Results 1 - 20 of 57
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jamison Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 203816 | ||
Hello Tamara, Let me start by saying I am not a SDA. However, the idea of soul sleep has plenty of Biblical basis. Whether it is accurate or not, it is not as simple as saying it comes from one verse that is read out of context. For example, there appears to be no idea of an afterlife in the OT. The Jews did not mention (save once in Daniel) any life continuing after death. Quite the opposite, Solomon especially acted as if at death, it was all over. There are other verses in the NT that support soul sleep as well. However, the point isn't to present a case for it, only to point out that we do others a disservice if we shoot down another theology as if it had no basis in Scripture just because it does not line up with our interpretation of Scripture. Again on the works to get into heaven. Take Matt 25:31-46, the separation between the goats and sheep is not on faith or belief at all. There is no mention of either. There is only a mention of works. Again, not trying to defend the works belief, but it isn't proper to shoot down this theology as having no basis in Scripture. Take whichever side you want, but it is better to learn about what another "sect or cult" believes by hearing their points from them than from someone who disagrees with them. Jamison |
||||||
2 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 203832 | ||
Hello WOS, First let me state that I am not trying to persuade you that soul sleep is correct. I don't think it really matters whether you believe in soul sleep or that the spirit lives on after death. I assume you will agree that neither belief will save you or condemn you. The bigger issue is that we not just brush under the rug any doctrine that does not line up with ours as if it is nonsense. However, since you have asked for where this is taught, I will give a few examples. I am aware that some Scriptures seem to teach that the soul lives on after death. Others seem to teach that at death you do not exist at all until the resurrection. Choose whichever you like, but each side has valid arguments. Ecc 12:7 is often given as an argument that the spirit lives on. That could be true. Who am I to disagree? Yet, the word translated as “spirit” is the Hebrew word “ruwach”. This is the same word used to describe the spirit of animals as well. See Ecc 3:18-21, the word “ruwach” is translated as “breath” in this passage. Nonetheless, man and beast have the same “ruwach”, breath, spirit. Again, check Gen 7:15 when the word “ruwach” describes the breath of life of animals. This is restated in Gen 7:22. From a study of this words it appears that the “spirit” of man is the same as the “spirit” of animals (which is what Ecc 3:18-21 says). If this is the case, then if the spirit of man lives on, then one should also believe the sprit of animals lives on. Those who believe in soul sleep would say that the “spirit returning to God” is not referring to man entering the “spirit world”, but to that which God gave us which gives us life (His breath) he has now taken back from us, which is similar to what Psalms 104:29 and Job 34:14-15 say. Job 10:20 – Talks of no return from death Job 14:7-17 – Similar to above, but Job does mention that there will be a resurrection at some point, but he talks as if he does not exist until then. Psalms 6:5 – Talks as if there is no consciousness after death. Ecc 3:18-21 – Already mentioned above Ecc 9:5, 10 – Talk about the dead know nothing, having no reward, etc. Ezek 18:4, 20 – Talks about the soul dying (Hebrew: Nephesh) From reading these passages, some will get the definite feeling that the Jews did not believe in an immediate afterlife (or at least not give it much importance). These are the OT verses. I can put in the NT ones if you like. It isn’t really necessary though. The point isn’t to change your mind about soul sleep, but to get you to consider another’s views. It is better to hear what they have to say than to hear what someone else has to say about them. Jamison |
||||||
3 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 203833 | ||
Hello Brad, I gave some references in my response to WOS. Take them for what you will. I am not trying to defend soul sleep. The bigger issue is to listen to what others say. For example, I am not a Mormon. However, I have read the book of Mormon. Why? Because if I am to shrug off Mormonism as being false, then I have to determine if what they believe is true. The best way to do this is to read/listen to what they teach. The worst way is to listen to what someone, who already believes what I do, says about them. Otherwise I am putting an awful lot of faith in the people telling me about the Mormons. I don't like to put that much trust in mere men, so why not hear what a Mormon says to see if it is true? PS, your statement about not learning the real thing by studying a counterfeit is accurate. However, you must first assume that what you have is the real thing. If it is not, then every "real" thing would look counterfeit when compared to what you have. Not saying what you have is counterfeit, but that we make an error when we assume that everything we know is truth and everything that opposes it is false. That is why Paul tells us to test things and hold to the truth (1 Thes 5:21) Jamison |
