I Have a Question About Hell and Eternity

OK Bob, think I understand what you are saying. Can you confirm that the following is a restatement of your position in different words:

1. We know from Jesus' statement in John 20 that Jesus had not yet returned to the Father on the actual day He was crucified - 3 days after crucifixion, He states that He has not yet returned to the Father.

2. We therefore know that Jesus' statement to the thief could not have been meant to suggest that the thief would in "paradise" on the very day of the crucifixion.

3. Since we know the thief died on the day he was crucified, we can be sure that he (the thief) did not go straight from the cross to a state of conscious existence in Paradise.

I find this to be a very powerful argument indeed. However, how would your respond to the objection that "Paradise" is a different place from "where the Father is" - remembering that Jesus said (in the NASB) that he had not yet ascended to the Father and did not explicitly refer to "Paradise" by name?

If this objection could be made to stick, your specific argument, at least as I understand it, would not work.

I know that some Christians believe that there is "good" part of Sheol called "Paradise" and it is not where "the Father is" - He is in heaven (a different place from "Paradise"). I see no Biblical evidence for this myself, but there it is.

Having said all this, even if the objection had some plausibility, and I suspect that it does not, could you not appeal to the familiar argument that the proper reading is:

"I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise"

rather than

"I tell you that you will be with me in Paradise today"

By the way, do you share my objection that the person who believes that the redeemed go straight to a state of conscious bliss after death will have a very hard time explaining the following from Paul:

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him."

How can one be "made alive" at Christ's return if one is already in a state of bliss - isn't that about "as good as it gets"?

 

Andre:

As good as it gets....without a body. Made alive at Christ's return is referring to the resurrection, when we get new, alive and eternal bodies.

 

The problem with this is that I just don't see how being "made alive" can reasonably be seen as "getting a body to wrap around an already fully conscious thinking soul". Once one commits to this body-soul distinction (without any scriptural basis that I can see), one should honour what one has committed to.

The "immortal soul" is the seat of all consciousness and thought, right? It certainly would seem to be if we take the Luke 16 account as literal -there are sense experiences, thoughts, conversation etc that Lazarus and the rich man participate in.

If these are not the fundamental elements of living, I do not know what is. And yet you assert that these central elements of living are already present long before Christ returns and therefore before we are "made alive".

If one is willing to say that a statement that we are to be "made alive" means that an already fully alive soul is merely wrapped in a flesh covering, then that is your right. I would just ask the reader if that is in any sense in keeping with the nominal sense of what it means to be made alive.

However, such extreme changes to the nominal (literal) sense of words are common by those who believe in eternal torment and the immortal soul. Consider 1 Corinthians 15:6

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep

To make this text work with the view that a state of conscious thinking awareness is entered immediately at death, one has to make "asleep" mean precisely the opposite of what it nominally means.

Similarly, to make "The wages of sin is death" work with this same view, "death" has to be be re-defined to be equated to a state of fully conscious awareness and thinking. These are the central elements of life, not death.

 

Agreed.

However I am also making the case that "the context of the question" in Luke 23 is such that it is speaking of the future 2nd coming even "WHEN you come into your Kingdom" as explicitly stated by the Thief. Christ's answer is still in that same future context.

I think it fits perfectly. Paradise is only mentioned in 2 places outside of this brief reference in Luke. in scripture. 2Cor 12 and Rev 2. We are told that Paradise is where the Tree of Life is -- and the Tree of Life is where the Throne of God is (In Rev 2 and in Rev 22)..

So the fact that Christ had not yet ascended to the Father by the time of His resurrection means he could not already have gone to paradise.

Agreed.

Yes - but my solution is to simply remove the punctuation entirely JUST as it is removed in the Greek.

"Verily I say to you today YOU SHALL be with Me in Paradise"

That points out that the "YOU SHALL" is a reference to a FUTURE time. My argument is that it is the SAME future time that was set as the context for the question being answered -- namely "WHEN you COME into your KINGDOM" -- the 2nd coming.

Good argument.

But even more devastating is the argument Christ makes ABOUT THE DEAD - in Matt 22 "God is NOT the God of the dead" is Christ's argument.

That can only be true if the dead are in the state described in 1Thess 4 (ASLEEP).

In Christ,

Bob

 

True "WE" are MADE ALIVE at that point.

