Well it sure ain't on the earth nor below the earth.
Mat 16:17 Now, answering, Jesus said to him, "Happy are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood does not reveal it to you, but My Father Who is in the heavens."
Mar 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Luk 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Two different spheres, friend.
Psa 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Heaven is up.
Martin replied: Doesn't matter how many of these you quote. Heaven isn't up in the least. It's within, according to Lord Jesus.
"According to Jesus" or according to ignorance? Is that the Bible according to Martin? Maybe you should take the time to read the Bible first rather than come here and make yourself look like you don't know what you are talking about. Here is the verse:
"Neither shall they be declaring 'Lo! here!' or 'Lo! there!' for lo! the kingdom of God
is inside of you" (Luke 17:21).
It is "the kingdom of God," not "the kingdom of heaven."
The term "Godhead" is the figment of middle dark-ages mentality. Did you get the word there "ascending"? He was not going horizontally to God but up to where His God is, in heaven.
Heaven's not up. Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost wasn't a shooting star or a meteor that everybody saw coming down upon them that crashed into that building.[/quote]
Tony's reply: Who ever said the holy spirit was a shooting star or meteor. Just another straw man by you. What what does holy spirit have to do with whether heaven is up or not? Just another red herring from you.
And you brought up a red herring which has absolutely nothing to do with my statement. I will repeat: If Christ did not really die, this is to say He did not really die for our sins. If He just sort of died, not completely died, then our sins were just sort of died for, not completely died for. Paul was not intimating that "to be with Christ is much better" that this meant if he died he would be with Christ. Paul said the only time we meet the Lord is when AS A WHOLE GROUP, the dead believers come out of their graves and the living believers are changed and AT THE SAME TIME MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR. Paul saying: "Phi 1:23 (Yet I am being pressed out of the two, having a yearning for the solution and to be together with Christ, for it, rather, is much better.)" Get that? Paul was not saying to depart (die) is to be with Christ.
He completely died in that He was made sin and was forsaken of God, as Adam in the garden was completely dead when he sinned in the garden according to Romans 5. The death that he died wasn't 930yrs later. That's not the death the Bible speaks of that in the day that he ate, he died the death. [/quote]
You are confused. First you say Adam completely died the day he sinned then you say "that's not the death the Bible speaks of that in the day that he ate, he died the death."
Umm, Martin, The Bible does not say Adam completely died the day he sinned in the Garden. Neither does Romand 5 say Adam completely died the day he sinned. In the Old Testament the judgment for sinning was "to die shall you be dying" and God gave further understanding of that judgment when He explained to Adam after he sinned that "Gen 3:19 In the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread, till your return to the ground, for from it are you taken, for soil you are, and to soil are you returning. So the death was 930 years later. Death was operating in Adam until he finally died.
And to yearn for the solution and to be together with Christ doesn't let you out of anything either, just 'cause you reject the mainstream translations. He wasn't talking about an eschatological solution, but the resolution of what the Romans wanted to do to him and whether or not he'd submit to that. Either way you go on the translation, you're still in the dilema that there's nothing in either translation that says anything eschatologically, but it's talking about his departure from his physical body as the solution, or whether he'd stay in his body as the solution.
Umm, Martin, you saying that the reason I have which is counter to yours concerning Paul's wanting to be with the Lord is not, as you suggest, "'cause *I* reject the mainstream translations." You may as well have said it is due to me eating sardines every Friday evening. It would have made as much convincing sense to your argument.
Actually, Paul knew the only time he would meet the Lord in a glorified body was when "the Lord Himself will be descending from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the Chief Messenger, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ shall be rising first, (17) Thereupon we, the living who are surviving, shall at the same time be snatched away together with them in clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And thus shall we always be together with the Lord." 1Th 4:16-17
I imagine you reject 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17 too? Maybe you don't believe that passage for exactly what it is saying?
So, yes, Paul was looking forward to being with the Lord in the future.
Oh brother, now you are accusing Daniel, Jesus and Paul of being Zoarastrians who all believed in premillenialism. Those who don't believe the premillenial truth are ensconsed in paganism.
They didn't believe in Premillenialism. They were emphatically Postmillenialists. Everything that would be quoted from them supports the Postmillenial perspective, not the premillenial.
And you can back that up with Scripture I suppose?
But what does premillennialism have to do with whether Christ preached to the dead while dead? It is just another red herring by you to get off the main point of my post.
No, you were calling people pagans, and I was pointing out the glass house you're in on where paganism is in your ideology rather than sound Biblical thinking.
Only a nut would believe we've been living in the 1,000 year millennium for 2,000 years. At least pagans can see how nutty that is.
And Molly, I'm surprised at you too saying that if the Old Testament teaches the dead are really dead then it no longer is the truth.
You're presupposing the death of the body and the death of the spirit and soul are the same thing, when they're emphatically not. Death is exiting the life of some given world. Not annihilation until resurrection. To die to God is to exit the heavens by sin, as Adam did, and in the way that Christ Jesus became obedient to death and became the sin of the world according to 2Corinthians 5:21. The death of the body is to exit the life of this physical world. And there's nothing about the death of the soul in the Scriptures. Only it's loss if it's not renewed, since the soul is simply mind, will, emotion, and desire. The Apostles taught the saving of the soul via the renewing of the mind with the Scriptures, i.e. the day dawning and the day star arising in your hearts. [/quote]
Don't encourage Molly in her unbelief. What's next? First she is basically saying the Old Testament lied about "the dead know nothing" etc. So what's next? Will she finally say the whole old testament is a book of lies?
You wrote:"You're presupposing the death of the body and the death of the spirit and soul are the same thing,"
Again, Martin, that is a straw man. I never have believed what you just accused me of believing, so why say it as if I do? The Bible knows no such things as you accuse me of.
That's neither spooky nor eschatological. That's simply the Word of God doing what it was designed to do in nourishing the whole man and becoming the anchor of the soul, so that the heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord, seeing it's desire upon it's enemies, et. al. I realize the Concordant renders something as extermination, but when you exterminate a roach you're not talking about a spiritual process, but about the putting down of them physically. Same thing in Thessalonians, where it's simply talking about the extermination of people's physical bodies and isn't implying anything counter to the rest of the Scriptures that teach conscious existance post mortem of the body.
Lord Jesus became the sin of the world, according to 2Corinthians 5:21, Isaiah 52:14, and many other passages that describe this "baring away" as being as deeply within Himself as it ever went within any of us. And then according to Acts 13, Hebrews chapter 1 has some of the Words that God used when He raised Jesus from the dead. He was begotten of God in the resurrection and became the firstborn from the dead. And what He got, we get
For one who believes in a current millennial reign you sure have lots of faith for which there is absolutely nothing to show for it. Please, Martin, show me all the signs and miracles which are happenning in the last 2000 years which reveal Christ and the 12 have been reigning on the earth. Oh, heck, I just took your bait! This isn't about the millennium nor pre-millennialism, it's about if Christ preached to the dead while dead! He didn't. If He did, it cuts the heart right out of the gospel.
Sorry to be writing in such a tone as this response elicits. But this is so serious I can't be be saddened from what I am hearing on these boards. It is almost as if I have taken a step into the Twilight Zone or worse yet, the dark ages with all its superstitions and paganism.