₦airaland Forum

Hey Dual Core, I wanna apologize for being caustic earlier on. Can we let bygones be gone?

seeklove:
The above is really very weird. So God can reveal Himself as the devil? So he can appear to someone as Hitler? He can appear as Nero, or momy-water?

Do you people think enough about what you write before you write it. Religious fanaticism is bad.

This argument is rather moot, seeklove. Are you telling me that the God you serve is limited in expression? Why did you have to choose those options: Hitler, Lucifer, An aqua-marine spirit? Is that the limit of your own imagination?

If I say that gases can take the shape of any container, does it make sense to start asking me if it can take the shape of a basket, knowing fully well that it is not an enclosed container?

Anyway, scratch that. My point is that these things are spiritual, and by the way, if God appeared to you in His TRUE form (which is irrational, seeing that he is not a physical entity, there is no such TRUE form), would you recognize him? Do you think he would, in that wise, be in form of a human being? If you think so, that is what is really senseless and weird!

@M_nwankwo: I apologize if there has been any misrepresentation. I said "adherents of the Grail Message" (I have interacted with some of them that quote this verse, all the way from high school till date) and not "the Grail Message". I hope you understand me. If Viaro, Nuclearboy and Mavenbox are Christians with weird beliefs and I say "some Christians" have been seen to believe so so and so, I think I am not in the wrong in that wise. Cheers.

@Viaro: thanks bro. How you dey?

@DeepSight: Bros I can't apologize enough o (off-topic).

Wow. Great topic, even more lovely discussion! Thanks, people, for shedding so much light!

Viaro and DeepSight, please permit me to join your discourse on the Bible and Reincarnation:

1. If Reincarnation was true, then definitely Jesus Christ would be the reincarnation of someone or the other. There are two options: either the person lived in sin, or the person was also sinless. We can remove the second option because there was no such person. The first option is that the initial person re-incarnated as Jesus would have lived in sin. If this is so, then that means Jesus' life was a result of the karma associated with that person's sin, is that not so? Then that would mean that Jesus' death was to pay for his own sins in his past life: which the Gospel everywhere else in the Bible rejects entirely e.g. John 3:14-15 and Heb 4:15.

Joh 3:14  And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert [on a pole], so must [so it is necessary that] the Son of Man be lifted up [on the cross], [Num. 21:9.]
Joh 3:15  In order that everyone who believes in Him [who cleaves to Him, trusts Him, and relies on Him] may not perish, but have eternal life and [actually] live forever!

Heb 4:15  For we do not have a High Priest Who is unable to understand and sympathize and have a shared feeling with our weaknesses and infirmities and liability to the assaults of temptation, but One Who has been tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sinning.

His death was not to pay for his own sins or past sins, not in any way.

===========================================================================

2. About Elijah and John the Baptist, I hope these verses help to clear the air:

Mal 4:5  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. [Matt. 11:14; 17:10-13.]
Mal 4:6  And he shall turn and reconcile the hearts of the [estranged] fathers to the [ungodly] children, and the hearts of the [rebellious] children to [the piety of] their fathers [a reconciliation produced by repentance of the ungodly], lest I come and smite the land with a curse and a ban of utter destruction. [Luke 1:17.]

Isa 40:3  A voice of one who cries: Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord [clear away the obstacles]; make straight and smooth in the desert a highway for our God! [Mark 1:3.]

Luk 1:17  And he will [himself] go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn back the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient and incredulous and unpersuadable to the wisdom of the upright [which is the knowledge and holy love of the will of God]--in order to make ready for the Lord a people [perfectly] prepared [in spirit, adjusted and disposed and placed in the right moral state]. [Isa. 40:3; Mal. 4:5, 6.]

Mal 4:5,6 may best be interpreted in the light of Isa 40:3 and Luke 1:17, and it will be seen that John the Baptist was to have the manner, "voice" and undaunted fortitude of Elijah. Remember that the Jews had a clear distinction between the soul (nephesh: the vitality of life) and the spirit (pneuma: blast / breeze / mental disposition). Luke 1:17 mentions spirit and not soul. John was not in the soul of Elijah, but in the spirit of Elijah. That's like saying "team spirit" i.e. they were birds of a feather.

For the sake of clarity, the same word for Elijah's "spirit" used in Luke 1:17 is translated "wind" in John 3:8
Joh 3:8  You know well enough how the wind blows this way and that. You hear it rustling through the trees, but you have no idea where it comes from or where it's headed next. That's the way it is with everyone 'born from above' by the wind of God, the Spirit of God."

This is a clear indication of the wind's "attitude" and "perspective" and not it's origins (as in fact, the verse says you have no idea where it comes from or where it's headed next). Since it describes attitude and not origins, it is clear that John's attitude will be likened to  Elijah, and at least not his origin.

John had the same spiritual mission as the prophet Elijah, but not the same soul or self.

===============================================================================

3. More on Elijah and John the Baptist. According to the classic theory of reincarnation, a person has to die physically first in order that his self may be reincarnated in another body. In the case of Elijah this didn’t happen, as God ferried him away from the earth. How could he then have reincarnated? Think about it.

===============================================================================

4. Jesus' teaching to Nicodemus heavily debunks reincarnation, as well. Read closely:

Joh 3:3  Jesus said, "You're absolutely right. Take it from me: Unless a person is born from above, it's not possible to see what I'm pointing to--to God's kingdom."
Joh 3:4  "How can anyone," said Nicodemus, "be born who has already been born and grown up? You can't re-enter your mother's womb and be born again. What are you saying with this 'born-from-above' talk?"
Joh 3:5  Jesus said, "You're not listening. Let me say it again. Unless a person submits to this original creation--the 'wind hovering over the water' creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life--it's not possible to enter God's kingdom.
Joh 3:6  When you look at a baby, it's just that: a body you can look at and touch. But the person who takes shape within is formed by something you can't see and touch--the Spirit--and becomes a living spirit.
Joh 3:7  "So don't be so surprised when I tell you that you have to be 'born from above'--out of this world, so to speak.

Even Nicodemus said that one cannot surely be physically birthed again, having been born before. And Jesus replied that he wasn't listening, that the re-birth was something that happens on the insides, and never a physical one.

===============================================================================

5. Another common argument for reincarnation, popularized by adherents of the Grail Message, is in Rev 3:12

Rev 3:12  Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

And from the boldened lines, the Grail Message claim that it suggests that the norm, that is the usual expectation, is to go out repeatedly i.e. re-incarnate. This repeated going out stops only for those who have overcome, have conquered all sins, have passed the Last Judgment, have gained full spiritual maturity.   

