulgence right before death (which is well within His power to do, of course).

Why would He do that? Is it arbitrary? Or does His suffering and death pay the penalty for the thief's unrighteous life, so that He doesn't need to be refined?

Or one more option. Is the thief in the midst of his refinement when he's talking to Christ? Isn't he showing the fruits of refinement in his public confession of the Lord, his rebuke of the other thief, and his appeal for remembrance?

 

[Derf]

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..."

I think it was, but it doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion. The information being conveyed is still the same whether Paul or someone else.

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

Yes, but the Hades location must have been called "Paradise" from some time early in earth's history, right? Like as soon as Abel died, maybe? And if Abel was the only one there, for a long time, that must have been weird. In fact, the Garden of Eden, also called "Paradise of Eden" in the Septuagint, was still on earth when Abel and Adam died, still with the Tree of Life in it, probably. So it wasn't "the Paradise" Jesus claimed it to be.

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.

Agreed. But if "the paradise (garden) of God", where would that be? If the tree of Life is in it, and the tree of life is symbolically Jesus Christ, then it's wherever Jesus is, which fits well with his words to the thief, but fits just as well with my version of His words to the thief.

The later reference to the Tree of Life is
[Rev 22:1 KJV] And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
[Rev 22:2 KJV] In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.

With a river of water of life proceeding out of the throne of God and the Lamb, it hearkens back to the four rivers the flow out of Eden to water the whole earth, so it sounds like a garden, despite being in a city (in the midst of the street of it). I don't see much reason to think Rev 2 is talking about a different location than Rev 22, especially since Rev 2 is future-looking for those it's talking to.

And Jesus seemed to be future-looking when talking to the thief, too.

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

Are you talking about this:

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.

I agree that "lower parts of the earth" refers to the place of the dead. I agree that "the grave", "the pit", and "sheol" are synonymous with each other. I don't see anything to say that there are separate compartments of "hell" (KJV for sheol, and thus synonymous with those others). And if not, then it makes more sense that those are merely referring the state of being dead/buried, since the grave is the place of the dead.

I agree that Ps 49 applies equally to all (maybe @Idolater should read it), except when it gets to the part about "God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave." That seems to be more pertinent to David and those that are righteous in God's eyes than just everyone. But if there's a judgment, and the judgment hasn't occurred yet, how can some be enjoying the good afterlife while some are in torment?

But what exactly is "the power of the grave"? If our souls are not in the grave, and they can be released without bothering with whatever is still in the grave, it doesn't seem like the grave has any power over our souls. It only makes sense if the grave is the place where the body is, and being redeemed from that place is...wait for it...RESURRECTION.

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...

Just dead. If he hasn't been judged yet, how does anyone know whether he's righteous or not?

Besides that, I don't see how that passage helps you (or me, for that matter). We aren't told what kind of form Saul is (whether he comes in a body or in some kind of spiritual essence). I've been through that several times with way2go.

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?

He descended into the earth. Into a grave. There He was, in a grave for 3 days. Then He ascended out of the grave and up into heaven.

[Eph 4:9 KJV] (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

[Psa 63:9 KJV] But those [that] seek my soul, to destroy [it], shall go into the lower parts of the earth.
[Psa 63:10 KJV] They shall fall by the sword: they shall be a portion for foxes.

Refer back to Ps 49, above.

[Psa 139:15 KJV] My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

If David being in his mother's womb is being wrought "in the lowest parts of the earth", and if you don't believe there's a soul factory in hell to supply newborns with souls, then you have to see "lower parts of the earth" as a grave or a tomb.

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.

I agree. But a body rotting in a grave is also not the plane of existence we live in/surface of the earth. But it doesn't have to be very far down, seems to me:
[Num 16:31 NKJV] Now it came to pass, as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground split apart under them,
[Num 16:32 NKJV] and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah, with all [their] goods.
[Num 16:33 NKJV] So they and all those with them went down alive into the pit; the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the assembly.
(the pit there is "Sheol")

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!

Because "heavens" refers to several planes: air, space, and God's dwelling. "Heavens" is not paradise, but paradise might be part of heaven.

Because they weren't able or allowed to.

They wouldn't want to go to heaven because they weren't able/allowed to? Maybe you misunderstood my response. If Paradise is so good, and they were already there in Paradise, why would they want to go to heaven? Wouldn't they be just fine like they were?

