ST. JOHN 11:26

[Rosenritter]

I don't really. I would need help with that, to look at Scripture.

The Torah is just five books so it's not too overwhelming of a starting point. How about making a small self-project out of that? Go through the entire first five books and make a note of every place that it seems to reference the nature of death or hint at a resurrection to life.

By the way, Jesus saw the resurrection proved even in the conversation with Moses at the burning bush. So be alert!

 

[Jacob]

The Torah is just five books so it's not too overwhelming of a starting point. How about making a small self-project out of that? Go through the entire first five books and make a note of every place that it seems to reference the nature of death or hint at a resurrection to life.

By the way, Jesus saw the resurrection proved even in the conversation with Moses at the burning bush. So be alert!

I know the Torah. We can discuss it and what you might think. Last week was the first week in a long time when I did not study any Torah (only some on Shabbat). I am assessing where I am at with the Torah, not rejecting it.

 

[Derf]

I think you are saying that Lazarus didn't necessarily write it. I would say John wrote his gospel (account).

Why is it "his gospel"? Is it because his name is attached to it in your bible? It's possible that name wasn't attached to it until over a hundred years after it was written. Verse 24 of chapter 21 tells us, if we can trust the sentence structure and that the chapter is as original as the first 20 chapters, that someone else was involved somewhere, since it speaks of the testifier in the third person, and of the author of that verse in the first person:

[Jhn 21:24 KJV] This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

It's not super important for this conversation. (Some discussion here about it.)

It is important that people come back to life again and is this different from coming back from the dead?

Certainly these people were raised from the dead. I know that there is judgment that comes after death. When is it? And, can a person be dead for a long time before they are raised from the dead? How long? There are things that I don't understand. Would you be willing to talk about the nature of death and resurrection or being raised from the dead alongside a discussion of the rapture?

I too wonder about when the judgment happens. In Rev 20, where two resurrections are mentioned, a judgment of sorts must take place before the first resurrection, because only a limited set of people are resurrected, and it seems to be based on how they acted when alive. The second resurrection appears to be every dead person that wasn't resurrected the first time.

I don't see why "coming back to life again" should be different from "coming back from the dead". It's a good question, despite the apparent simplicity of it. It should help us to define the two terms of "life" and "death". And I don't think "resurrection" means anything more than being raised from the dead.

[Jhn 11:23 KJV] Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
[Jhn 11:24 KJV] Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
[Jhn 11:25 KJV] Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Jesus here talks of Lazarus "rising" again. Martha thinks He is talking about the resurrection at the last day, but Jesus corrects her by saying the HE (Jesus) is the resurrection. And then He raises Lazarus from the dead.

That doesn't mean there are never qualifiers for the resurrection event--such as whether the resurrection is a permanent one or not. There is definitely an incorruptible body we will be given in that last resurrection (or at the rapture, according to 1 Cor 15:51), and I doubt that Lazarus or others raised during Jesus earthly ministry were given one of those, since Jesus was the first fruits of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:23).

Length of time one could be dead and raised again? I presume you are asking about a raising like Lazarus's. I'm sure I don't know the answer, but Jesus' and Lazarus' raisings are a little bit informative, in comparison. Lazarus was already beginning to decompose ([Jhn 11:39 KJV] Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been [dead] four days.), but Jesus' body had not ([Act 13:37 KJV] But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.)

I went through a number of the resurrection stories in the old and new testaments, and from what I saw, besides Jesus, only Lazarus was raised from the dead after more than a day or so. The raisings were all executed (pun only retrospectively intended) pretty rapidly. Jesus' other raisings were prior to burial, which was usually done fairly quickly to avoid the smell and potential contagion.

[Edited to add: I didn't talk about Matt 27:52-53. Those were people coming out of graves, but it was associated with Jesus resurrection, so there was perhaps much more power involved, and similar to Lazarus's raising.]

And excepting Jesus's, Lazarus's raising seemed to be the only one that garnered so much attention from the religious authorities, so it stands out in terms of length of time dead.

I'm happy to talk of the nature of death and resurrection and the rapture. It's an interesting topic.

 

[Derf]

Assuming we are still talking about the Parable of the Rich Man from Luke 16, that story line doesn't maintain anything about "Paradise." I suspect that Glorydaz and Way 2 Go are maintaining that "paradise' is a subsection of Hades, but if so that is something they are laying on top of the story in an attempt to reconcile it with Luke 23:43, not something that the story itself necessarily contains nor requires.