But that is not what the scripture is talking about! The "going out" refers to "missing out" or "losing positional grip" in the temple of God!!

Jesus had already said about this church in Philadelphia in Rev 3:8, that they had "little strength" and yet they had the courage to keep His Word. To encourage them, He promised them an open door that no man could shut; that means things would line up to facilitate their tiny efforts. This would "distinguish" their faith and God's love for them as genuine (Rev 3:9), and when the hour of temptation comes (which would of necessity have the tendency to make some people "go out" or "fall away" or "lose grip", Jesus would also keep them as safe as they are keeping his Word in patience. He concludes by asking them to hold fast to what they have to avoid being deprived: and THAT is when he says WHOEVER overcomes will be made a permanent PILLAR and will not be able to go out anymore. I will quote from the AMPLIFIED and MESSAGE versions for clarification.

Rev 3:12  "I'll make each conqueror a pillar in the sanctuary of my God, a permanent position of honor. Then I'll write names on you, the pillars: the Name of my God, the Name of God's City--the new Jerusalem coming down out of Heaven--and my new Name.  (MSG)

Rev 3:12  He who overcomes (is victorious), I will make him a pillar in the sanctuary of My God; he shall never be put out of it or go out of it, and I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which descends from My God out of heaven, and My own new name. [Isa. 62:2; Ezek. 48:35.] (AMP)

God speaks to man in a way that he can understand. He is not physically tangible, but he can reveal himself to any one who so desires in anyway he so desires; the same way mazaje can choose the words with which he wants to convey his expression. If the girl says that is how she saw God, I cannot tell maybe she is lying or she speaks the truth. This is because the way God reveals himself to her (or not) is her business, and God's business. And if she is lying, how does that affect my own faith? Even if someone says God appeared to him in the form of a black man, how does it affect my salvation?

One thing that non-Christians never realize is that walking with God is a personal thing. As Jesus asked Peter when he wasn't minding his business but trying to evaluate another person's revelational walk with God, "Wetin konsain you?"

Joh 21:22 Jesus said to him, If I want him to stay (survive, live) until I come, what is that to you? [What concern is it of yours?] You follow Me!

@mazaje: What concern is it of yours? Whether he appears to someone as a Red Indian, Fulani or as an Eskimo, how exactly does that concern you?

Reading in context,

Luk 6:27  "To you who are ready for the truth, I say this: Love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst.
Luk 6:28  When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer for that person.
Luk 6:29  If someone slaps you in the face, stand there and take it. If someone grabs your shirt, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it.
Luk 6:30  If someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more t'it-for-tat stuff. Live generously.
Luk 6:31  "Here is a simple rule of thumb for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you; then grab the initiative and do it for them!
Luk 6:32  If you only love the lovable, do you expect a pat on the back? Run-of-the-mill sinners do that.
Luk 6:33  If you only help those who help you, do you expect a medal? Garden-variety sinners do that.
Luk 6:34  If you only give for what you hope to get out of it, do you think that's charity? The stingiest of pawnbrokers does that.
Luk 6:35  "I tell you, love your enemies. Help and give without expecting a return. You'll never--I promise--regret it. Live out this God-created identity the way our Father lives toward us, generously and graciously, even when we're at our worst.

Which plainly teaches a pacifist approach to life. But does that mean we should get ourselves beaten up by an assaulter, murdered in vain or let a robber take everything we possess? That is taking things too far, because Jesus was teaching moral principles here, and not legal ones. The robber, assaulter or murderer is a criminal, and he will face the consequences of his actions;

Ecc 10:8  He who digs a pit [for others] will fall into it, and whoever breaks through a fence or a [stone] wall, a serpent will bite him. [Ps. 57:6.]

Since the Christian lives in the society, the societal protection rules against criminals will also hold for the Christian. I believe Jesus was discussing moral values with respect to conflict resolution here, and not how to deal with criminals, or asking us to go out looking for trouble.

As for the military, isn't the military also under the control of the society in which the Christian lives? Does the military stand on its own? Is it not a JOB for which the guy is paid? I believe soldiers that are Christians should follow their superiors and cleanly - or brutally if necessary - execute their nation's enemy when necessary. Therein lies their loyalty. It's simple business ethics, and not a personal ethic. If that same military guy goes around wasting others, besides as instructed in war, he has long stepped out of line.

So, what is the expected overall conduct of the Christian?

Mat 10:16  Behold, I am sending you out like sheep in the midst of wolves; be wary and wise as serpents, and be innocent (harmless, guileless, and without falsity) as doves. [Gen. 3:1.]

[size=13pt]Mat 10:16  "Stay alert. This is hazardous work I'm assigning you. You're going to be like sheep running through a wolf pack, so don't call attention to yourselves. Be as cunning as a snake, inoffensive as a dove. [/size]

^^^ Haba!? Me, Aunty? I'm a very young person o!! I apologize for flaring up, I really dislike being misrepresented. God bless you.

@mazaje: I'm certain you know that there are tombs of other prominent people all over the world that have not yet been found (e.g. due to ruins, collapses and conquests), as well, and future excavations can bring them all to light?

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

I have supplied you with credible arguments and you have dismissed them summarily. I urge you to (in secret, you do not need to report back here) consider what respected anti-Christian authorities have to say about the missing tomb. You will be amazed that it is not a debated matter in intelligent circles.

But if you want to continue your tussle with Olaadegbu, be my his guest. After all, pretending to know what you have no idea about is the lifeblood of atheism.

I'm outta here.

@nuclearboy: Yes sir, you are absolutely correct. LOL. I guess I was too hasty to agree with Ndipe because I thought I just saw something new in the scriptures (new as in from another light). The verses concerned are (AMPLIFIED Bible):

Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, On the other hand, it is written also, You shall not tempt, test thoroughly, or try exceedingly the Lord your God. [Deut. 6:16.]

Deu 6:16 You shall not tempt and try the Lord your God as you tempted and tried Him in Massah. [Exod. 17:7.]

Exo 17:7 He called the place Massah [proof] and Meribah [contention] because of the faultfinding of the Israelites and because they tempted and tried the patience of the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us or not?

Which indicates that the "as you tempted and tried him in Massah" is related to the "proving that he is God and will do as he promised" that the Israelites did at Massah. In this case, the "onus of the proof" is upon the Father, so he is the one who the "tempting the Lord your God" refers to. Besides, in the Hebrew Deut 6:16, the LORD there is capitalized (and not Lord). It's definitely the Father.

@bee444: Thanks for the clarification on the temptation experience of Christ!

