@Bobbyaf,
I think you're the one doing that just about now.
Doing what exactly?
Not exactly if you take the time to read properly. The scriptures don't show that the word heart is the mind definitively , but I am saying that there is no doubt that the word heart means the mind.
That's where your confusion becomes perennial. If the Scriptures don't show that both are the same,
you definitely want to apply a cultic approach of forcing
your own thoughts into Scripture. And if you read carefully, you will not miss the distinction that is made between either faculties of man.
Its always easy to look at scripture and take it at face value,
Which is what you often do.
but its another matter to understand that different writers used different styles of writing, and in this case heart and mind were used interchangably, and metaphorically to emphasise something. Most bible writers used that approach.
I offered you texts from
different writers to show precisely that they did
not use either word interchangably or metaphorically:
Mark 12:30;
Matthew 22:37 and
Luke 10:27. Besides, they were writing SCRIPTURE - God's inspired Word; and penning down what the Lord Jesus said, rather than their own thoughts. The Lord Himself did not use those words interchangably.
Your point about the heart being the seat of our emotions and affections is no doubt correct, but what is also correct is that those attributes could only have found their origin in the mind.
You're only concretely establishing my convictions and nullifying yours: you can't it both ways, as Scripture does not teach that affections and emotions
originate from the mind. I earlier made the point that one's intelligence and emotions are not the same.
I didn't say they were. You're saying it. I simply asked you where do our emotions and affections come from if not from the mind.
Same wrong assumptions, which I never expressed.
Dogs and cats show emotions and affection must we say that these come from their hearts too?
Until you can establish from Scripture that dogs and cats are supposed to express the very same emotions and affections in divine issues as man does.
So in other words you don't have a bias. Good for you! Let me ask you again where do thoughts come from if not the mind?
As long as we're discussing
Biblical issues, I don't believe my points are biased (see again 1 Tim. 5:21). And your question having been re-arranged does not take away from my earlier point.
Of course they do. They offer us a bias towards the truth. Being biased goes both ways. We can either be biased towards the truth, or a lie. So if I prefer the truth above a lie then my being bias is a wonderful thing.
Even though you prefer to cleverly wiggle your bias, you haven't demonstrated a firm grasp of "truth". Your bias is often the direct opposite of what Scripture affirms, and that is what is called
eisegesis - the very thing that God's Word expressly forbids (2 Pet. 1:20). Is your cultic bias still a 'wonderful' thing?
So according to you those who die in the Lord go to heaven leaving their bodies on earth.
It's not surprising you have a difficulty with that. So, according to you, where do they go?
Sorry this text has nothing to do with the point under discussion, and neither is it teaching that error either.
It has everything to do with the topic being discussed as long as
you beat your own assertions into it. If it is an 'error' to you, please expound on it.
Be careful lest you read Paul's writings unto your own damnnation.
You're neither Paul nor his personal elocutionist. You should rather be taking your own advice.
Don't isolate a passage just to prove a point, and especially if you don't understand what the writer is trying to say. The better approach to take as I have always suggested, is to use the weight of evidence of multiple passages to throw substance for or against a topic.
And after all that rhetoric, what do you interpret 2 Cor. 5:8 to mean? Making noise against
your trademark style of isolating passages to prove your point hasn't helped you the wiser, has it?
Are you saying that light is paradise? Do better than that Stimulus. Right now you're not stimulating.
Where did I say that, Bobbyaf? Are you again trying to pretend your
eisegesis into my post? And thanks for your usual cultic slobber, as if you did not know that "Bobbyaf" is a term for a British policeman who forgot his brains in Afghanistan .
The bible speaks of a place where God dwells. It also speaks of a time when that place will be brought down to earth in which both God and man will live together. Listena s John speaks cleary:
John 14:1-3, 1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
Okay, mr 'Bobbyaf', where in John 14:1-3 did Jesus mention 'clearly' the word
paradise? And did you read in that verse the same thing you supposed - 'that place will be brought down to earth'? Or is that another one of your 'wonderful' cultic bias?
Christ didn't say that when they died they would go to this beautiful place to dwell with Him. He simply said that when He should come again He would take them to be with Him there. This can only happen after they tak epart in the first resurrection, and not before.
Maybe He didn't say what you suppose; and should we therefore discredit the entire NT that teach it so?
What did Stephen mean when he prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit' (Acts 7:59)?
What did Paul mean in 2 Cor. 5: 6 & 8 - 'Therefore we are always confident, knowing that,
whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord. . .We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be
absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord'?
Does the above correlate or not with Phil. 1:23 - 'For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire
to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better'?
If
you die before the Lord comes, Bobbyaf, where will
you be?
Your use of a text which shows no definitive statement about paradise is very lame if you ask me.