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!

The same kind of symbology works if death is merely "sleep". They are still "held captive" in death, but with a chance of being free, as opposed to those who won't be set free (to live eternally) but will merely be set free to be sent to the lake of fire. That's the larger problem of symbolic use of such things...it's easy to fit it to different interpretations.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Certainly Satan wasn't correct when he said, "You shall not surely die," after God said "You shall surely die."

Aside from what I said earlier, and if I'm forgetting to reply to your last reponse to me, please let me know, I just wanted to post something that I was reminded of today before I forget it, the phrase God uttered to Adam when He warned him against eating of the tree could be more accurately translated "dying you shall die."

Will Duffy touched on this in a recent sermon.

 

[Derf]

Aside from what I said earlier, and if I'm forgetting to reply to your last reponse to me, please let me know, I just wanted to post something that I was reminded of today before I forget it, the phrase God uttered to Adam when He warned him against eating of the tree could be more accurately translated "dying you shall die."

Will Duffy touched on this in a recent sermon.

I haven't really thought about responses to this thread for a little while, so I don't know if you or I are negligent in responding. Thanks for posting the sermon.

It made me go look up the phrase "dying you shall die", which web search took me to this article: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2011/12/dying-you-shall-die

It's a Seventh Day Adventist site, so it is more favorable to my position in this thread, but it seems like the author did some good exegesis looking for other instances of the phrase. His conclusion was that it was always (with one possible exception) a judgment to be handed down as punishment for behavior. The instance that got my attention was when Solomon used it toward Shimei, saying "For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die." It has pretty much the exact structure of the Gen 2 passage. But it's interesting that Solomon might not have been able to execute judgment on the day Shimei left the city, nor would it be necessary for him to do so. The point was that the day he left the city, he was doomed to die, even if the execution happened more than a day later.

In fact it is unlikely that Shimei died on the day he left Jerusalem, since he was able to go there, get his servants (who had run away) and return to Jerusalem, and then someone told the king, and after that he was summoned by the king. It's possible it took less than a day, but the distance on a map function I found said 22 miles, one way. He rode or led his donkey, and had to find and collect his servants, who likely weren't that eager to be found or to return. So it was probably several days.

Of course God would be able to execute judgment within the same day, but He also wouldn't have to and still be truthful in the threat to Adam. The point was that the day Adam ate the fruit would be the day he was doomed to die for the sin of eating it, and the dying might still happen more than 24 hours later.

 

[Gary K]

I haven't really thought about responses to this thread for a little while, so I don't know if you or I are negligent in responding. Thanks for posting the sermon.

It made me go look up the phrase "dying you shall die", which web search took me to this article: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2011/12/dying-you-shall-die

It's a Seventh Day Adventist site, so it is more favorable to my position in this thread, but it seems like the author did some good exegesis looking for other instances of the phrase. His conclusion was that it was always (with one possible exception) a judgment to be handed down as punishment for behavior. The instance that got my attention was when Solomon used it toward Shimei, saying "For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die." It has pretty much the exact structure of the Gen 2 passage. But it's interesting that Solomon might not have been able to execute judgment on the day Shimei left the city, nor would it be necessary for him to do so. The point was that the day he left the city, he was doomed to die, even if the execution happened more than a day later.

In fact it is unlikely that Shimei died on the day he left Jerusalem, since he was able to go there, get his servants (who had run away) and return to Jerusalem, and then someone told the king, and after that he was summoned by the king. It's possible it took less than a day, but the distance on a map function I found said 22 miles, one way. He rode or led his donkey, and had to find and collect his servants, who likely weren't that eager to be found or to return. So it was probably several days.

Of course God would be able to execute judgment within the same day, but He also wouldn't have to and still be truthful in the threat to Adam. The point was that the day Adam ate the fruit would be the day he was doomed to die for the sin of eating it, and the dying might still happen more than 24 hours later.

I'm not too sure Adam saw death as a threat by the time he died. When he was created, and for however long he lived before he and Eve sinned, death was a foreign concept. By the time he died death was no longer foreign to him and he was very familiar with the consequences of sin, i.e. the self destructiveness of it, as he had lived with it for close to a thousand years. He'd gone from seeing nothing die, not even a leaf fall from a tree, to witnessing evil and death for a long, long time. He had to have ended lives himself, even if it was those of "just" lambs as sacrifices for sin, knowing all loss of life on this planet was his own fault. It must have been torture to see predators killing other animals and eating them let alone seeing humans be cruel to each other and kill each other. That could not have been easy to live with. I'd say he most likely saw death as a relief from suffering from his own guilt in bringing sin upon the planet.