IN scripture it is the PERSON that is "MADE ALIVE" not "a person's finger".

Notice that in scripture the PERSON is DEAD (as in John 11) or the PERSON is "asleep" as in John 11 and 1Thess 4 "THOSE who HAVE fallen asleep".

It is not the body that is MADE alive - but the PERSON. The BODY may not be the same body at all. The RCC teaching was that it MUST be the same body so that burning the body would defeat God's ability to RAISE the PERSON.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You seem desperate to extricate yourself from the pit that you dug for yourself and then fell into.

Christ did not write EITHER the book of Matthew OR the book of JUDE - but GOD is the SOURCE of BOTH OF THEM via the statement in 2Tim 3:16.

You can not twist and turn your way out of that.

Matthew's source is GOD and so is JUDE - and you can not DIVIDE God to the point of "YES but Jude is not being inspired by Christ".

Your argument simply dies before it gets started so you resort to your predictible tactic of ad hominem attacks as soon as your argument dies out. You are nothing if not consistent in that tactic. How sad.

Indeed Christ IS Quoted in Matt 4 -- but more than this -- Matthew is writing many years AFTER the resurrection of Christ JUST as Jude is.. BOTH of them are writing by inspiration from GOD - and CHRIST IS God. Christ HIMSELF argues in John 16 that those who are hearing the Words of God the Holy Spirit are in fact hearing the Words of Christ HIMSELF!

It is the SAME source of inspiration for BOTH Jude and Matthew.

It is the SAME teaching on Everlasting fire from BOTH Jude and Matthew.

Your ploy of trying to eisegete Matthew out of context with Jude simply is not workin sir.

It is too bad that this is so blatantly obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is more SDA soul sleep stuff. It's not Biblical doctrine.

When our body dies, our spirit/soul goes to be with the Lord.

Philippians
21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 *For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. 24 Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.


2 Corinthians 5
8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

 

Bob are you afraid to be caught in your own lies.
Here is your original quote:

The "lie" in the quote above is that Christ did not say anything in the Book of Jude, as contrasted in the Book of Matthew, chapter 25. If you want more simplistic proof go to your red-letter edition and you will find the words of Jesus in red in Mat.25:41, but you won't find any red-lettered words in the Book of Jude. It is that easy Bob. Yet you would have others here to believe otherwise.
You want others to believe that Christ "explains in the book of Jude."
He doesn't. He doesn't say a thing in the Book of Jude. Jude is the author of the Book of Jude, just as Satan is the author of the statement "ye shall be as gods," though it was recorded by Moses. The author of the statement still belongs to Satan, not Christ, not Moses. You need to study what the doctrine of inspiration is all about. You have a great misunderstanding there.

Christ did not write the words of Jude; Jude did. Why are you trying to take away from the words of Jude. It was Jude that wrote out his intention:

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Christ never said anything of the like. That was not his mission, his purpose. This was the purpose of Jude--to exhort others "to earnestly contend for the faith." These are not the words of Christ; they are the words of Jude. Why are you perverting the Scriptures?

Furthermore, I have already done a detailed study on the Book of Jude, posted much of it on BB for you, and demonstrated to you that it is only people (as in the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorroh) that face eternal destruction or eternal punishment, not cities or things. So your argument is still defeated.

 

I say to you that today you will be in paradise with me, is what Jesus said, and meant. Jesus meant and said this day, of salvation. In fact in that day all the saved went into eternal life through and in Jesus Christ. They would never see death; no one would ever pluck any of them from His hand; their life, hid in Christ in God, on that day had begun.
Completed salvation. Jesus told the thief on the cross today I have finished the work of God - even your redemption; I have obtained for you.

The poor Arminians just are not able to grasp it. They think it is a question about eternal life, while actually it is a matter of eternal salvation.

Then, Andre, Jesus was "raised in the glory of the Father"; "God riased Christ from the dead"; He was quickened again by the power of the Holy Spirit; He took up His own life again in capacity of the Son in the perfect interrelationship of the Trinity.

So, on Resurrection Day, God the Father descended, and so did the Holy Spirit, upon Jesus, who, rose up from the dead. There, and, then, "from the grave", from death, and from the dead, "In the Sabbath's full daylight", Mt28:1.