Quote by KunleOshob:

Maven i am suprised that despite all your knowledge and exposure you could make this kind of statement. The problem is that most christians are just tooo closed minded when they read the bible and when something doesn't seem right they try and force other meanings into it. The issue of paradise being in hades is just a case of simple mis-interpretation of the bible. Hades is wrongly translated to mean hell were as in the ancient texts it was written in, it meant "land of the dead" or "grave" so when the bible says Jesus was in "hades" it has nothing to do with paradise or hell, it simply meant he was in a grave. I am also aware that this wrong translation as been the cos of several wrong teachings and doctrines especially amongst IKT preachers like A$$himolowo and crook Oyakhilome. A simple use of a bible concordance and they would have avoided this error. Yet the twarts claim that the "holy spirit" talks to them, i wonder why the holy spirit didn't tell them t stop preaching heresies based on wrong translations of the bible.

@KunleOshob: Sincerely, I must say that it is YOU that surprises me. In my experience, lawyers have been known to make attempts to quote people out of context, and the onus would lie on the observer to consider the initial conversation from which the particular quote was referenced! I am entirely amazed to see you jumping to conclusions when you know a LAWYER is involved and I'm not the lawyer.

The thread is also my current signature, so you can see how the discussion started from the matters of salvation.

[size=13pt]So, tell me sir, DID YOU READ THE DISCUSSION?[/size] Of course you didn't because if you did you would see that

[b]1. I already said there that Hades was a weak translation for the grave, as the ancient Hebrew words insinuated that if you keep climbing upwards and out of the atmosphere, you will proceed into the "heavens" and if you dig deep subterraneously, you will enter Hades. I made it very clear on that thread that there are physical and spiritual aspects of places like Hades, where a spiritual entity causes a physical experience called death and/or the grave. I made it clear that "spiritual locations" are not places that can be described by compass bearings.

2. My point, which has been graciously distorted in Deep Sight's post above, had to do with the story of Lazarus viz a viz how Jesus said that "Today you would be with me in Paradise" to the thief on the cross.

3. The conversation had to do with the person of Christ, who said that no one else had entered into Heaven (the presence of the Father) except him who came down from there, while Deep Sight was arguing that the ancient prophets before Christ were in heaven (rendering Christ's coming as of no effect), and going on to discuss Elijah and co.[/b]

Caveat Emptor: You should KNOW that I don't talk to people on Nairaland the same way. Yourself, Viaro, Deep Sight, Ogaga4luv, The_Seeker, Mazaje, Image123, JeSoul, Olaadegbu ALL hold various worldviews and the way I discuss the matters with each person is different. If I were discussing with YOU, for instance, I believe you understand the sacrifice of Christ (or maybe I am assuming wrong there too?) so I won't bother explaining how Christ had to lead captivity captive when he swallowed up death (a.k.a Hades) and proceeded to heaven.

It would do you a lot of good to read the initial discussion thread in its entirety if you have the time, and post your views there IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED THERE rather than jumping to a billion fragmented conclusions on another thread.

P.S> By the way, if you have a problem with Oyakhilome or Ashimolowo, I suggest you take it up with them. Screaming their names at every instance - the way you do - will solve nothing. I don't attend either church (or any other you may probably have in mind) by the way, in case you are wondering. I just don't believe in talking about people in a negative way behind their backs. Where's your courage, sir? 

Deep Sight! Deeeeep Sight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wetin be this wan?

Did I say Paradise is IN hades, or did I say that prior to Christ's ressurection, paradise was in Hades?

No put words for my mouth, na beg I dey beg you.

Lord_Reed:
In your search did u read 1 Thess. 4:13-5:10?

No, sir. The only place the OP checked was the hollow space between his own ears.

davidylan:
Sigh . . . what is new really?

[size=18pt]the typical mindset at work here is simply this - [/size]

My idea of "god" is one that creates a paradise on earth for everyone regardless of whether we believe he exists or agree to follow his commandments. Anything outside this equates him to be a monstrous entity.

[size=18pt]i.e. bad things happen = God is bad.[/size]

There is no point having wasting my energy.

By a strange instance of a weird eye disease, the big red characters rendered by Davidylan, and the introductory and successive purple characters, are not obvious to a bigoted reader who does not want to see them. Only the green characters are seen in such a case.

@Davidylan: You're right. It's a daft thread, anyway. I'm out.

haba, people free the tdopsforum guy na. He was honest and sincere, although he was honestly and sincerely wrong . I guess he was trying to help, but it's him that may need some help first. I always try to look at the heart behind posts, and not the posts per-say

@Olaadegbu: No mind me abeg, bros. LOL. I don forget again!

@mazaje: You can read this credible article by Dr William Lane Craig. Dr. William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.

This excerpt is from http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html and it contains authentic proof of the historicity of Jesus' Empty Tomb.

If you are really asking for the truth, and not just out to make jokes, read the excerpt or read the full gist at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

The article is replete with relevant references. Cheers.

Having examined the testimony of Paul and the gospels concerning the empty tomb of Jesus, what is the evidence in favor of its historicity?

1. Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb. Few facts could be more certain than that Paul at least believed in the empty tomb. But the question now presses, how is it historically possible for the apostle Paul to have presupposed so confidently the empty tomb of Jesus if in fact the tomb were not empty? Paul was in Jerusalem six years after the events themselves. The tomb must have been empty by then. But more than that, Peter, James, and the other Christians in Jerusalem with whom Paul spoke must have also accepted that the tomb was found empty at the resurrection. It would have been impossible for the resurrection faith to survive in face of a tomb containing the corpse of Jesus. The disciples could not have adhered to the resurrection; even if they had, scarcely any one would have believed them; and their Jewish opponents could have exposed the whole affair as a poor joke by displaying the body of Jesus. Moreover, all this aside, had the tomb not been empty, then Christian theology would have taken an entirely different route than it did, trying to explain how resurrection could still be possible, though the body remained in the grave. But neither Christian theology nor apologetics ever had to face such a problem. It seems inconceivable that Pauline theology concerning the bodily resurrection could have taken the direction that it did had the tomb not been empty from the start. But furthermore, we have observed that the 'he was raised' in the formula corresponds to the empty tomb periocope in the gospels, the egegertai mirroring the egerthe. This makes it likely that the empty tomb tradition stands behind the third element of the formula, just as the burial tradition stands behind the second. Two conclusions follow. First, the tradition that the tomb was found empty must be reliable. For time was insufficient for legend to accrue, and the presence of the women witnesses in the Urgemeinde would prevent it. Second, Paul no doubt knew the tradition of the empty tomb and thus lends his testimony to its reliability. If the discovery of the empty tomb is not historical then it seems virtually inexplicable how both Paul and the early formula could accept it.