If we are using the bible to define Paradise (rather than attempting to define it backwards to fit already-declared theology) Paul says that Paradise is "up" in the "third heaven."

2 Corinthians 12:1-4 KJV
(1) It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
(2) 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.
(3) And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; )
(4) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.


That is the reason why (if you talk long enough with folk of that persuasion) you will hear a story that Paradise is a place that moves about, as if it were one of those Recreational Vehicles that parks in the south for six months before heading back north.

This last "story" you mention is the "storyline" I was referring to. The moving around of Paradise is necessary to make the rest of the "story" consistent. Thus, in my mind, it has become a Christian myth. Not necessary proven untrue, but with little weight of scripture without the special, added, "storyline".

I think it is more reasonable to assume that Paradise has a more consistent nature, being where the "tree of life" is found in "the paradise of God" (Revelation 2:7) and of the third heaven (2 Cor 12:1-4). Further reference might be made from the "tree of life" as this is the reward of believers in Christ, within the Holy City (see Rev 2:7, 22:2, and 22:14.). I can reconcile Paradise being another name for the Holy City, but I cannot see how Holy City can be said to be a suburb of Hades or how the tree of life can be found in hell, the realm of the dead.

I agree. If "the tree of life" is a physical thing--a real tree with real leaves--it hardly seems like it would survive in a place under the earth. If it is a metaphorical thing, it hardly seems like it belongs in a place of the dead.

I am not sure that the question was aimed at me, but all men die, death and hell claim all men once (as hades is the abstract reference for that which does not currently exist but which shall be raised), but not everyone enters into eternal life and the Holy City. As such Christ's promise was indeed valuable and a far greater assurance than that man would have had right to expect without that assurance.

You've discerned my point. Christ's promise to the thief of being with Him was not a promise of being with Him while dead, was it? And if He was still dead for a couple more days, why was His promise to the thief of much consolation, being promised for "today".

 

[Derf]

way 2 go correctly addressed this. I will add that Moses and Elijah were called up for a purpose...just as Samuel was.



Resurrection applies to the body. Abraham's and Lazarus' bodies were still in the grave. Man is composed of more than just a body.....there is a spiritual aspect of man (soul and spirit) that does not sleep while awaiting the resurrection. This is why Paul says he was willing rather to be, "absent from the body and to be present with the Lord".

2 Corinthians 5:6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.​

We no longer have to wait in the place of the dead, but go immediately to be with the Lord when we put off this body of flesh. That is a promise, so we trust we will not be left naked while we wait for the resurrection of our body.

I understand this is the prevailing doctrine. I'm questioning it because of the limited scriptural evidence for it. That's why I call it a "storyline". And some of it borders on "myth", like the mobile nature of Paradise. I was glad to see [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION] reject that mobile nature of Paradise, but to do so he has to make broad appeal to Jesus' omnipresence in a way that scripture doesn't support, as far as I can tell (I'm no my way through the other posts, w2g, so I'll probably repeat this assertion in reply to yours) What parts of the storyline are faithfully supported by the word, and what parts are made up to help cram the scriptures into a preconceived notion of the afterlife before resurrection? Does it all come down to just the one story of Lazarus and the rich man to inform our doctrine of the body-less soul?

Can those scriptures that might give marginal support to this storyline be read more correctly some other way? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

 

[Derf]

Luk 23:42 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

I disagree where you say paradise is I say it is heaven where God is

God is in "paradise" or heaven the whole time, before Jesus walked the earth , during & after.

Jesus is God & God the father is God
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

so the crucified criminal went to be with God that day.

Did anyone else go to be with God that day? Was the thief the first? If you say yes, then was he there before Jesus? If Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, or in Hades for three days, was He also in heaven? you can appeal to the omnipresence of God, but does it fit scripture? I don't see it.

I think you're saying that Paradise was already in heaven, and that the souls in Hades were NOT until some point in the crucifixion/burial of Jesus. Jesus and the two thieves died before the end of the day, but not much before the end of the day. Did Jesus have time to go and preach to the souls in Hades? This part of the storyline is pretty fuzzy to me, and I'm not sure it's clear to others either. But it seems to require some fairly serious ramifications to sort out.

 

[Derf]

Abraham did not say "Lazarus would have to rise from the dead"

Abraham said they would not be convinced IF
Luk 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

You're making my point for me. If the rich man said "send Lazarus to my brothers" and Abraham said "they won't be convinced if someone should rise from the dead", then Abraham must have equated "send Lazarus" with him "rising from the dead". If you don't think the two concepts are related, then you seem to have a different understanding than did Abraham.

