Paul vs Jesus

Sorry. Only meant to have one post. Please see below.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing the link with me.

So even though all through the Old Testament, it refers to the dead as "sleeping" and God, Himself, even tells Moses that he will sleep with the fathers, in reality, that's just a euphamism for being alive and conscious in Sheol. Is that right?

And even though John says that those who believe in Christ will have everlasting life, in reality, "everlasting life" is just a euphamism for being in Heaven and doesn't really mean everasting life because those who do not believe in Christ will also have everylasting life and indeed, will meet their Maker to be sentenced to live their lives apart from Him.

Is that correct?
 
Gringo said:
And so, eternal separaton from God, does that mean that he's dead from then on or does that mean that he's alive just like the believer - only in a different place?
Click to expand...
My thinking... Humans inextricably equate life with existence. However, the Bible recognizes a distinction between the two. We either exist in a state of being in God's presence which is called life or we exist in a state of separation from Him which is called death.
 
Gringo said:
Thanks for sharing the link with me.

So even though all through the Old Testament, it refers to the dead as "sleeping" and God, Himself, even tells Moses that he will sleep with the fathers, in reality, that's just a euphamism for being alive and conscious in Sheol. Is that right?

And even though John says that those who believe in Christ will have everlasting life, in reality, "everlasting life" is just a euphamism for being in Heaven and doesn't really mean everasting life because those who do not believe in Christ will also have everylasting life and indeed, will meet their Maker to be sentenced to live their lives apart from Him.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
I definitely think you're hitting on the truth. Don't let yourself be discouraged if you have trouble wrapping your mind around this. It's not an easy concept for anyone to grasp.
 
Gringo said:
Thanks for sharing the link with me.

So even though all through the Old Testament, it refers to the dead as "sleeping" and God, Himself, even tells Moses that he will sleep with the fathers, in reality, that's just a euphamism for being alive and conscious in Sheol. Is that right?

And even though John says that those who believe in Christ will have everlasting life, in reality, "everlasting life" is just a euphamism for being in Heaven and doesn't really mean everasting life because those who do not believe in Christ will also have everylasting life and indeed, will meet their Maker to be sentenced to live their lives apart from Him.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
I think everlasting torment and everlasting life are ways of explaining the two different ending places. THe idea that Sheol is a place that people are held until the resurrection is weak.
 
ALAYMAN said:
The fact of the resurrection is well attested in the New Testament. So those passages that deal with sleep speak to the notion that the human being is comprised of more than one component (physical and spiritual, body and soul....some people believe in a tripartite combination of body, soul, and spirit). At our physical body's death the spirit related to that body immediately comes into the presence of God (absent from the body 2 Cor 5:8). It is at some point later in our existence that the <dead..."sleeping"> body will be reunited with the soul, and Christian orthodoxy teaches that not only will the Christian be resurrected but the unbelieving will also be resurrected unto an appointment with final judgment and eternal separation from God. You can read that interpretive scheme here.
Click to expand...
GotQuestions has become one of the places I go regularly. It is helpful to direct me to the right things to study and the right questions to ask.
 
Gringo said:
Thanks for sharing the link with me.

So even though all through the Old Testament, it refers to the dead as "sleeping" and God, Himself, even tells Moses that he will sleep with the fathers, in reality, that's just a euphamism for being alive and conscious in Sheol. Is that right?

And even though John says that those who believe in Christ will have everlasting life, in reality, "everlasting life" is just a euphamism for being in Heaven and doesn't really mean everasting life because those who do not believe in Christ will also have everylasting life and indeed, will meet their Maker to be sentenced to live their lives apart from Him.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
According to Jesus, 'sleeping' and death are not the same things.

And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. Matthew 9:23-25​
​
But that the souls of them that sleep are not in a state of slumber is evident in Matthew 17:3, and that the OT attests to fact that the dead yet live is evident in Matthew 22:31-32.
 
Gringo said:
Thanks for sharing the link with me.

So even though all through the Old Testament, it refers to the dead as "sleeping" and God, Himself, even tells Moses that he will sleep with the fathers, in reality, that's just a euphamism for being alive and conscious in Sheol. Is that right?

And even though John says that those who believe in Christ will have everlasting life, in reality, "everlasting life" is just a euphamism for being in Heaven and doesn't really mean everasting life because those who do not believe in Christ will also have everylasting life and indeed, will meet their Maker to be sentenced to live their lives apart from Him.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Pretty close.
 
Ekklesian said:
According to Jesus, 'sleeping' and death are not the same things.

And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. Matthew 9:23-25​
​
But that the souls of them that sleep are not in a state of slumber is evident in Matthew 17:3, and that the OT attests to fact that the dead yet live is evident in Matthew 22:31-32.
Click to expand...
In the account of Lazarus, Jesus used asleep and dead to mean the same thing.

After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died,
John 11:11-14
 
voicecrying said:
In the account of Lazarus, Jesus used asleep and dead to mean the same thing.

After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died,
John 11:11-14
Click to expand...
You're not far from Calvinism.
 
ALAYMAN said:
And this just proves you’re a closet supralapsarianist!
Click to expand...
Supralapsarianist. Hahahah. It's Supralapsarian. They believe that the decree to elect individuals to salvation was before the decree to permit (or ordain if you're a double predestinarian) the fall.
 
Bob Jones V said:
Supralapsarianist. Hahahah. It's Supralapsarian. They believe that the decree to elect individuals to salvation was before the decree to permit (or ordain if you're a double predestinarian) the fall.
Click to expand...
It’s very Hoeksema-ish of Joe, sneaky little devil!
 
abcaines said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...
And that's just it. It wasn't that Paul was preaching a NEW gospel, he was applying the basics of the faith through the lens of the Acts 15 council, which concluded that the Gentile converts were not held responsible for keeping the entire Jewish law. His writings were centered on simply telling those congregations "what does this mean to us?"
 
Ransom said:
I would guess much the same, but without the letters of Paul, possibly a lot more loosey-goosey with the systematic theology. And with respect to practice, maybe stricter in some places, but more latitudinarian in others. Imagine, hypothetically, a church with a greater number of ethical vegetarians because Paul never said it was OK to eat meat that might have been sacrificed to an idol. Or a female bishop who was part of a polygynous household, because Paul never laid out stricter qualifications for church elders.

(Edit: After a few more minutes thought, I wonder whether our approach to theology might be more like Judaism or Islam: having a relatively small set of inspired writings--the Gospels, in addition to the OT--plus a larger collection of more or less authoritative commentaries along the lines of the Talmud or Hadith. Which makes me wonder whether the East/West and Catholic/Protestant schisms would have happened, and what if anything would have taken their place. Imagine, for example, that the Great Schism of 1054 never happened because we already had something like Augustinian and Jeromian Schools of Christianity.)
Click to expand...
Wow. That's a provocative question. It's food for thought, for sure.
 
Ekklesian said:
Well, that would be one imminent reason, yes.
Click to expand...
But that wasn't the reason I said what I did. When does death mean death as men think of it, and when does it mean death as God describes it, and which one is true?

Do we have any life in us to begin with? A calvinist says no. A non calvinist says yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top