2. The presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity. The empty tomb story was part of, perhaps the close of, the pre-Markan passion story. According to Pesch,{79} geographical references, personal names, and the use of Galilee as a horizon all point to Jerusalem as the fount of the pre-Markan passion story. As to its age, Paul's Last Supper tradition (I Cor 11. 23-25) presupposes the pre-Markan passion account; therefore, the latter must have originated in the first years of existence of the Jerusalem Urgemeinde. Confirmation of this is found in the fact that the pre-Markan passion story speaks of the 'high priest' without using his name (14. 53, 54, 60, 61, 63). This implies (nearly necessitates, according to Pesch) that Caiaphas was still the high priest when the pre-Markan passion story was being told, since then there would be no need to mention his name. Since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18-37, the terminus ante quem for the origin of the tradition is A.D. 37. Now if this is the case, then any attempt to construe the empty tomb account as an unhistorical legend is doomed to failure. It is astounding that Pesch himself can try to convince us that the pre-Markan empty tomb story is a fusion of three Gattungen from the history of religions: door-opening miracles, epiphany stories, and stories of seeking but not finding persons who have been raised from the dead!{80} On the contrary: given the age (even if not as old as Pesch argues) and the vicinity of origin of the pre-Markan passion story, it seems more plausible to regard the empty tomb story as substantially accurate historically.

3. The use of 'the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition. The tradition of the discovery of the empty tomb must be very old and very primitive because it lacks altogether the third day motif prominent in the kerygma, which is itself extremely old, as evident by its appearance in I Cor 15. 4. If the empty tomb narrative were a late and legendary account, then it could hardly have avoided being cast in the prominent, ancient, and accepted third day motif.{81} This can only mean that the empty tomb tradition ante-dates the third day motif itself. Again, the proximity of the tradition to the events themselves makes it idle to regard the empty tomb as a legend. It makes it highly probable that on the first day of the week the tomb was indeed found empty.

4. The nature of the narrative itself is theologically unadorned and nonapologetic. The resurrection is not described, and we have noted the lack of later theological motifs that a late legend might be expected to contain. This suggests the account is primitive and factual, even if dramatization occurs in the role of the angel. Very often contemporary theologians urge that the empty tomb is not a historical proof for the resurrection because for the disciples it was in itself ambiguous and not a proof. But that is precisely why the empty tomb story is today so credible: because it was not an apologetic device of early Christians; it was, as Wilckens nicely puts it, 'a trophy of God's victory'. {82} The very fact that they saw in it no proof ensures that the narrative is substantially uncolored by apologetic motifs and in its primitive form.

5. The discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable. Given the low status of women in Jewish society and their lack of qualification to serve as legal witnesses,{83} the most plausible explanation, in light of the gospels' conviction that the disciples were in Jerusalem over the weekend, why women and not the male disciples were made discoverers of the empty tomb is that the women were in fact the ones who made this discovery. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that there is no reason why the later Christian church should wish to humiliate its leaders by having them hiding in cowardice in Jerusalem, while the women boldly carry out their last devotions to Jesus' body, unless this were in fact the truth. Their motive of anointing the body by pouring oils over it is entirely plausible; indeed, its apparent conflict with Mk 14. 8 makes it historically probable that this was the reason why the women went to the tomb. Furthermore, the listing of the women's names again precludes unhistorical legend at the story's core, for these persons were known in the Urgemeinde and so could not be associated with a false account.

6. The investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable. Behind the fourth gospel stands the Beloved Disciple, whose reminiscences fill out the traditions employed. The visit of the disciples to the empty tomb is therefore attested not only in tradition but by this disciple. His testimony has therefore the same first hand character as Paul's and ought to be accepted as equally reliable. The historicity of the disciples' visit is also made likely by the plausibility of the denial of Peter tradition, for if he was in Jerusalem, then having heard the women's report he would quite likely check it out. The inherent implausibility of and absence of any evidence for the disciples' flight to Galilee render it highly likely that they were in Jerusalem, which fact makes the visit to the tomb also likely.

7. It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty. The empty tomb is a sine qua non of the resurrection. The notion that Jesus rose from the dead with a new body while his old body lay in the grave is a purely modern conception. Jewish mentality would never have accepted a division of two bodies, one in the tomb and one in the risen life.{84} When therefore the disciples began to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, and people responded, and the religious authorities stood helplessly by, the tomb must have been empty. The fact that the Christian fellowship, founded on belief in Jesus' resurrection, could come into existence and flourish in the very city where he was executed and buried seems to be compelling evidence for the historicity of the empty tomb.

8. The Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. From Matthew's story of the guard at the tomb (Mt. 27. 62-66; 28. 11-15), which was aimed at refuting the widespread Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen Jesus' body, we know that the disciples' Jewish opponents did not deny that Jesus' tomb was empty. When the disciples began to preach that Jesus was risen, the Jews responded with the charge that the disciples had taken away his body, to which the Christians retorted that the guard would have prevented any such theft. The Jews then asserted that the guard had fallen asleep and that the disciples stole the body while the guard slept. The Christian answer was that the Jews had bribed the guard to say this, and so the controversy stood at the time of Matthew's writing. The whole polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Mahoney's objection, that the Matthaean narrative presupposes only the preaching of the resurrection, and that the Jews argued as they did only because it would have been 'colorless' to say the tomb was unknown or lost, fails to perceive the true force of the argument.{85} The point is that the Jews did not respond to the preaching of the resurrection by pointing to the tomb of Jesus or exhibiting his corpse, but entangled themselves in a hopeless series of absurdities trying to explain away his empty tomb. The fact that the enemies of Christianity felt obliged to explain away the empty tomb by the theft hypothesis shows not only that the tomb was known (confirmation of the burial story), but that it was empty. (Oddly enough, Mahoney contradicts himself when he later asserts that it was more promising for the Jews to make fools of the disciples through the gardener-misplaced-the-body theory than to make them clever hoaxers through the theft hypothesis.{86} So it was not apparently the fear of being 'colorless' that induced the Jewish authorities to resort to the desperate expedient of the theft hypothesis.) The proclamation 'He is risen from the dead' (Mt. 27. 64) prompted the Jews to respond, 'His disciples , stole him away' (Mt. 28. 13). Why? The most probable answer is that they could not deny that his tomb was empty and had to come up with an alternative explanation. So they said the disciples stole the body, and from there the polemic began. Even the gardener hypothesis is an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. The fact that the Jewish polemic never denied that Jesus' tomb was empty, but only tried to explain it away is compelling evidence that the tomb was in fact empty.