 

[Derf]

I'm not too sure Adam saw death as a threat by the time he died. When he was created, and for however long he lived before he and Eve sinned, death was a foreign concept. By the time he died death was no longer foreign to him and he was very familiar with the consequences of sin, i.e. the self destructiveness of it, as he had lived with it for close to a thousand years. He'd gone from seeing nothing die, not even a leaf fall from a tree, to witnessing evil and death for a long, long time. He had to have ended lives himself, even if it was those of "just" lambs as sacrifices for sin, knowing all loss of life on this planet was his own fault. It must have been torture to see predators killing other animals and eating them let alone seeing humans be cruel to each other and kill each other. That could not have been easy to live with. I'd say he most likely saw death as a relief from suffering from his own guilt in bringing sin upon the planet.

Perhaps, but you included a whole lot of speculation in your description. Death might be a relief only if you're confident about what happens afterward.

 

[Derf]

I haven't really thought about responses to this thread for a little while, so I don't know if you or I are negligent in responding. Thanks for posting the sermon.

It made me go look up the phrase "dying you shall die", which web search took me to this article: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2011/12/dying-you-shall-die

It's a Seventh Day Adventist site, so it is more favorable to my position in this thread, but it seems like the author did some good exegesis looking for other instances of the phrase. His conclusion was that it was always (with one possible exception) a judgment to be handed down as punishment for behavior. The instance that got my attention was when Solomon used it toward Shimei, saying "For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die." It has pretty much the exact structure of the Gen 2 passage. But it's interesting that Solomon might not have been able to execute judgment on the day Shimei left the city, nor would it be necessary for him to do so. The point was that the day he left the city, he was doomed to die, even if the execution happened more than a day later.

In fact it is unlikely that Shimei died on the day he left Jerusalem, since he was able to go there, get his servants (who had run away) and return to Jerusalem, and then someone told the king, and after that he was summoned by the king. It's possible it took less than a day, but the distance on a map function I found said 22 miles, one way. He rode or led his donkey, and had to find and collect his servants, who likely weren't that eager to be found or to return. So it was probably several days.

Of course God would be able to execute judgment within the same day, but He also wouldn't have to and still be truthful in the threat to Adam. The point was that the day Adam ate the fruit would be the day he was doomed to die for the sin of eating it, and the dying might still happen more than 24 hours later.

Here's a similar phrase from Gen 2
Genesis 2:16 YLT — And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden EATING THOU DOST EAT;

 

[Gary K]

Perhaps, but you included a whole lot of speculation in your description. Death might be a relief only if you're confident about what happens afterward.

Adam had already been assured of the successful sacrifice of Jesus.

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

A head wound vs a foot wound.

 

[Idolater]

I think a lot of commentaries will support me. Matthew Henry is one such:
"

This psalm has something of David in it, but much more of Christ. It begins with such expressions of devotion as may be applied to Christ; but concludes with such confidence of a resurrection (and so timely a one as to prevent corruption) as must be applied to Christ, to him only, and cannot be understood of David, as both St. Peter and St. Paul have observed,

Acts 2:24

;

13:36

. For David died, and was buried, and saw corruption.​

This psalm has something of David in it, but much more of Christ. It begins with such expressions of devotion as may be applied to Christ; but concludes with such confidence of a resurrection (and so timely a one as to prevent corruption) as must be applied to Christ, to him only, and cannot be understood of David, as both St. Peter and St. Paul have observed, Acts 2:24; 13:36. For David died, and was buried, and saw corruption."

Paul makes the distinction much more precise in Acts 13
Acts 13:35-36 KJV — Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

The corruption part distinguished the death of Christ from David's.

"This psalm ... must be applied to Christ, to him only, and cannot be understood of David."
That's my point. That's been my point.

Previously answered

Previously answered.

Previously answered.

Supra

Perhaps not to your satisfaction

Right, of course, that's why I wrote it. If I'm on a jury I can't rule out all doubt, but I can rule out reasonable doubt.