I didn't ask you; rather it's the other way round. And your own
eisegesis is simply spider webs as you've been desperately quoting texts that have no bearing on your assertions.
What makes it even worse is that you're trying to prove what doesn't exist.
Oh thanks. So,
paradise doesn't exist? Hee-haw!
Please come back with another 'wonderful bias!'
In other words the bible doesn't teach that people go straight to paradise when they die, and it certainly did not mean for the thief to have been an exception either. The only exceptions I am aware of is Moses who spoke to Christ and was seen on the mount by Peter, James, and John.
Ah, there. You anticipated me on the mention of Moses (Luke 9:31). Your problem, however, is that cultists characteristically make 'exceptions' where truth confronts them.
That said, what do you say about the same situation without exception as in Matt. 27:52-53?
'And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.'
Paul didn't qualify what he meant anyway as to whether such a person was dead so your use of this text wouldn't count. Since this text isn't addressing one who dies and goes to heaven right away as you're trying so hard to fit into scripture, it must be talking about something else then.
Your miscalculated dribble, Bobbyaf. The point of referencing 2 Cor. 12:2-4 was to show that '
Scripture distinguishes between the various spheres of "heaven", and not your new device of qualifying whether or not someone who dies goes to heaven right away.
Paul simply had a vision, and when people have visions it feels as if their bodies are transported to where their minds go.
Paul was not speaking
merely about a vision in that text. He used the word 'revelations' also (vs. 1); and in verse 3 he did not assume your assertions.
The same happened to Ezekiel when the Spirit held him by his hair and carried him to the temple to see the pagan practises that was conducted by God's people. Ezekiel never moved an inch from his verandah.
And by Ezek. 8:3 you suppose that your rule applies in
all cases. There are incidences well documented in Scripture to show that people were literally transported away from one place to another by the Spirit of God:
'And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee,
that the Spirit of the LORD shall carry thee whither I know not; and so when I come and tell Ahab, and
he cannot find thee, he shall slay me: but I thy servant fear the LORD from my youth.' 1 Kings 18:12. (see also 2 Kings 2:16)
'And when they were come up out of the water,
the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.' Acts 8:39-40.
Even the same Ezekiel you claimed
'never moved an inch from his verandah' actually was literally transported by the Spirit of the Lord to different places. He was first 'in the land of the Chaldeans by the river of
Chebar' (ch. 1:3); and when the Spirit lifted him up and took him away, he came 'to them of the captivity at
Telabib' (ch. 3:14-15). Was he still within the inch of his verandah?
I would agree that there are different spheres of heaven.
Good then.
The first heaven is the atmospheric, the second is the stary heavens, where we find all those beautiful galaxies. David said that such a heaven declares the glory of God. The third heaven is where God dwells. Its His control tower from which He sees the entire universe. Paul saw lots of things but he was not permitted to speak about those things, and that is why he used the words "not lawful, "
If the
third heavens is
'the control tower from which He sees the entire universe', where in Scripture did you read your assertion that the same place shall be brought down to earth? Reminder:
'The bible speaks of a place where God dwells. It also speaks of a time when that place will be brought down to earth in which both God and man will live together'
Could you kindly clear up your cacophony between these two assertions?
My reason for saying its Paul is based on what he said in other writings. Listen: Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." 1 Corinthians 2:9.
I don't remember arguing against the person being Paul; nor does 1 Cor. 2:9 necessarily establish your previous argument.
Thanks for supporting my point with such a wonderful passage. See my explanation above.
You didn't make the point earlier; and I'd just offered that text to clear up your confusion.
Well, now that you know what paradise really means I figure my words still stand.
Have you actually explicated the meaning of paradise?
Jesus didn't put those confusing punctuation marks where we happen to see them today. It is these nuances that are causing people to not take the bible seriously. Roman catholic scholars so-called placed those marks to buttress their already erroneous views about what happened to good people when they died.
Neither did Jesus suggest your own confusing punctuation marks where you happen to see them. For the very same reason as you accuse others, you've been propounding your already erroneous views with your nuances.
And why should there be a question about the place? There is no issue with that at all. The issue lies with whether or not generally, people, and more specifically the repentant thief, go to paradise when they die in the Lord. I say no to that teaching.
You really don't need to sweat it - you're not the one who decides otherwise where the repentant thief or others go when they die in the Lord. the Scriptures are clear on that; and it really doesn't matter if you shout 'NO' a thousand times.
You mean the use of vague ones that have no relevance to the topic?
The same ones you have been running away from and foaming in the mouth about.
You lost me there!
No bother; I didn't expect you'd get the gist of your confusion.
You mean scroll to your vague use of passages?
You couldn't do better than your cheap and weathered foibles, could you?
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Poll
Author