Taken together these eight considerations furnish powerful evidence that the tomb of Jesus was actually found empty on Sunday morning by a small group of his women followers. As a plain historical fact this seems to be amply attested. As Van Daalen has remarked, it is extremely difficult to object to the fact of the empty tomb on historical grounds; most objectors do so on the basis of theological or philosophical considerations.{87} But these, of course, cannot change historical fact. And, interestingly, more and more New Testament scholars seem to be realizing this fact; for today, many, if not most, exegetes would defend the historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus, and their number continues to increase.{88}

^^^ Image123: Yes sir! Tell 'em!!!

@Ndipe: Wow! Thanks, that was spot-on and straight to the point!!

Viaro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL This viaro guy has never ceased to impress me, even when we disagree on a topic (though I confess I am not usually glad to debate him when I'm on the wrong side of his convictions)! You take a topic and like a log of wood you tear it apart to shreds, giving no room for weevils to hide! I throway salute o!

@Viaro: To confess, when I saw Deepsight's article, I was like "here's another of those articles written by misinformed christian bible-discussants in a bid to spread confusion and pollute the gospel with oriental myths and religions" and I refrained from responding because I knew you would return to do a good job. I couldn't have done that better, I guess!

@Davidylan: Thanks, bro. Sorry I just returned to NL. Chai! Is this kinda chaos what happens in just 12 hours?

@DeepSight: Let me start by telling you that I do not believe Lazarus and Dives' story was a parable. Parables are similitudes and they do not contain the names of real people. I believe it was a real event that Jesus either observed in pre-incarnate form or was revealed to him as it occurred in the spiritual.

I hope we can all finally see the disastrous effects of contriving explanations for

insupportable dogma.

Deep Sight, you keep screaming "dogma". Last time I checked, dogma is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof, and so far there is nothing I have not proven to you from the scriptures. My last post before this, to viaro and nuclearboy, involved some logical speculation. You can call THAT dogma, but you can't tell me that what the Bible clearly says about hades is dogma.

Before I proceed, I think you need to open those eyes and really have some Deep Sight.

Do you think spiritual places are, in description, like physical places? Let me assure you that it's not for fun that spiritual concepts like Hades, Death, etc are personalized entities. They are spiritual beings that INFLUENCE those experiences in the physical. I sincerely believe that Heaven is the very ambient holy presence of God's dwelling, it's not a physical "location" in outer space. We can't describe spiritual places with a compass like we would for physical places.

Also, when you read a part of the scriptures about heaven and hell, think pre-sin, pre-resurrection and post-resurrection. Those were three different phases!

Maven I hope you can see yourself the shocking inference in what you have written – namely that before the fall of man, ADAM AND EVE WERE IN THE LAND OF THE DEAD – HADES.

Happy now?

You have stated very clearly that they were with the Tree of Life in Paradise. You have

also stated that that paradise was located in the land of the Dead – Hades!

Thus Adam and Eve – supposedly blessed by God with eternal life – were actually in the

land of the dead. Unspeakable contradictions everywhere.

This does not add up. Adam and Eve were in a perfect paradise called Eden, in which were two trees in the center (of life, and of knowledge of evil and good). When they sinned, they inadvertently handed over the reigns to the devil and were cast out of
Eden. They handed over to the devil, because he is called the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4) and also he had the effrontery to offer all the habitable worlds to Jesus in temptation, saying they had been given unto him. It would not have been a temptation if the devil was lying.

Luk 4:5 Then the devil took Him up to a high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the habitable world in a moment of time [in the twinkling of an eye].
Luk 4:6 And he said to Him, To You I will give all this power and authority and their glory (all their magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, and grace), for it has been turned over to me, and I give it to whomever I will.

Isn't it clear that THEY WERE NOT YET IN THE LAND OF THE DEAD? There was even no such influence as "death" until they disobeyed God.

Let’s say you attempt another somersault as doubtless you will – and state that as at

that time there was no death, so Hades did not exist. This will only give you the

greater headache of telling us at what point Paradise moved into and took up residence

within Hades – after it might have come into existence! ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ?

Give it up Maven. It’s looking downright comical.

Again, I repeat, these are spiritual locations, and you can't discuss them like real estate. God never needs to physically move anything anywhere, a simple instruction can change the INFLUENCE over a place from an overwhelming "hell" influence and translate it into his glorious presence in Heaven.

Hell is a personal experience. Heaven is also a personal experience. (That's why lazarus and Dives could be in the same plane and face various conditions) They are also spiritual locations, because spiritual locations are spiritual experiences.

The Adamic sin brought corruption into the creation he was meant to lord over, and if you really must pursue a discussion on "locations", let's go ahead.

See what Genesis says about Eden:
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight or to be desired--good (suitable, pleasant) for food; the tree of life also in the center of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of [the difference between]
good and evil and blessing and calamity. [Rev. 2:7; 22:14, 19.]

Making it clear that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were in the same plane.

Rev 22:2 Through the middle of the broadway of the city; also, on either side of the river was the tree of life with its twelve varieties of fruit, yielding each month its fresh crop; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing and the restoration of the nations. [Gen. 2:9.]

Rev 22:14 Blessed (happy and to be envied) are those who cleanse their garments, that they may have the authority and right to [approach] the tree of life and to enter through the gates into the city. [Gen. 2:9; 3:22, 24.]
Rev 22:15 [But] without are the dogs and those who practice sorceries (magic arts) and impurity [the lewd, adulterers] and the murderers and idolaters and everyone who loves and deals in falsehood (untruth, error, deception, cheating).

When one cleanses their garments, and "approaches" the tree of life, then they can enter the gates into the city of God. But WITHOUT (outside the gates) are the sinners.

Does this make room for the "compass direction" you are seeking?

Good grief. Did you actually write this? Maven aside from selling insupportable dogma,

you have now moved into the business of rich imagination! “Paradise” was moved from

Hades to Heaven? ? ?

What sort of spin is this ? ? ?

Okay, now you ask me when paradise moved back to heaven?