The following day, the First Day of the week, Jesus had not yet ascended to His Father 'in heaven'.

What could you protest?

 

Andre:

"a state of fully conscious awareness and thinking"

GE:

when we are dead in the grave, it cannot be found in us; only in Christ in God, who never forgets His own; the Protector of Israel does not sleep nor slumber ... we do.

 

Andre:

"...consciousness and thought ... sense experiences, thoughts, conversation etc .... If these are not the fundamental elements of living, I do not know what is..."

GE:

In fact they all are "elements of living" --- mortal lives. They are not though the 'fundamental elements' of LIFE that is the Gift of God.

 

In fact, all mortals possess these 'elements of living' -- both saved and lost.
Yet it is only the saved that receive the 'fundamental element' of Life eternal - by grace through faith. The lost do not have nor have received it. There is this 'fundamental' difference. Jesus does not promise life to the wicked.

 

All mortals possess these elements of living; only the saved receive the 'fundamental' element of life which is the grace of God.

 

When I point out the SLEEP mentioned by God in John 11 and in 1Thess 4 and in 1Cor 15 and in 1Cor 11 and in...

You COULD just respond by bashing mean ol' SDAs who bring up those texts and claim that THAT part of scripture is "unbiblical".

But if you DID do that - I would point out the obvious flaw in reason and logic that would choose such a path.

Eccl 12 says that in the case of mankind - when we die the spirit goes back to God who gave it.

That is the part many agree on.

Paul identifies 3 states for mankind in 2Cor 5.

#1. CLOTHED in this decaying body
#2. UNCLOTHED
#4. CLOTHED in our heavenly immortal etenal body when death is swallowed up by life as ALREADY described by Paul in 1Cor 15 regarding the resurrection of the dead.

To LEAVE this body -- AND to GAIN that immortal eternal body at the 1Cor 15 resurrection of the dead is the focus. The INTERMEDIATE state of being "unclothed" with NO body is the one that Paul says we do NOT seek.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK you are caught in your own lies.
Here is the original quote:

Here is your totally bogus response

Go to your red letter edition and LOOK at John 16:8-14 and SEE that Christ said that when the Holy Spirit SPEAKs HE speaks the words OF CHRIST!

GO to 2 Tim 3:16 and SEE that ALL scripture is given by inspiration from GOD

GO to John 1:1-2 and SEE that "Christ IS GOD".

GO to Matt 25 and SEE that CHRIST is NOT the WRITER of the book of Matthew (written a few decades after the cross) NOR the WRITER of the book of Jude written a few decades after the cross. Though he is NOT the writer of EITHER book he is the AUTHOR by divine inspiration for BOTH write via the Holy Spirit and the WORDS of Christ are what have been given to BOTH writers.

You can not deny these obvious facts so you seem to content yourself with digging deeper into that hole you fell in - but it is TIME to throw away the shovel sir.

Why make me repeatedly state the obvious in this discussion?

I know you blundered into arguing that we should ignore Jude on the topic of Everlasting Fire and just pay attention to Christ AS IF "ALL scripture IS NOT inspired by the SAME GOD" -- but digging that hole faster and with more fury does not solve your problem DHK.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Like I explained Bob, you need to do an independent study on "what is inspiration?" so I don't have to explain it all to you here on BB, on a thread here which is devoted to another topic. You have this warped idea that just because all the Bible is inspired (which is true), that it all becomes the words of Jesus. That is wrong. It does not. It becomes accurately recorded as God wanted it written without any error whatsoever, infallible, without error, but saying exactly what God intended it to say. In other words the words of Satan remain the words of Satan, not the words of God.
Do you dare attribute the words of Satan to the words of Christ? How could you? And yet they are inspired Scripture. Every word is inspired. The words of Satan are Satan's words, and the words of Jude are Jude's words, and yet both are inspired. Christ is not the author of either one. It is that simple. Don't try to wiggle out of your lie.

 

I have difficulty following your point here. What I (and Bob I presume) are disputing is the specific claim that on Good Friday the thief entered conscious bliss in "paradise". Such a claim would seem to have to be false for the following reasons:

1. From John 20, we know that Jesus had not risen to the Father. This claim by Jesus is made well after Good Friday

2. Paradise almost certainly is identified with "where God is" in texts such as 2 Cor 12 and Revelation 2:

3. Therefore, the thief could not have been with Jesus in Paradise on Good Friday as many claim - he could not have with Jesus in Paradise on Good Friday since we know Jesus had been there as of several days later.

Now, if I understand you properly, this is not your claim at all and you suggest that Arminians are mistakenly reading his statement to the thief as a statement about eternal life when it is in fact a statement about completing the salvation work of God. Fine.

But you claim the following in your post in respect to Good Friday (my bolding):

"In fact in that day all the saved went into eternal life through and in Jesus Christ"

So you are saying that the thief is in conscious bliss on Good Friday, unless by "eternal life" you mean something other that does not entail conscious life in God's presence. But if you do mean that eternal life does not entail this conscious existence in the presence of God, how is your post relevant to the matter at issue, which I undertand to be whether the thief was in conscious bliss on Good Friday.

Did you mean to say: "In fact in that day all the saved achieved eternal salvation (but not did not yet attain conscious existence in God's presence) through and in Jesus Christ

How can the thief be in heaven on Good Friday if Jesus said to him "you will be with me today in Paradise" given that Jesus says several days later that He has not yet risen to the Father. So assuming that you agree that Paradise is where God is, how can your assertion be correct?

It seems that you are arguung that it is eternal salvation that is achieved on Good Friday and not the initiation of eternal life. You attribute the Arminians with getting this backwards. Yet you slip in a claim that the thief also gets to be in Heaven on Good Friday.

I am quite confused, can you please clarify your position?

 

RA,

So... just wondering. The thread has gone on for 26 pages now. Did you get what you asked for?

CA

 

The moment that the thief on the cross closed his eyes in death, he opened them in Paradise with Christ.

Christ promised the thief 'This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise'. If Christ said it would happen, it happened just as He said.

If the thief was not with Christ that very day, then that makes Christ a liar and casts doubt on His Word.

The question of whether the thief went to Paradise that very day or not should not even arise in the Child of God's heart. I know there is no doubt in my heart that the thief opened his eyes in Paradise with the Savior immediately after his spirit left his body.

For, 'to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord'.

 

Indeed, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Does this mean a factually immediate transition from physical death to being in the Lord's presence? No it does not. For us as subjects of experience, we indeed experience an immediate transition to the Lord's presence. But the overall Scriptural picture is one where the dead sleep in the grave until a point in the future. So if Fred dies today and is raised from his sleep in 1000 years, it is indeed true that, for Fred, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

I know some will object that this is game-playing and that if Jesus said "today you will be with me in Paradise", we should take it literally. Well that would contradict a litany of Scriptural teachings. Besides, has anyone really shown conclusively that the original Greek did not support the following reading: "I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise". The placement of the comma changes the 'literal' meaning profoundly.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that such a reading can be ruled out and that indeed Jesus' statement is of the form: "Later today, you and I will be together in Paradise". Some of you will no doubt think my argument that Jesus is speaking from a "phenomenological" or "what it will seem like from the thief's perspective" is an unjustified move since Jesus does not make such a qualification, He simply states "today you will be with me in Paradise".

The problem with such "I see's 'em as I reads 'em" interpretation is that it backfires badly on the "hell is eternal" position.

Take Romans 6:23:

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Does Paul say that the wages of sin is an infinite stay in hell? No, he says it is death. To use HBSMN's phraseology: To believe that Paul does not really mean death is to make Paul a liar and cast doubt on the Word of God. So if "today" means "this very day", which is the normal reading of "today", then "death" means "cessation of all aspects of living, including conscoiusness, thought, etc" - which is the normal reading of "death".

Does Paul say that the wages of sin is death for a physical body with the understanding that a soul lives on in torment? He makes no such qualification to this effect. But you will counter that we know from the rest of the Scriptures that the human person has a soul that lives on once the body dies. Even if such an argument were true (and I think it is false), one cannot ask for such an unstated qualification to be brought to bear on the Romans 6:23 and not allow the John 20 text inform one's interepretation of Jesus' statement to thief. In John 20, Jesus claims to not yet gone to Paradise, a statement, which if allowed to qualify the statement to the thief, rules out the possibility that Jesus was speaking in a "today means this very day" sense.

One needs to be consistent about these things.