Moses and Elijah were in spirit form like Samuel

And you know that how? What of the gospel accounts tells you they were in spirit form? If you can't point it out to me, then it must be conjecture based on your preconceived ideas.

Jesus was the first to rise from the dead bodily

Act_26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

There is certainly something special about Jesus' resurrection that is different from others that came before, but Lazarus (the real one) definitely rose from the dead bodily--before Jesus did. As did numerous others that I've already mentioned.

And "bodily" is the only kind of resurrection the bible talks about, as far as I can tell. If you can point me to another type, I'd appreciate the reference.

 

[Jacob]

Why is it "his gospel"? Is it because his name is attached to it in your bible? It's possible that name wasn't attached to it until over a hundred years after it was written. Verse 24 of chapter 21 tells us, if we can trust the sentence structure and that the chapter is as original as the first 20 chapters, that someone else was involved somewhere, since it speaks of the testifier in the third person, and of the author of that verse in the first person:

[Jhn 21:24 KJV] This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

It's not super important for this conversation. (Some discussion here about it.)
I too wonder about when the judgment happens. In Rev 20, where two resurrections are mentioned, a judgment of sorts must take place before the first resurrection, because only a limited set of people are resurrected, and it seems to be based on how they acted when alive. The second resurrection appears to be every dead person that wasn't resurrected the first time.

I don't see why "coming back to life again" should be different from "coming back from the dead". It's a good question, despite the apparent simplicity of it. It should help us to define the two terms of "life" and "death". And I don't think "resurrection" means anything more than being raised from the dead.

[Jhn 11:23 KJV] Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
[Jhn 11:24 KJV] Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
[Jhn 11:25 KJV] Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Jesus here talks of Lazarus "rising" again. Martha thinks He is talking about the resurrection at the last day, but Jesus corrects her by saying the HE (Jesus) is the resurrection. And then He raises Lazarus from the dead.

That doesn't mean there are never qualifiers for the resurrection event--such as whether the resurrection is a permanent one or not. There is definitely an incorruptible body we will be given in that last resurrection (or at the rapture, according to 1 Cor 15:51), and I doubt that Lazarus or others raised during Jesus earthly ministry were given one of those, since Jesus was the first fruits of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:23).

Length of time one could be dead and raised again? I presume you are asking about a raising like Lazarus's. I'm sure I don't know the answer, but Jesus' and Lazarus' raisings are a little bit informative, in comparison. Lazarus was already beginning to decompose ([Jhn 11:39 KJV] Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been [dead] four days.), but Jesus' body had not ([Act 13:37 KJV] But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.)

I went through a number of the resurrection stories in the old and new testaments, and from what I saw, besides Jesus, only Lazarus was raised from the dead after more than a day or so. The raisings were all executed (pun only retrospectively intended) pretty rapidly. Jesus' other raisings were prior to burial, which was usually done fairly quickly to avoid the smell and potential contagion.

[Edited to add: I didn't talk about Matt 27:52-53. Those were people coming out of graves, but it was associated with Jesus resurrection, so there was perhaps much more power involved, and similar to Lazarus's raising.]

And excepting Jesus's, Lazarus's raising seemed to be the only one that garnered so much attention from the religious authorities, so it stands out in terms of length of time dead.

I'm happy to talk of the nature of death and resurrection and the rapture. It's an interesting topic.

I believe that the disciple being spoken of here, the disciple whom Jesus loved, is John the Apostle.

Is there not a resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked, of the just and the unjust? That is what we read about in the gospels. So are they at different times or at the same time? Are all people going to be raised from the dead, even the unbelievers?

 

[Derf]

I believe that the disciple being spoken of here, the disciple whom Jesus loved, is John the Apostle.

That's very interesting that you believe that, but how does it help you or me to know that, if we're looking for the truth in who wrote the gospel of John? What is the basis for your belief?

Is there not a resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked, of the just and the unjust? That is what we read about in the gospels. So are they at different times or at the same time? Are all people going to be raised from the dead, even the unbelievers?

According to Revelation 20 (please read the chapter), there are two resurrections, one for the people that were killed by the beast and his minions:
[Rev 20:4 KJV] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

...and one for everybody else:
[Rev 20:5 KJV] But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This {the one spoken of in vs 4} [is] the first resurrection.

The first can ONLY include unbelievers. The second might well include both believers and unbelievers, depending on how inclusive the first is of nominal believers.

These are NOT at the same time, but the second can probably have both wicked and righteous in it, since there have been righteous people throughout time that were not killed by the beast. The time between the two is 1000 years, though there have been plenty of discussions about whether such time is metaphorical or not.

Paul talks about a resurrection of the just and unjust in Act 24:15: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

But he doesn't say there are 2 resurrections, just 2 types of people involved. Daniel speaks similarly: [Dan 12:2 KJV] And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

I don't understand why the verse says "many...shall awake" instead of "all". Perhaps it's because this resurrection includes those not included in the first resurrection, so "all" would not apply.

(For [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION], Dan 12:2 seems to require a resurrection to experience "shame and everlasting contempt". Why can't those things be experienced without a body if we are fully cognizant in our spirit-life?)

 

[Jacob]

That's very interesting that you believe that, but how does it help you or me to know that, if we're looking for the truth in who wrote the gospel of John? What is the basis for your belief?


According to Revelation 20 (please read the chapter), there are two resurrections, one for the people that were killed by the beast and his minions:
[Rev 20:4 KJV] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

...and one for everybody else:
[Rev 20:5 KJV] But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This {the one spoken of in vs 4} [is] the first resurrection.

The first can ONLY include unbelievers. The second might well include both believers and unbelievers, depending on how inclusive the first is of nominal believers.

These are NOT at the same time, but the second can probably have both wicked and righteous in it, since there have been righteous people throughout time that were not killed by the beast. The time between the two is 1000 years, though there have been plenty of discussions about whether such time is metaphorical or not.

Paul talks about a resurrection of the just and unjust in Act 24:15: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

But he doesn't say there are 2 resurrections, just 2 types of people involved. Daniel speaks similarly: [Dan 12:2 KJV] And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

I don't understand why the verse says "many...shall awake" instead of "all". Perhaps it's because this resurrection includes those not included in the first resurrection, so "all" would not apply.

(For [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION], Dan 12:2 seems to require a resurrection to experience "shame and everlasting contempt". Why can't those things be experienced without a body if we are fully cognizant in our spirit-life?)

The Gospel Account bearing John's name does not identify John as the author by name, so the references such as the disciple whom Jesus loved, are likely identifying. Remember Jesus and John around the time of Jesus' death.

Are you saying that the first resurrection is unbelievers?

 

[Derf]

The Gospel Account bearing John's name does not identify John as the author by name, so the references such as the disciple whom Jesus loved, are likely identifying. Remember Jesus and John around the time of Jesus' death.

Remember what about Jesus and John around the time of Jesus' death?

Are you saying that the first resurrection is unbelievers?

No, just the opposite. The first resurrection, according Rev 20:4 is only believers, but might not be ALL believers--at least believers of some type (old testament saints, maybe??).

The second resurrection, according Rev 20:5 is every dead person that wasn't resurrected in Rev 20:4. There are some people that don't fit either category, like people that were alive at the time Christ returned. Two rather morbid examples are the beast and the false prophet, as mentioned in Rev 19:20.

 

[Jacob]

Remember what about Jesus and John around the time of Jesus' death?

No, just the opposite. The first resurrection, according Rev 20:4 is only believers, but might not be ALL believers--at least believers of some type (old testament saints, maybe??).

The second resurrection, according Rev 20:5 is every dead person that wasn't resurrected in Rev 20:4. There are some people that don't fit either category, like people that were alive at the time Christ returned. Two rather morbid examples are the beast and the false prophet, as mentioned in Rev 19:20.

I am confused by what you say about the resurrection.

As for remember what, the Passover and the Transfiguration I think.

 

[way 2 go]

That's very interesting that you believe that, but how does it help you or me to know that, if we're looking for the truth in who wrote the gospel of John? What is the basis for your belief?


According to Revelation 20 (please read the chapter), there are two resurrections, one for the people that were killed by the beast and his minions:
[Rev 20:4 KJV] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

...and one for everybody else:
[Rev 20:5 KJV] But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This {the one spoken of in vs 4} [is] the first resurrection.

The first can ONLY include unbelievers. The second might well include both believers and unbelievers, depending on how inclusive the first is of nominal believers.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

 

[way 2 go]

Did anyone else go to be with God that day?

:idunno:

Was the thief the first?

of the crucified 3 ?
Joh 19:32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him.
Joh 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

If you say yes, then was he there before Jesus?

of the 3, no

If Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, or in Hades for three days, was He also in heaven?
you can appeal to the omnipresence of God, but does it fit scripture? I don't see it.

there is one God , agree ?

Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

I think you're saying that Paradise was already in heaven, and that the souls in Hades were NOT until some point in the crucifixion/burial of Jesus. Jesus and the two thieves died before the end of the day, but not much before the end of the day. Did Jesus have time to go and preach to the souls in Hades? This part of the storyline is pretty fuzzy to me, and I'm not sure it's clear to others either. But it seems to require some fairly serious ramifications to sort out.

I believe paradise refers to heaven .

Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

the other 2 references in the bible to paradise are of heaven

2Co_12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Rev_2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

 

[way 2 go]

You're making my point for me. If the rich man said "send Lazarus to my brothers" and Abraham said "they won't be convinced if someone should rise from the dead", then Abraham must have equated "send Lazarus" with him "rising from the dead". If you don't think the two concepts are related, then you seem to have a different understanding than did Abraham.

Abraham is referring to Jesus rising from the dead in Luk 16:31 and Jesus rose bodily.

Luk 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

And you know that how? What of the gospel accounts tells you they were in spirit form? If you can't point it out to me, then it must be conjecture based on your preconceived ideas.

There is certainly something special about Jesus' resurrection that is different from others that came before, but Lazarus (the real one) definitely rose from the dead bodily--before Jesus did. As did numerous others that I've already mentioned.

And "bodily" is the only kind of resurrection the bible talks about, as far as I can tell. If you can point me to another type, I'd appreciate the reference.

1. the first resurrection has not happened

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

2. Moses and Elijah & Samuel did not continue on here after their brief visits

 

[Derf]

I am confused by what you say about the resurrection.

Which part?

As for remember what, the Passover and the Transfiguration I think.

You'll have to be more specific about "the Passover and the Transfiguration" as to why you think those pin down the author of the gospel of John.

 

[Derf]

Abraham is referring to Jesus rising from the dead in Luk 16:31 and Jesus rose bodily.

Luk 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

I don't see Jesus mentioned by Abraham at all. How do you know he is referring to Jesus, especially since the context is about Lazarus being sent to the man's brothers.

1. the first resurrection has not happened

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

2. Moses and Elijah & Samuel did not continue on here after their brief visits

I agree with both of these statements, but they don't tell us what form Moses and Elijah were in, or what kind of body (if any).

 

[Jacob]

Which part?

I am not sure.

You seem to have confused what you are saying. I do not know if you didn't already know how to answer.

You'll have to be more specific about "the Passover and the Transfiguration" as to why you think those pin down the author of the gospel of John.

Maybe not the Transfiguration, but the supper.

John 21:20 NASB - Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following [them;] the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"

John 19:26 NASB - When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"

John 20:2 NASB - So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

John 21:7 NASB - Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped [for work]), and threw himself into the sea.

 

[Derf]

I am not sure.

You seem to have confused what you are saying. I do not know if you didn't already know how to answer.

I'm not trying to be a pest, but I'm not sure how to answer your question about the resurrection unless you can tell me which part of what I said about it was confusing you when you said this:

I am confused by what you say about the resurrection.

Regarding the other topic:

Maybe not the Transfiguration, but the supper.

John 21:20 NASB - Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following [them;] the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"

John 19:26 NASB - When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"

John 20:2 NASB - So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

John 21:7 NASB - Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped [for work]), and threw himself into the sea.

So what is the name of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in any of those verses? How do we know who it was, except that we are relying on the tradition that John was the disciple whom Jesus loved. And it may be a perfectly correct tradition. But it is from tradition, nonetheless, and not from specific words in scripture that we normally think of John as the author of the Gospel of John. As I pointed out before, there are at least a few words in that last chapter that were NOT written by the apostle John, so we at least know that not all of the gospel of John was written by John the apostle.

 

[Derf]

:idunno:


of the crucified 3 ?
Joh 19:32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him.
Joh 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

of the 3, no

there is one God , agree ?

Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!



I believe paradise refers to heaven .

Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

the other 2 references in the bible to paradise are of heaven

2Co_12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Rev_2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Then I think you are interpreting the passage about the thief in Paradise in heaven based on your understanding of the trinity, and not based on actual scripture. Jesus told Mary, after He was resurrected, that He had not yet ascended to the Father. So if the thief was already in heaven that day, he made it there before Jesus did--at least according to Jesus. But this is in conflict with Jesus' statement that the thief would be in Paradise WITH JESUS "today" (the day they both died), if you assume Paradise is in heaven with God at the time of their deaths. To make such statements, you have to say Jesus was only partially telling the thief the truth when He said He would be in Paradise with the thief, or only partially telling Mary the truth when He said He had not yet ascended.

Can you see why I say that?