Read these verses with an open mind (I know you may want to skip them. Do read them):

First, a summary of God's plans and purposes in making Christ a "gambit pawn":


Heb 2:10 For it was an act worthy [of God] and fitting [to the divine nature] that He, for Whose sake and by Whom all things have their existence, in bringing many sons into glory, should make the Pioneer of their salvation perfect [should bring to maturity the human experience necessary to be perfectly equipped for His office as High Priest] through suffering.
Heb 2:11 For both He Who sanctifies [making men holy] and those who are sanctified all have one [Father]. For this reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren;
Heb 2:12 For He says, I will declare Your [the Father's] name to My brethren; in the midst of the [worshiping] congregation I will sing hymns of praise to You. [Ps. 22:22.]
Heb 2:13 And again He says, My trust and assured reliance and confident hope shall be fixed in Him. And yet again, Here I am, I and the children whom God has given Me. [Isa. 8:17, 18.]
Heb 2:14 Since, therefore, [these His] children share in flesh and blood [in the physical nature of human beings], He [Himself] in a similar manner partook of the same [nature], that by [going through] death He might bring to nought and make of no effect him who had the power of death--that is, the devil--
Heb 2:15 And also that He might deliver and completely set free all those who through the [haunting] fear of death were held in bondage throughout the whole course of their lives.
Heb 2:16 For, as we all know, He [Christ] did not take hold of angels [the fallen angels, to give them a helping and delivering hand], but He did take hold of [the fallen] descendants of Abraham [to reach out to them a helping and delivering hand]. [Isa. 41:8, 9.]
Heb 2:17 So it is evident that it was essential that He be made like His brethren in every respect, in order that He might become a merciful (sympathetic) and faithful High Priest in the things related to God, to make atonement and propitiation for the people's sins.
Heb 2:18 For because He Himself [in His humanity] has suffered in being tempted (tested and tried), He is able [immediately] to run to the cry of (assist, relieve) those who are being tempted and tested and tried [and who therefore are being exposed to suffering].

In a divine strategy, God made a gambit out of Christ. Christ DIED and went to the place of the dead, Hades, where the devil, who has the power of death, reigns. When there, He conquered the devil and make a shame of him so as to cause the influence of paradise to be translated from darkness to light, so to speak.

Mar 3:27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

But let's not forget that Christ told the thief on the cross that
Luk 23:43 And He answered him, Truly I tell you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.

Which is interesting. THIS VERY DAY, i.e. when Christ died, he went to paradise. But the Bible clearly tells us that he went to Hell (Hades), the state of departed spirits. The next verse confirms that indeed he went to Hades.

Act 2:27 For You will not abandon my soul, leaving it helpless in Hades (the state of departed spirits), nor let Your Holy One know decay or see destruction [of the body after death].

[size=13pt]WHICH PROVES THAT THE PARADISE HE WENT TO, WAS IN HADES.[/size]

What makes it so hard to understand? The Israelites prospered in Goshen when there was severe contagious epidemic, power outage and all sorts of calamities it never got through to them. If Goshen was in a plagued Egypt, why can't the temporary paradise be in Hades as the Bible says?

I just got some inspiration while typing this. Do you know that Moses was a type of Christ? The Israelites were in Goshen, but God had better plans for them, and he brought them out of the Goshen (in itself a kind of paradise with respect to the plagued Egypt) into His promise. The same way God sent Jesus to break the devil's back in hell, God sent Moses to break Pharaoh's back in Egypt. Think about it for one minute before you resume reading.

I continue my description:

And truly, God did not abandon Christ's soul there or allow the body to start decaying. He vanquished them all, seized their power and led them in procession, which procession included the "booty" of hell: paradise that had been "swallowed up" in hell because of the power of death over the righteous dead saints

Eph 4:8 Therefore it is said, When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive [He led a train of vanquished foes] and He bestowed gifts on men. [Ps. 68:18.]

Rev 1:18 And the Ever-living One [I am living in the eternity of the eternities]. I died, but see, I am alive forevermore; and I possess the keys of death and Hades (the realm of the dead).

He was now totally in control, which was WHY he could say, post-ressurection:

Mat 28:18 Jesus approached and, breaking the silence, said to them, All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

He had swallowed up the entity of death (administrator of hell) in victory. Do you understand now?

1Co 15:54 And when this perishable puts on the imperishable and this that was capable of dying puts on freedom from death, then shall be fulfilled the Scripture that says, Death is swallowed up (utterly vanquished forever) in and unto victory. [Isa. 25:8.]
1Co 15:55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? [Hos. 13:14.]
1Co 15:56 Now sin is the sting of death, and sin exercises its power [upon the soul] through [the abuse of] the Law.
1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God, Who gives us the victory [making us conquerors] through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Never forget that hell in itself, being an influence, is a kingdom, with its own rulership. Jesus seized control of the place, and having control of the place, he was able to separate the wheat from the tares.

Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

LET THEM GROW TOGETHER FIRST.

And that is something I have been learning since yesterday: the spiritual world is timeless, although it relates to the time-bound physical. I believe creation (existentiality) waits for the end of time, when all the Sons of God will be gathered back to him. That "event" is on "hold" for time, so Abraham and co will not (either) proceed into that "fullness" of Heaven until they are made perfect together with us (Heb 11:40) in that timeless event. The "great judgment" will be carried out in that timeless event. Those who died 1000 years ago, and those who died today and those who will die in 100 years time, will all be simultaneously present at that timeless event; we will blend together like a jigsaw puzzle to feature as Sons of God. THAT is why Paradise still exists, but no longer in the place of Death. Paradise is now in the place of life, and it is still a holding-place for the saints, till the earnest expectations of existentiality for our fulfillment comes to pass.

Rom 8:19 For [even the whole] creation (all nature) waits expectantly and longs earnestly for God's sons to be made known [waits for the revealing, the disclosing of their sonship].

Before you quickly reject everything I have said because of your head knowledge, you may want to read it again. If you are not convinced, I will take a cue from M_Nwankwo and say "Even if you disagree with me, stay blessed".

There's only so much that is written in the Bible that will "prove" details word for word, spiritual things cannot always be explained physically, flesh and blood may not always reveal spiritual truth. You need to have some Deep Sight, though not yours but that of the Holy Spirit.

Job 32:8 But there is [a vital force] a spirit [of intelligence] in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives men understanding. [Prov. 2:6.]

I rest my case.

Regards,

Maven Ibidun [surname redacted].

LOL davidylan! It sounds like stuff for a pagan sacrifice!!

@Jesoul: Crate of eggs, kerosine, egusi. . . maybe the kerosine will be used to boil the eggs and prepare egusi with solid eba for the pastors to eat. LOL

@OP: Why do you want to be confirmed? Hasn't the Holy Spirit confirmed you already?

LMAO. This thread has become a comedy zone , thanks to the comment flow as started by Tudor!!

LOL! Image123!! I no sabi say you get jokes like this!!!

Thread resurrected! 

@everyone: Sorry for being a spoilsport earlier on the thread, I was new to NL and I kinda knew nothing about how things run here.

@Viaro: Now I know you much better, so I can testify better for or against you.

So, who is still wondering: Is Viaro Pilgrim.1? Is Viaro Mavenbox?

Other suggestions of Multiple Personality are welcome into the mix, so we can deal with them on new threads! LWKM. . . 

I also miss Noetic!

Okay, now I may be flogging a dead horse but something just occurred to me. Viaro and NuclearBoy, what do you guys think?

It just occurred to me that time is not of consequence in the heavens. It's earth that is time-bound.

That is why the timeless God gave promises to men like Abraham, calling things that be not as though they were. And that is why someone like Abraham can rejoice to see Christ's day, even though the Jews wondered since Christ was not even 50 years old yet (only a VERY old person would have been alive in Abraham's day, for a wizened old Abraham to rejoice to see his day. They were thinking in the time-bound 3-Dimensional world).

Rom 4:17  (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

God called the things that were not-yet as though they had happened; importing the future into the past!

Joh 8:56  Your forefather Abraham was extremely happy at the hope and prospect of seeing My day (My incarnation); and he did see it and was delighted. [Heb. 11:13.]
Joh 8:57  Then the Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM. [Exod. 3:14.]

And I guess that's where the answer to Deep Sight's questions about all those that died without the opportunity of hearing Christ MAY fall. I said MAY because it is a "speculation" (I'm never afraid to have spiritual exercises of this sort, unlike those who are afraid to question what they believe in). Here goes:

I sincerely believe that when those ones die, they will get to that timeless place where Christ will, once again, have risen and will be found preaching the Gospel; which they will, once more, have the opportunity to believe or to reject. This will only apply to those who never heard the gospel and those who never humanly understood it (e.g. someone, a Buddhist who lived in an exclusive cave all his life, on a death-bed, hardly conscious, never heard the Gospel, and is being frantically preached to by one of Deep Sight's contemporaries  and the dying Buddhist dies anyway without getting the gist). It will not apply to those who have already rejected the Gospel, just like Dives (the rich man in the Lazarus / Abraham's bosom story) did not have another chance.


Luk 16:31  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Which shows that these guys (Dives and his 5 brothers) KNEW what God required of them, but they chose not to listen. They REJECTED the "Law and the Prophets", (of whom many had also prophesied of Christ as well, from Moses to John the Baptist, they did). So, rejecting the prophets meant they would have no other chance. The equivalence in the New Testament is that they would not be given another chance having rejected the Gospel of Christ.

Mat 21:28  What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He came to the first and said, Son, go and work today in the vineyard.
Mat 21:29  And he answered, I will not; but afterward he changed his mind and went.
Mat 21:30  Then the man came to the second and said the same [thing]. And he replied, I will [go], sir; but he did not go.
Mat 21:31  Which of the two did the will of the father? They replied, The first one. Jesus said to them, Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the harlots will get into the kingdom of heaven before you.

And so, someone may ask, of what use is it to preach the Gospel to others since they will still hear it from Christ? First, you can never tell who has ever heard the gospel and has rejected it or did not understand it, and may need a refresher. Secondly, it is love that constrains us: love for God, love for God's intents, love for mankind. We want them to benefit from the abundant life that Christ came to give (John 10:10), there is no need letting them live wretched and confused lives without ever hearing of Christ BECAUSE we believe they will still have that FIRST CHANCE of hearing the Gospel when they die.

Is someone screaming HERESY! yet?     

And that's what I sincerely believe as at now. Once again, just like my beliefs about the actual events and personas in Eden, I must say that I am not forcing this down anyone's throat. It's my personal insight, and I just wanted to share it in case someone else has further light to shed on it.

Thanks,

Maven. 

Chai!

LOl see me see cross-thread wahala o!! All my above references to bee444 and to chess with respect to Nuclearboy and DeepSight were transferred from another thread (Is Jesus God?)! LOL I must have lost the breadcrumbs trail a little bit there! Apologies, everyone.

@Nuclear boy: Sorry I missed your question. YES, club, school (I was on the college team) and tournament levels of chess. But I'm definitely not a "master", I am just an advanced intuitive player.

@Deep Sight: I apologize that my post seemed hurried, it was getting late and I had to go home. I am a slow typer, you see.

Edit: Look what I found by Tertullian, first Latin literature writer and one of the foremost Christian apologists! It is interesting that I diagree with a number of his teachings but He kind of agrees with me that Hades is compartmentalized into the place of comfort and the place of torment. I quote from chapter 7 on this page: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0310.htm

Therefore, whatever amount of punishment or refreshment the soul tastes in Hades, in its prison or lodging, in the fire or in Abraham's bosom, it gives proof thereby of its own corporeality.

@Viaro!!! I salute o. I agree with you totally, your mode of expression is remarkable. Yes, there is a different word for "sky" and one for "heaven" and I agree with that. When I said "sky" above i meant somewhere "in the atmosphere and beyond" i.e. ionosphere, stratosphere, in the realms of the solar system, whatever. I don't mean sky as in where the clouds are, I guess. BUT that is what shachaq means? The place where the "clouds" are? (check a concordance to be sure) 'Cos I really don't think the ancient Hebrew had words for the planetary bodies and their spaces, besides "heaven", "sky", "firmament", "stars", "moon", "sun". Which is why I laugh at all those that claim the Bible is wrong when it describes extraterrestrial activities using these words. e.g. calling a planet a "star" is not so wrong judging by the available words because they are both celestial bodies visible from earth at night, and the gaseous and/or solid structures are not readily distinguishable.

By the way, all this talk about celestial bodies reminds me of yet another place, which kind of backs up my belief about the place that Elijah went to, or any of the other references to "heaven" that shâmayim  /  shâmeh refers to in the OT Hebrew:

Isa 47:13  Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.

The word "astrologers" above is hâbar shâmayim meaning "those who observe the heavens". It is way beyond the skies, so I can thus conclude that Elijah was probably the first man in outer space.  All hail Elijah, the first astronaut!

Deep Sight:
Quote from Mavenbox -

I am sorry to say Maven, but you are being deeply fraudulent with this post.

Unfortunately for you; i do have an exhaustive Bible concordance right in my personal library here in my bedroom.

I have reached for it: and it emerges that the hebrew word "shamayim" which you cited is the word used for "heaven" EVERYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTATAMENT.

Thus you fail in your attempt to make it appear as though in that specific instance only, the writer was referring to the physical heavens - the clouds.

Go back to your concordance and you will see the reference number H8064 (from your quote i believe we are using the same concordance - Strong's?) - is the same referrence number for ALL references to "heaven" in the Old Testament. Accordingly it is clear that you cannot single out one verse and insist that it refers only to the physical heavens when the same word is the very word used to refer to the spiritual heavens in the Old Testament.

Thus your statement that he did not enter heaven is nothing but your own speculation without an ounce of proof. For me: it is clear that he did rise to a spiritiual "heaven" in the context of that verse for at least two reasons: (1) - What was the need for the "Chariot of fire and horses of fire" if he was merely going into the physical heavens? (2) - He was NEVER seen again. Accordingly he had departed the physical world in that instant.