||||||
4 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 203836 | ||
Thank you for your notes Steve. You have given some very solid points. These points along with the points that soul sleep is Scriptural should be noted together by all those searching so they can decide for themselves what they believe, instead of just looking at one side. | ||||||
5 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 203837 | ||
What's up Doc (can't be the first time you heard that one, huh), I think maybe you missed my point. Mormons are mere men, of course. However, the only way you know they stand outside of "scriptural, creedal, gospel and ecclesiastical consensus" is to know what they believe. You can either learn what they believe by listening/reading something from them, or you can take what some other guy tells you they believe. Why not hear it from them? Why assume that what someone else says about their beliefs is true when you can actually read/listen to them? What would have happened if everybody in Jesus' time took the Pharisees' word for who Jesus was? Wouldn't it be better for the people to actually hear what Jesus said instead of writing him off as a heretic as the Pharisees told them He was? Jamison |
||||||
6 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 203839 | ||
Hello WOS, I would agree that this could go on virtually forever. I wasn't even interested in debating it. I only showed verses that those who do believe in soul sleep use to support it because it was requested. Their views come from Scripture, even if they may be misinterpreting them. Your views come from Scripture even though you may be misinterpreting them. That is why their view is worth considering, even though after consideration one may not agree. I appreciate you allowing me the last post, very tactful. However, I don't care to refute anything you have presented. I am not trying to support soul sleep. Thank You, Jamison |
||||||
7 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 203844 | ||
Come on Doc, you know this comparison is not accurate. My line of reasoning was about depending on what one man says about another's theology. You have taken it to depending on what Jesus says about another's (Satan's) theology. Unless you think Jesus was just a man, then this comparison is an inaccurate one. So yes, it would make my argument sound silly. Here is my question to you...How do you know that what the Mormons believe is contrary to Scripture? You have to know what they believe to know it contradicts Scripture. So how do you know what they believe? Based on what someone told you they believe? Now a comparison for you then. If you were a Pharisee when Jesus came about, would you listen to what the Pharisees said about Jesus, or would you listen to Jesus Himself? Jamison |
||||||
8 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 204183 | ||
Hello Tamara, First, I don't plan on debating any of the soul sleep stuff. It isn't that important to me. Nor am I am not against shooting down anyone's theology. What is more important to me (and maybe only to me) is first how we Christians tend to trivialize the beliefs of others, even other Christians, and second how we often look for our answers within the realm of those who believe like us anyway. In my opinion, you have trivialized the concept of soul sleep by saying it comes from one verse taken out of context. While soul sleep may not be true, it comes from much more than one verse; and while there is only one CORRECT context, we all tend to read and decide the context based off our current theology. You have, however, mentioned that you have discussed the idea with many SDAers, so you have at least been willing to listen to their points. That is strong. Anyway, it probably wasn't any of my business. I probably read more into than necessary. Should have just kept quite. jamison |
||||||
9 | is caron 14 completly accurate? | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 205374 | ||
10-4 Doc! | ||||||
10 | GOD cast an angel out of heaven/satan | Is 14:12 | jamison | 208373 | ||
I could be wrong on this, but I don't think this is talking about Satan at all. In verse 4, Isaiah says this proverb is concerning the king of Babylon. If this is about Satan, it seems odd that Isaiah switches mid-stream to write 3 verses about Satan and then switches back to king of Babylon again in verse 15. I think this line of reasoning came about because of the mistranslation in the KJV where "O star of the morning" was translated as "O Lucifer". Notice that Lucifer is not the name of Satan. It is used only once (here) and even this instance is a mistranslation which is why NASB, NIV, etc have corrected this and put O star of the morning. I am kind of rambling at this point, but other than the fact that we have always been taught that this is about Satan, is there any reason to believe that this is about Satan and not the king of Babylon as stated in verse 4? Just my opinion, Jamison |