Does "every man" actually mean "absolutely every man"? I dont think so, as it for sure excludes unbelievers. If you read it carefully, it seems to be pointed at the leaders of churches.

Could be. Not impossible.

While David is still in Hades?


Why would He do that? Is it arbitrary? Or does His suffering and death pay the penalty for the thief's unrighteous life, so that He doesn't need to be refined?

Are you being serious? Doesn't Our Lord establish the pattern in all the Gospels of restoring /healing people based on their faith? Isn't that just all obvious?

Or one more option. Is the thief in the midst of his refinement when he's talking to Christ? Isn't he showing the fruits of refinement in his public confession of the Lord, his rebuke of the other thief, and his appeal for remembrance?

Could be that he's perfectly refined right there on the cross; I can't read anybody's heart, Derf, whether it's you, Ffreeloader (aka @Gary K ) or Saint Dismas. It's possible for us to be purified from all sinful attachments before passing away. It's all grace but it's not impossible that Our Lord didn't graciously intercede into St. Dismas's soul right on the cross to do all the heavy lifting for him.

 

[Clete]

Or one more option. Is the thief in the midst of his refinement when he's talking to Christ? Isn't he showing the fruits of refinement in his public confession of the Lord, his rebuke of the other thief, and his appeal for remembrance?

Totally on a side note....

The two crucified on either side of Christ were not merely thieves. The King James uses the term "malefactors". The New King James uses "criminals" as do several other translations. As cruel and unjust as they were, not even the Romans crucified mere thieves.

 

[Gary K]

"This psalm ... must be applied to Christ, to him only, and cannot be understood of David."
That's my point. That's been my point.


Right, of course, that's why I wrote it. If I'm on a jury I can't rule out all doubt, but I can rule out reasonable doubt.


Could be. Not impossible.


Are you being serious? Doesn't Our Lord establish the pattern in all the Gospels of restoring /healing people based on their faith? Isn't that just all obvious?


Could be that he's perfectly refined right there on the cross; I can't read anybody's heart, Derf, whether it's you, Ffreeloader (aka @Gary K ) or Saint Dismas. It's possible for us to be purified from all sinful attachments before passing away. It's all grace but it's not impossible that Our Lord didn't graciously intercede into St. Dismas's soul right on the cross to do all the heavy lifting for him.

What the thief was demonstrating in his actions on the cross is that Jesus forgives us and sanctifies us at the same time and that it is impossible to separate the two. This also demonstrates that justification does not rely on what we do, but on what Jesus did for us.

 

[Derf]

What the thief was demonstrating in his actions on the cross is that Jesus forgives us and sanctifies us at the same time and that it is impossible to separate the two. This also demonstrates that justification does not rely on what we do, but on what Jesus did for us.

And we choose whether to apply it in our minds or not (faith).

 

[Clete]

What the thief was demonstrating in his actions on the cross is that Jesus forgives us and sanctifies us at the same time and that it is impossible to separate the two. This also demonstrates that justification does not rely on what we do, but on what Jesus did for us.

You should pay closer attention to the words you use.

 

[Gary K]

And we choose whether to apply it in our minds or not (faith).

Yup.

 

[Gary K]

You should pay closer attention to the words you use.

Huh?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Huh?

Your statements...

was demonstrating in his actions

justification does not rely on what we do

...contradict one another.

You have a self-contradictory position.

Thus, at least one of your premises is false, because truth is non-contradictory.

 

[Gary K]

Your statements...





...contradict one another.

You have a self-contradictory position.

Thus, at least one of your premises is false, because truth is non-contradictory.

Huh? It's contradictory to say his example of defending Christ on the cross is a result of being justified and sanctified by Jesus?

 

[Clete]

Huh? It's contradictory to say his example of defending Christ on the cross is a result of being justified and sanctified by Jesus?

Why do you do this? I know you understand the point.

You're lazy with the words you use. You say such openly self-contradictory thing as a person's actions demonstrate that justification does not rely on one actions because you don't think as you type. Even if the point you're trying to make is a valid one, you're lack of care for HOW you say it gets in the way of your ability to communicate.

The point is that you shouldn't settle for "good enough". If you're wrong a lot then correct yourself a lot. If you're wrong a little then correct yourself a little. If you're not wrong at all then push to find better ways to communicate. There is always some sort of way to improve but only if you care about improving yourself.