Take time o.

Unfortunately, in the OT they did not distinguish between Heaven and heaven. The latter is like HEAVENS as used in English, the previous is the abode of God. But it takes discernment to see which one is which.

Just like the word used for the grave is the same one used for hell, the place of the dead; then the same word used for the skies is the same one used for HEAVEN; the place of God. The feeble attempts in Hebrew to make a distinction is seen in, for example,

1Ki 8:27  But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? (see also 2 Chr 2:6, Neh 9:6)

Psa 115:16  The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

We all know that languages evolve, and so did Hebrew evolve after Christ. So there was no such distinction before Christ. In the feeble Hebrew language before Christ, one who proceeds from the atmosphere outwards is "entering into heaven" and the one who descends into the subterranean to its extents has gone into "hell"

Amo 9:2  Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:
Psa 139:8  If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Job 11:8  It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?

I have reached for it: and it emerges that the hebrew word "shamayim" which you cited is the word used for "heaven" EVERYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTATAMENT.

Did you really reach for it? Cos to be politically correct, it's you that is wrong, DeepSight. There are four words for heaven in the OT, and they are shâmayim  /  shâmeh (the one with Elijah), shâmayin (used whenever God of heaven, God in heaven, voice from heaven, etc is mentioned, it is the one that we would translate as "the heavens" today ) and minnêy shâmayim (meaning a sector of the "heavens", this is the one used in Isa 14:12 to describe Lucifer's fall. The last one is galgal in Psalm 77:18

Psa 77:18  The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.

So it's you that's wrong, technically speaking, bro.

By the way, for example,

Psa 113:6  Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!

God "humbles himself" to see things in heaven (shâmayim  /  shâmeh), which means it's the atmospheric heavens. He is not "humbling himself" to see where he "lives"!

Deep Sight:
So there are parks and gardens in hades?

Maven, why are you selling such obviously contrived falsities just to satiate your dogma?

I positively challenge to you produce a single biblical authority for the assertion that paradise is in hades.

This is blatantly false and contrived.

I back up my assertion with the fact that the word “paradise” used by Jesus in reference to the thief on the cross in the concordance refers to a park or garden and is specifically stated to be indicative of a “future place of happiness.” Check the Greek!

FURTHERMORE, AND MOST DAMNING FOR YOU: THIS SAME WORD IS THE WORD USED IN REV 2;7 IN REFERENCE TO THE ETERNAL PARADISE OF GOD WHERE THE TREE OF LIFE RESIDES!

MAVEN IS THE TREE OF LIFE IN HADES? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You seem to have forgotten that Rev 2"7 happend post-resurrection. i.e. after Jesus rose. It's simple: the garden of Eden is where the tree of life is, it is the "paradise", which is the "garden / park" as I previously observed. I once said I believe that this garden is not made up of herbacious green trees, so it is not as such, a PARK. Herein is the limitation of human words. This garden is the place of paradise where Adam and Eve were before the fall, and to that same place did the righteous OT saints go, referred to as the Bosom of Abraham. Now, when Christ died, he went to the place of the dead, he preached to them and then he conquered death and hell but did not destroy them, rather he won over their keys, meaning that he now had authority over what goes on in there. He could decide who stays in hell or who moves on to heaven (Rev 1:18). This makes it clear that after preaching to them, he separated them by their imputed righteousness in Christ in God. The "paradise" place was relocated to heaven, it was no longer a place in "hell". Can you show me ONE place in the OT that talks about paradise? No! Because it made no difference, it was all "Sheoul" to them, the place of the dead. They were all in detention. But in Christ's lifetime, they were relocated to heaven, as many as were ought to be. The tree of life will definitely be relocated along with the entire paradise project.

If you yet do not understand, I will need to return to explain. Cheers.

@nuclearboy: My guy how u dey na?

@bee444: lol thanks, Im glad you didn't mind the secondary digression (chess) built upon a primary digression (the afterlife of the OT saints).

@Deep Sight: Yeah im back now. I saw your chess invitation in the mail (sorry I didnt check it all day, its an email I don't use for serious stuff, cos I knew I would be posting it on NL and Im kinda very privacy-oriented), I will respond to it immediately I can.

Okay, now what were we on about? (Next post)

P.S> Please read the entire Wikipedia page, it will help to make our discussion smoother

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

@Deep Sight: Egbon! It's like trying to ask me if I am sure about my height just after I finished measuring it up? I must confess that I am a highly inquisitive person, so questions like YOURS are things I have dealt with since my early years in the teenage church (almost 15 years now) when I became a Christian. So, I am certain about what I speak of, which I myself have queried like a bull dog on the pant leg of life.

See this too, from a secular source (Wikipedia)

Sheol (pronounced "Sheh-ole", in Hebrew שאול (Sh'ol), is the "grave", or "pit"[1]. Sheol is the common destination of both the righteous and the unrighteous flesh, as recounted in Ecclesiastes and Job.

Sheol is sometimes compared to Hades, the gloomy, twilight afterlife of Greek mythology. The word "hades" was in fact substituted for "sheol" when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek (see Septuagint). The New Testament (written in Greek) also uses "hades" to refer to the abode of the dead.

By the second century BC, Jews who accepted the Oral Torah had come to believe that those in sheol awaited the resurrection either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment. This belief is reflected in Jesus' story of Lazarus and Dives.

English translations of the Hebrew scriptures have variously rendered the word sheol as "hell"[2] or "the grave".
[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

Which makes it clear to us all that Sheol (the place of the DEAD, a.k.a HELL (green text)) is made up of two parts: those awaiting the ressurection in comfort (Abraham's Bosom), and those in torment (see blue text above); which is indicative of the destination of the righteous and unrighteous.

Okay, in the next 15 mins I should be done, then I will make more proper posts. Cheers

No problem, Deep Sight. Please mull over this pending my free time (enough to make an extensive exegesis, I assume within the hour)


And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Hebrews 11:39-40)

Heb 11:39 And all of these, though they won divine approval by [means of] their faith, did not receive the fulfillment of what was promised,
Heb 11:40 Because God had us in mind and had something better and greater in view for us, so that they [these heroes and heroines of faith] should not come to perfection apart from us [before we could join them].


Heb 11:39 Not one of these people, even though their lives of faith were exemplary, got their hands on what was promised.
Heb 11:40 God had a better plan for us: that their faith and our faith would come together to make one completed whole, their lives of faith not complete apart from ours.

@Toba: LOL. I can't often tell when Deep Sight is serious and when he is kidding.