||||||
11 | GOD cast an angel out of heaven/satan | Is 14:12 | jamison | 208378 | ||
Hello John, Compare the Isaiah passage to Matt 11:23 and Luke 10:15. It is the same idea expressed here. Capernaum wasn't actually IN heaven and then thrust down to hades. Neither is Isaiah speaking of a being that was IN heaven and thrust out. It is metaphorical. The idea is that they think they are so great, but God is going to cut them back down. They have puffed themselves up, but they will be brought back down. Again, just my opinion. I think we Christians just have a knack for reading our theology into a verse and this seems certain here. Even assuming that Satan was cast from heaven, this passage does not mention him at all. In fact, the verse right before it (11) talks of him being buried in the ground (worms cover him, etc) and then verse 16 calls him a man. So all around this it appears to be talking about the king of Babylon. Why would it change right in the middle? jamison |
||||||
12 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208485 | ||
Let's not forget to keep all the commandments as well as sell all we have and give to the poor!!! (Matt 19:16-26 and Mark 10:17-27 and Luke 18:18-27). We have to do this to inherit eternal life. Also you have to accept Jesus as your Saviour. I can't find verses for that one, sorry. jamison |
||||||
13 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208487 | ||
Hello Azure, Come on now, you will have to do better than that to refute these verses:). First - the man asked how to inherit eternal life. It stands to reason that Jesus answered his question. However, if you don't think that he did, then telling him that he would have treasure in heaven seems to say the same thing, right? Do the unsaved have treasure in heaven? Can anyone have treasure in heaven and not have eternal life? Second, do you know the apostles didn't sell all they had? I don't see the Scriptures say that anywhere which means that it is speculation and that is not allowed here:). Come on now, you have been here a long time. Step outside the box of standard theology and tell me why this is not a requirement. The jailer asked Paul what he had to do to be saved and Paul answered "Believe" and we go with it. A man asks Jesus what he must do to be saved (am I correct in assuming that inheriting eternal life and being saved are the same?) and He answers and we don't go with it. Tell you what, let's put away the commandments for now and just go with sell all you have. Jesus said there was only one thing he lacked. What was that one thing? Was it selling all he had or was it following Jesus or was it something else? jamison |
||||||
14 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208499 | ||
Let's see... Inside the box: the Pharisees Outside the box: Jesus |
||||||
15 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208500 | ||
I say to step outside the box, because if we don't we just read our theology into the Scriptures. Our theology defines the Bible instead of the Scriptures defining our theology. Do I live outside the box of standard theology, yes. Did Jesus, yes. Did the Pharisees, no. | ||||||
16 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208536 | ||
Peace, Jeff, Hank, and anyone else, What type of theology I believe is not important. I am not trying to persuade you to think inside my box, but to think outside yours. Brad asked earlier if my theology was pure and without outside influence. No, of course not. But I am willing to test everything I believe. Just because mainstream Christianity or my current theology teaches something does not make it true. Even with Scripture to support it, because as I showed earlier with this, Scripture can easily be used to support inheriting eternal life by selling and giving to the poor. We just shoot that down because it doesn't agree with salvation by faith alone which is our current and mainstream theology. Well challenge that. Maybe the theology is wrong. You can't just say it doesn't agree with this theology so it must be wrong. Jeff did well in his explanation. Very well indeed. By the way, I don't think keeping the commandments or selling and giving to poor are ways to heaven. Which theology did Jesus have that was outside the box? Plenty... Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth - mainstream and inside the box (just ask the Pharisees) Jesus says to turn the other cheek - goes against teaching of religious leaders and mainstream theology. (Matt 5:38-39 compare Ex 21:24) It is unlawful to work on Sabbath - inside the box, exactly what mainstream theology taught. Jesus said Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath - outside the box, against mainstream theology. (Mark 2:27). I think two will suffice, but can give more if you need them. The pharisees were the religious leaders of their day. They had the Scriptures in their language and basically in their culture (it had changed some over the years of course) and some books only 500 years old. We have the Scriptures in translated form nowhere close to our culture and 2000 and more years later. If they could not see the truth, why do we think that mainstream theology today can? I ask this question often but have yet to receive an answer. The Pharisees wouldn't know God if He walked beside them (oh yeah, He did). And yet our theologians do the exact same thing. They read the Scriptures for exactly what they SAY and not what they MEAN. They miss the heart of God. Please reply to my one question in here. Why do we think theologians of today are more accurate than theologians of Jesus' day? Good evening to all. I mean you no ill will, but challenge you to think "outside the box (your individual theology and mainstream theology)". By the way, sorry I didn't respond earlier. I gotta go to work too you know:) jamison |
||||||
17 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208544 | ||
Doc, Again the question has went unanswered. I don't really expect an answer. I have asked it enough times to realize that no one wants to answer it. "You'll test everything, as long as it has nothing to do with theology". Not quite sure what that means. However, I am not against theology. We all have one, even I. But I am against our theology being more important than learning about God. When we make statements like...what Jesus says contradicts the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, so He must have meant something else...then we have put our doctrines and theology above learning about God. And that is exactly what the Pharisees did to Jesus time and time again. We defend our doctrines to the end. jamison |
||||||
18 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208555 | ||
Hello Steve, Point 1: I agree. I agree totally. It is the box of the Pharisees that I am talking about. Didn't you read what I wrote about today's Pharisees? Point 2 What was considered orthodoxy in Jesus' time had been built up for about the same amount of time and was also passed along to others. Which causes me to ask the same question again. Why do we think that the religious leaders of today are any different than those of Jesus' day? jamison |
||||||
19 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208556 | ||
Hello peace, No, that is not the question I was referring to, but I appreciate you helping. I am referring to post 208536. Thank you, jamison |
||||||
20 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208559 | ||
Peace, I have had this discussion with others here before, that is why I know that many of them are unwilling to test it. Many will not consider anything that does not already line up with what they believe. Obviously that will vary with each individual. As far as the theologian vs Pharisee. You state, "Pharisees who built their teachings on their misunderstanding of the purpose of the law. Theologians have for centuries built their teachings on what Christ directly taught about everything he addresses, as well as what the apostles taught about what they addressed. There is a real difference between the Pharisees teaching and Christian orothodox theology." The Pharisees based their teaching on the Scriptures. We base our teaching on the Scriptures. However, their understanding was much more straight forward (in their language and culture). We have it in a different culture and have to translate it as well. Which do you think is more likely to be accurate? I am not saying they were right, but if they could be so far off, what makes us think our theologians are dead on the money? I have plenty of objections with mainstream theology, but that is not the point. I am not trying to get you to believe like me. I have not asked anyone to explain their theology in this thread either. Lastly, not one verse you stated said to accept Jesus as your Savior. I looked them up when I first read the post. Many had believe or follow Jesus. Some didn't seem to relate at all (in my opinion, but I will rethink those outside my box if you would like). There is a big difference between accepting Christ as Saviour (popularly taught in mainstream) and believing in Jesus. But I didn't feel like going in to it so I let is ride. So am I willing to put forth what I believe for everyone to see. I don't have a problem with that. The host will though and it will not be up for long and then it will be censored, so no, there is no reason to go into what I believe. In fact, this thread is already restricted and I haven't even said anything. I am not trying to get you to believe it anyway, but to think outside the confines of your own theology. Even if they call you a heretic (thank God for the heretic Martin Luther!). If we were alive when Jesus walked the earth would we stick to our theology or follow Him? Do you think the religious leaders of Jesus' day thought He was a heretic? jamison |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |