Catholicism and Hell... I'm so confused

[Doc]

Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

What if you're misreading John 3:13?

What if I'm not?

Which heaven would this be?

The heaven He went to. The heaven He taught His disciples prayed about in which the Father was, where Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in flesh and bones.

Paul was caught up into the "third heaven" at one point. Perhaps Moses and Elijah are not "in" heaven, or not in the "highest heaven" yet (since there seems to be more than one.) I think perhaps you may just be assuming a little too much about the face-value reading of that verse.

They are neither in heaven nor in hell. They are dead. I assume nothing.


 

Regardless of whether Moses was literally alive with Elijah there, their appearance there does not qualify them as the "firstfruit of vivification" 

Yes it does.

I'm sorry Tony, but the above  qualifies as neither an argument or an actual response to discussion.
It's the equivalent of telling your kids, "because I told you so."

Simplistic, face-value, overly literalistic readings of scripture are what got us into the ET mess.

[Tony N]

Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

What if you're misreading John 3:13?

What if I'm not?

Which heaven would this be?

The heaven He went to. The heaven He taught His disciples prayed about in which the Father was, where Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in flesh and bones.

Paul was caught up into the "third heaven" at one point. Perhaps Moses and Elijah are not "in" heaven, or not in the "highest heaven" yet (since there seems to be more than one.) I think perhaps you may just be assuming a little too much about the face-value reading of that verse.

They are neither in heaven nor in hell. They are dead. I assume nothing.


 

Regardless of whether Moses was literally alive with Elijah there, their appearance there does not qualify them as the "firstfruit of vivification" 

Yes it does.

I'm sorry Tony, but the above  qualifies as neither an argument or an actual response to discussion.
It's the equivalent of telling your kids, "because I told you so."

Simplistic, face-value, overly literalistic readings of scripture are what got us into the ET mess.

I'm sorry Doc but you speak of "maybes." A maybe does not qualify as an argument. It is equivalent to telling your kids, "maybe the moon is made of cheese."

Literalistic readings did not get us into the ET mess. It was the mistranslation of the words aion and aionios. Had they stuck with the literal meanings of those words they would never have gotten into the ET mess.

[Doc]

Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

What if you're misreading John 3:13?

What if I'm not?

Which heaven would this be?

The heaven He went to. The heaven He taught His disciples prayed about in which the Father was, where Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in flesh and bones.

Paul was caught up into the "third heaven" at one point. Perhaps Moses and Elijah are not "in" heaven, or not in the "highest heaven" yet (since there seems to be more than one.) I think perhaps you may just be assuming a little too much about the face-value reading of that verse.

They are neither in heaven nor in hell. They are dead. I assume nothing.


 

Regardless of whether Moses was literally alive with Elijah there, their appearance there does not qualify them as the "firstfruit of vivification" 

Yes it does.

I'm sorry Tony, but the above  qualifies as neither an argument or an actual response to discussion.
It's the equivalent of telling your kids, "because I told you so."

Simplistic, face-value, overly literalistic readings of scripture are what got us into the ET mess.

I'm sorry Doc but you speak of "maybes." A maybe does not qualify as an argument. It is equivalent to telling your kids, "maybe the moon is made of cheese."

Literalistic readings did not get us into the ET mess. It was the mistranslation of the words aion and aionios. Had they stuck with the literal meanings of those words they would never have gotten into the ET mess.

I speak of "maybes", because I don't like to presume upon a text that leaves some room for interpretation.
 
I was trying to have a discussion, but you seem bent on turning it into an argument. I'm not going to turn this into an 18 page shooting match like you had with Gabe on the aionios thread. Therefore, I bid you adieu and good day, since you clearly have your mind made up and are not interested in having a discussion.

[Nathan]

What if my rendition is accurate? 

Heb 12:1 Surely, in consequence, then, we also, having so vast a cloud of witnesses encompassing us, putting off every impediment and the popular sin, may be racing with endurance the contest lying before us,

The above verse is not talking about dead saints who are somehow alive in some spirit realm surrounding the believers of that day.

The writer of Hebrews just wrote concerning the witnesses to faith. Now the writer is talking about being surrounded by the tens of thousands of witnesses to faith in Israel who are still alive, and, in consequence of those witnesses are putting off every impediment and the popular sin and are racing . . . .

Jeeze Tony . . .to believe it your way is to throw out the entire chapter eleven.  Why would he go into such detail naming all the saints who have gone on before us . . .and then tell you that you're surrounded by other Jews . . .I'm not going to argue this . . . but i will say that once again . .we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Tony N]

Dear Nathan, is is said of those of chapter 11 that "In faith died all these . . . " (Heb 11:13).

They are dead. They have been dead for over 2000 years. They were dead when the writer of Hebrews wrote Hebrews. Those dead must await the resurrection before meeting their Saviour, not before.

"The dead know nothing."

We believers of the nations must also wait for Christ to come in the air before we ever meet Him.

[WhiteWings]

we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I wonder who's on the dark side of that spectrum

[Tony N]

we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I wonder who's on the dark side of that spectrum

I'm not on the red shift end because that would show me moving away but a blue shift because I'm always moving towards the epicenter of the truth, at least from Christ's vantage point in the universe. 

[Doc]

I thought this might be a bit of an interesting aside to insert here: (Or indeed in any thread where there is disagreement or dogmatism over interpretation)

From this website: http://www.againstdispensationalism.com/95theses.shtml


21. Contrary to the dispensationalists' central affirmation of the  "plain interpretation" of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) employing (alleged) literalism, the depth of Scripture is such that it can perplex angels (1 Pet 1:12), the Apostle Peter (2 Pet 3:15-16), and potential converts (Acts 8:30-35); requires growth in grace to understand (Heb 5:11-14) and special teachers to explain (2 Tim 2:2); and is susceptible to false teachers distorting it (1 Tim 1:7).

 

[Tony N]

The very title "againstdispensationalism" shows that they, in fact are the very ones who don't understand. In fact they are the fox guarding the chicken coop.

While I don't believe in dispensationalism because it is falsly named; it should be "administrationalism," I do believe that it is part of correctly cutting or rightly dividing the Scriptures.

I do agree with you that it comes with maturity and proper teachers who are mature enough to understand Paul's writings.

Let's look at some of the Scriptures your source quoted:
They wrote: the depth of Scripture is such that it can perplex angels (1 Pet 1:12)

The bible actually says:
1Pe 1:12 To whom it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to you they dispensed them, of which you were now informed through those who are bringing the evangel to you by holy spirit dispatched from heaven, into which messengers are yearning to peer."

It does not state that the messengers are perplexed by the depth of Scripture. It says rather they they have a great curiosity in yearning to peer into the evangel.

They wrote: the depth of Scripture is such that it can perplex . . .  the Apostle Peter (2 Pet 3:15-16),

The above quote does not mean that the depth of Scripture can perplex Peter but this:

2Pe 3:15 And be deeming the patience of our Lord salvation, according as our beloved brother Paul also writes to you, according to the wisdom given to him,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to apprehend, which the unlearned and unstable are twisting, as the rest of the scriptures also, to their own destruction."

He stated that, some of what Paul wrote, was hard to apprehend as it should because his epistles were written to and meant for the nations who are under grace and not meant for the Circumcision believers. And some of the unlearned and unstable were twisting what he wrote as the rest of the scriptures also.

Maybe they meant that the depth of Scripture is what Paul wrote?

Anyway, just my 2 pence worth, which, with inflation, is probably worth -4 cents.

[Doc]

The very title "againstdispensationalism" shows that they, in fact are the very ones who don't understand. In fact they are the fox guarding the chicken coop.

While I don't believe in dispensationalism because it is falsly named; it should be "administrationalism," I do believe that it is part of correctly cutting or rightly dividing the Scriptures.

I'm a little perplexed as to what you meant by these statements. Can you explain what you meant in the first paragraph?

As to the second, do you mean that you don't believe in "dispensationalism" simply because it's mis-named, or do you mean that you believe that dispensational theology is correct, but misnamed?

[reFORMer]

Deut 18:9-14, YLT...
9 `When thou art coming in unto the land which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee, thou dost not learn to do according to the abominations of those nations:
10 there is not found in thee one causing his son and his daughter to pass over into fire, a user of divinations, an observer of clouds, and an enchanter, and a sorcerer,
11 and a charmer, and one asking at a familiar spirit, and a wizard, and one seeking unto the dead.
12 `For the abomination of Jehovah is every one doing these, and because of these abominations is Jehovah thy God dispossessing them from thy presence.
13 Perfect thou art with Jehovah thy God,
14 for these nations whom thou art possessing, unto observers of clouds, and unto diviners, do hearken; and thou--not so hath Jehovah thy God suffered thee.

(see also 1 Sam 28:3-25)

It seems clear that if Moses and Elijah were dead then Jesus was defying God's law and was worthy of a death sentence as the law prescribed.

[Tony N]

Hi reFORMer,

Jesus wasn't seeking unto the dead. It was just a vision.

If Moses was truly alive when he met Christ on that mount then Moses beat Jesus to who was the firstfruit of vivification. Likewise Elijah also had immortality thus beating Christ to the punch for immortality.

No, reFORMer, Moses and Elijah have been dead many many years. I hope this belief among Universalists does not go the way of the Catholic church in which they all start praying to dead saints.

[Nathan]

So . .Tony . .according to your "end of the spectrum"  one of your favorite claims to fame are "that's not what it actually says/said"  And that is your platform to your attempts to poke holes in my, and other's speculations of a deeper meaning than what lies on the surface of Scripture.

According to you . . .there are "some" places in Scripture that "can" have another meaning . .but definitely not all . .and only in the discernment of the one reading .  .which is to say. . .not all Scripture can be taken in the same level of understanding . . . such as . . .when women are told to be silent . . he's not referring to our churches today to have the women be silent . .only to that church in Corinth . . .but yet . . .the majority of other passages . . .it's the opposite . . . we "are" to take it literally.  And this all seems to be based on your intelligence of Scripture. 

And from there, you spend the majority of your days on this forum, cutting down the "hyper spiritual" points of view because apparently, in your eyes, there are many false teachings being aired out on these forums that you have been appointed to identify and issolate from the rest of the sheep that read these posts.

I totally disagree with you on most every post because of your brittleness toward spiritual perspectives  of myself and others.  While at the same time, I believe that we all are given grace and mercy from the Father as we all pursue the Son and mature within the arena where we are called to walk.  So even though, I disagree with you . .and you with me . . . I still consider you a brother and your contributions to this forum are no less important than anyone else in whom I "am" in total agreement with.

Having said all of that . . . "If" you didn't already know how things fell into place following Peter's dream . . ..  If "you" had this sheet of unclean animals lower from the heavens in front of you . . . would "you" be able to make the connection between eating unclean animals . . .and the gospel changing it's direction from Jew to Gentile?

What if after Peter woke up and these messengers of Cornelius approached him and he denounced them as they were Gentiles and he was a Jew . . .because technically . . .the dream had nothing to do with Jews and Gentiles . . .it was about eating unclean animals . . .or . .in "your" words . . ."That's not what it says . . ."

Peter had a dream . . .then he had a revelation of that dream . . .we have the written word . .but we also have revelations of that written word . .and the revelations may or may not have ANYTHING to do with what is actually written.  By embracing the original text . . . I am ignoring the spiritual intent that the text was pointing to. 

In this dream of Peters . . .God could have just as easily had a Jew be rejected and a Gentile be accepted . . he did that in other areas . .the rich man and Lazrus is a prime example of this . . . But I believe that the major factor that activates the power of Life is the SPIRIT (invisible) of Truth.  And spirit does not come by logical reasoning . .it comes by faith.  Seeing the thigns that can't be seen . . and speaking out things as though they are. 

That's what flying is all about in the spirit . . .it's depending totally on things and principles that can not be seen by natural reasoning . . but by faith . . .

[Cardinal]

  It was a vision, a vision of the realm of Spirit, specifically of the spiritual pattern of the ark and it's two cherubims.

 Matt: 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.  

Luke 9: 30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory,, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

You're using the term vision, as if it was an apparition or "vision" of the dead here. God is a God of the living, not of the dead, and if they were "dead" and speaking to Him, then it would have been the sin of necromancy. As the text states, they appeared in glory. Blessings....

[Molly]

[Tell the] "vision" [to no man..]



"vision"

G3705
ὅραμα
horama
hor'-am-ah
From G3708; something gazed at, that is, a spectacle (especially supernatural): - sight, vision.



G3708
ὁράω
horaō
hor-ah'-o
Properly to stare at (compare G3700), that is, (by implication) to discern clearly (physically or mentally); by extension to attend to; by Hebraism to experience; passively to appear: - behold, perceive, see, take heed.

[Tony N]

Nathan, If I say "that is not what it actually says" and it is found to not be what it actually says, then it is true that it is not what it actually says.

Just like what you wrote as a case in point. You say over and over Peter had a dream. That is not what it actually says. Most Bibles say
(KJV)  And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

Now if it said "he fell asleep and dreamed" I would be wrong to say "that is not what it actually says." But the bible says he went into a trance and saw a vision. And so if I believe it was a trance and a vision I am accused of using "natural reasoning" and not being "spiritual"? Actually, to state it is a dream and sleep is unspiritual for it is not believing what was written.

Nathan wrote: According to you . . .there are "some" places in Scripture that "can" have another meaning . .but definitely not all

And you don't believe that? Do you believe "Judas hung himself" was told in some esoteric way that only the initiated can understand? What is the spiritual meaning to that? It is what it is.

We are told concerning the unclean animals Peter saw in his vision while in a trance that they are concerning the Gentiles. "God sent His Son into the world to save sinners" does not have some double hidden meaning. It takes God's spirit and grace to believe it at face value.

I'm a little curious as to  what I said that you don't agree with.

[Molly]

specifically of the spiritual pattern of the ark and it's two cherubims.

Are you saying the two cherubim are the law and the prophets?

[Tony N]

It was a vision, a vision of the realm of Spirit, specifically of the spiritual pattern of the ark and it's two cherubims.

 Matt: 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.  

Luke 9: 30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory,, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

You're using the term vision, as if it was an apparition or "vision" of the dead here. God is a God of the living, not of the dead, and if they were "dead" and speaking to Him, then it would have been the sin of necromancy. As the text states, they appeared in glory. Blessings....

It is impossible that Moses and Elijah were literally there speaking with Jesus. It is impossible for Moses and Elijah to be alive. If they are alive they beat Jesus to the punch for "firstfruit of vivification." Jesus would be a kind of third fruit.
Long after Elijah died John wrote that "Joh 3:13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

I believe John was divinely inspired by God to write that.  It was just a vision Jesus and the discipled had. Just believe the Scriptures. That is the spiritual thing to do.

[Molly]

It was a vision, a vision of the realm of Spirit, specifically of the spiritual pattern of the ark and it's two cherubims.

 Matt: 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.  

Luke 9: 30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory,, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

You're using the term vision, as if it was an apparition or "vision" of the dead here. God is a God of the living, not of the dead, and if they were "dead" and speaking to Him, then it would have been the sin of necromancy. As the text states, they appeared in glory. Blessings....

It is impossible that Moses and Elijah were literally there speaking with Jesus. It is impossible for Moses and Elijah to be alive. If they are alive they beat Jesus to the punch for "firstfruit of vivification." Jesus would be a kind of third fruit.
Long after Elijah died John wrote that "Joh 3:13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

I believe John was divinely inspired by God to write that.  It was just a vision Jesus and the discipled had. Just believe the Scriptures. That is the spiritual thing to do.

Jesus has already pre-empted everyone, as he must--

...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.[Rev 13:8]

[Molly]

Nathan, If I say "that is not what it actually says" and it is found to not be what it actually says, then it is true that it is not what it actually says.

Just like what you wrote as a case in point. You say over and over Peter had a dream. That is not what it actually says. Most Bibles say
(KJV)  And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

Now if it said "he fell asleep and dreamed" I would be wrong to say "that is not what it actually says." But the bible says he went into a trance and saw a vision. And so if I believe it was a trance and a vision I am accused of using "natural reasoning" and not being "spiritual"? Actually, to state it is a dream and sleep is unspiritual for it is not believing what was written.

They are wide awake here--


2After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.

 5Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 6(He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)

 7Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!"

 8Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.

 9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant.

--Mark 9





They are wide awake here--


1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

 4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

 5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

 6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

 9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

--Mat 17

[Nathan]

Nathan, If I say "that is not what it actually says" and it is found to not be what it actually says, then it is true that it is not what it actually says.

Just like what you wrote as a case in point. You say over and over Peter had a dream. That is not what it actually says. Most Bibles say
(KJV)  And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

Now if it said "he fell asleep and dreamed" I would be wrong to say "that is not what it actually says." But the bible says he went into a trance and saw a vision. And so if I believe it was a trance and a vision I am accused of using "natural reasoning" and not being "spiritual"? Actually, to state it is a dream and sleep is unspiritual for it is not believing what was written.

Nathan wrote: According to you . . .there are "some" places in Scripture that "can" have another meaning . .but definitely not all

And you don't believe that? Do you believe "Judas hung himself" was told in some esoteric way that only the initiated can understand? What is the spiritual meaning to that? It is what it is.

We are told concerning the unclean animals Peter saw in his vision while in a trance that they are concerning the Gentiles. "God sent His Son into the world to save sinners" does not have some double hidden meaning. It takes God's spirit and grace to believe it at face value.

I'm a little curious as to  what I said that you don't agree with.

What I believe is that there "is" a literal understanding to everything that was written . . . TO THOSE TO WHOM IT WAS LITERALLY WRITTEN TO . . ."That" generation . . . not this one.  Flesh profiteth nothing. . . .it does no spiritual good for me to apply every thing literally.  Yes, it all literally happened . .there was a literal Adam . . .Noah, Job . .they were all real.  Yes, there are many things that are yet a mystery, but the mystery becomes an "impossiblity" when we try to logitimize spiritual truth with natural reasoning . . . it's why you can't see the vision/dream/trance . . .for me they are all one and the same . . .regardless of your insistance . . .the only difference between a dream and a vision . .for me is . ..a dream comes when you're asleep, a vision comes when you're awake . .but both are real. 

Your logic is just frustrating . .why would God reveal to Peter, James and John, images of Moses and Elijah, if your doctrine on the dead is true?  Why would God create an image of dead men encouraging Jesus?  That's just ridiculous.  The fact is . . . for you to accept this, would mean you have to admit you're not as right as you think you are.  It's much harder tearing down an old concept to make way for a new one, than it is learning a new one the first time around.

It's the same pattern as was in the garden . . .much dividing came before creating could begin . . .

But yes, all things have a place of literal understanding . . . all things have a moral application as well . . .and . .most importantly above those two . . .all things . . .ALL THINGS have a spiritual truth within them as well.   The experience Peter had . .whether it was a trance, dream, or vision WHO CARES . . . your gift is that you dirty the clarity of the vehicle that was used to bring the message . .that you miss the message.  The message is not whether or not it was a dream or a trance . .the message is . . .the gospel's primary audience just had a major change of venue. 

The message is that there IS a spiritual reality within the vehicle of every LITERAL experience. 

There "was" a physical man named Judas . . .when have I ever implied that there wasn't?  You create arguments out of assumptions within your own mind.  Judas was a man that was not led by the spirit, but by his flesh . . .and the end result was suicide.

When "I" allow the Judas in me to dominate . . .it leads to spiritual death.  It is not what it is for everyone . . .it is what it is for those who refuse to see any further than the end of their limited logic.  And that isn't an accusation . .simply an observation . . . you've made it very clear that you can not see how Moses and Elijah could actually be alive . . . I can. 

Unless "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" is only pertaining to my physical body.  The same physical body that is at enmity . . .that is under the curse . . . that prifits nothing . . .

No bud, the truth is, these guys are as alive as the birds in flight . . .it's just they are in a dimension beyond your natural vision . . .and apparently understanding as well.

[Doc]

I think Nathan (and others) are making some good points here.
One of the criticisms that Jesus leveled at the religious leaders of his day was that they searched the scriptures thinking that they would find life in that; but Jesus told them that the scriptures point to HIM, (which is where they and we should be finding our life).
The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Tony, I say this in all sincerity; I'm not trying to "jab" at you here, but I think you may be treading on somewhat dangerous ground by being too literal with your interpretations. My own experience has been that we don't grow as Sons or learn the deeper truths of scripture by approaching it with such unrelenting literalism. Granted, I think there are dangers in both extremes, whether hyper-literalizing or hyper-spiritualizing.

BTW, I didn't see a response from you as to my last question(s) regarding your comments about dispensationalism.

[Tony N]

Nathan, believe it or not, I actually believe a most of what you just wrote.

There is a spiritual aspect to the vision Peter, James and John saw. I'm not saying they saw a vision and that's that.

But if you really, honestly believe Moses and Elijah are somehow alive, then it is impossible for you to believe Jesus is the firstfruit of vivification and impossible for you to believe John when he wrote that "no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven."

Those passages are definitive.

[Tony N]

I think Nathan (and others) are making some good points here.
One of the criticisms that Jesus leveled at the religious leaders of his day was that they searched the scriptures thinking that they would find life in that; but Jesus told them that the scriptures point to HIM, (which is where they and we should be finding our life).
The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Doc, what exactly do you mean by: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

[Doc]

I think Nathan (and others) are making some good points here.
One of the criticisms that Jesus leveled at the religious leaders of his day was that they searched the scriptures thinking that they would find life in that; but Jesus told them that the scriptures point to HIM, (which is where they and we should be finding our life).
The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Doc, what exactly do you mean by: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

I mean that I understand that statement from scripture to mean (among other things) that the written word is not where Life is found:

2Co 3:3 for you are manifesting a letter of Christ, dispensed by us, and engraven, not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets, but on the fleshy tablets of the heart."
2Co 3:4 Now such is the confidence we have through Christ toward God
2Co 3:5 (not that we are competent of ourselves, to reckon anything as of ourselves, but our competency is of God),
2Co 3:6 Who also makes us competent dispensers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying." (CLV)

The manifestation of the letter written on our hearts via the spirit is what is giving life, not our limited human logical reasonings from the written word. The new covenant is not dispensed by the letter, but by the spirit.

If our understanding of the Truth that scripture points to is limited to or by our logical understanding/ interpretation of the written word, we're missing the boat entirely when it comes to comprehending the spiritual things of the new covenant that go beyond the written word.