death:an ending?

[WhiteWings]

James, we only discussed Father and Son. That not Tri  :winkgrin:
But you are right; In the 2? years I'm here I've seen some heated debates and even a few (temp)ban because of it.
And while I agree/accept this is a UR forum I think some none UR things can't be avoided.
But all-in-all (UR!) we all had a 2-3 days to write our views :thumbsup:
:peckblush:


On-topic

Micah, is the 7-point list I gave a few posts above some sort of an answer to your opening post?

[jabcat]

James, we only discussed Father and Son. That not Tri  :winkgrin:
But you are right; In the 2? years I'm here I've seen some heated debates and even a few (temp)ban because of it.
And while I agree/accept this is a UR forum I think some none UR things can't be avoided.
But all-in-all (UR!) we all had a 2-3 days to write our views :thumbsup:
:peckblush:

Agreed!   :thumbsup:

[micah7:9]

Unbelievable

In what sense? 

" I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would quote Solomon on death after Jesus.  Why would anyone think nothing had changed and the Old Testament remained in effect with regards to death? "(Molly)

Ecc 9:5  For the living know that they die, and the dead know not anything, and there is no more to them a reward, for their remembrance hath been forgotten.
This is obsolete?

[Lefein]

Remember the context of Ecclesiastes; it is a book that is almost sarcastic at parts.

[micah7:9]

Remember the context of Ecclesiastes; it is a book that is almost sarcastic at parts.

Like Sienfeld?  Okay what would be sarcastic about Ecc 9:5  For the living know that they die, and the dead know not anything, and there is no more to them a reward, for their remembrance hath been forgotten.

 

[WhiteWings]

Micah, I'm quite sure OT teaches that the death are really dead.
But Jesus undid the damage done by Adam.
So if we really know what ecc. means do we then also know if things didn't change almost 2000 years ago?
I think the "death:an ending" answer must be in NT if not, nothing changed. Unless the OT tells us things will change when Jesus ascends back to heaven.....
Revelation is part of NT. It speaks of resurrections. People that don't die can't be resurrected because they are not dead. :dontknow: :dontknow:

BTW I see no sarcasm in that verse or the whole chapther.

[Lefein]

Examples of what I mean by almost sarcastic.

Ecc 2:1  I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity.
Ecc 2:2  I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it?

Ecc 2:16  For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.
Ecc 2:17  Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

The Book of Ecclesiastes carries an air of "HA!  What of this then?!  Do you think thus?!  Nay tis all in vain, useless and vain!" in variation through out.

It is passive-aggressive towards the thoughts of men, and their ideals of what is good, and their ideas of what will make them full.  It should be read as such, I think, in order to get the full scope of it.

Ecclesiastes is a book about life, and the way men live it - supposing their way will make them happier, or wealthier, or better off...when they are far from the truth of what will really make them happiest; God.  It is a book about living, not about the nature of what a person's state is after death, as far as I can tell.

[Beloved Servant]

Molly,
Did you understand my last post?
It was in response to yours, just above it.

[micah7:9]

Ecclesiastes is a book about the emptiness of life.
When a living soul dies(expires) its dead, without life.
"the dead know not anything, and there is no more to them a reward, for their remembrance hath been forgotten."
And is only "alive" in the memories of those who bring up or wish to remember that memory.

Rom 6:4  we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.

[Cardinal]

Amen to every word in the post above mine :ilu:

I would'nt say amen to every word she said. For the majority churches say Jesus is saviour, being critical I'd have to say that technically you are saying amen to someone who denies Jesus as saviour.  :2c:

:sigh: And you came to this conclusion of yours regarding me, based on WHAT, exactly???

[jabcat]

I think what's being said (though one might take umbrage with the method) is;

Card, you said this - "I can't think of one thing they teach, as is, that is accurate"

So I think TT is saying, the church DOES believe in Jesus as Savior, so that's something accurate they do believe -

Now, I probably need to go back and read this;

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=7297.msg83005#msg83005

[Beloved Servant]

 :clock: :sweat:

[jabcat]

you're right, I haven't learned it yet.   :grin:

[thinktank]

Amen to every word in the post above mine :ilu:

I would'nt say amen to every word she said. For the majority churches say Jesus is saviour, being critical I'd have to say that technically you are saying amen to someone who denies Jesus as saviour.  :2c:

:sigh: And you came to this conclusion of yours regarding me, based on WHAT, exactly???

sorry card but I was reading the text you posted like a computer program, not reading your beliefs and that text says that, churches don't teach one thing accurate and so logically that includes the idea of Jesus christ as saviour, so according to the language used here, then eaglesways is saying amen to a text that denies Jesus (indirectly)
My concern was that eaglesway is blessing something that could be bad for his soul, I'm probably being a bit over cautious, but life and death are in the power of the tongue.  :2c:

[thinktank]

you're right, I haven't learned it yet.   :grin:

You gave an accurate reading of what I meant  :thumbsup:

[thinktank]

I am just trained to write in a certain way that is very "Vulcan" (star trek fans will get it xD).
lefein

You mean the anti vulcan? what would they be though 'human' I think.

[jabcat]

Computer language - 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

That's about the extent of my knowledge.

:winkgrin:

[eaglesway]

Amen to every word in the post above mine :ilu:

I would'nt say amen to every word she said. For the majority churches say Jesus is saviour, being critical I'd have to say that technically you are saying amen to someone who denies Jesus as saviour.  :2c:

:sigh: And you came to this conclusion of yours regarding me, based on WHAT, exactly???

Very convoluted thinking TT, I mean Vulcans are supposed to be logical. A good Vulcan would have never made such a progression to 1)misread and then 2)misinterpret and then 3)regurgitate in deformity. To disagree with certain teachings of the mainline churches has no connection to denying Jesus Christ. Live long and prosper, John

sorry card but I was reading the text you posted like a computer program, not reading your beliefs and that text says that, churches don't teach one thing accurate and so logically that includes the idea of Jesus christ as saviour, so according to the language used here, then eaglesways is saying amen to a text that denies Jesus (indirectly)
My concern was that eaglesway is blessing something that could be bad for his soul, I'm probably being a bit over cautious, but life and death are in the power of the tongue.  :2c:

[thinktank]

Very convoluted thinking TT, I mean Vulcans are supposed to be logical. A good Vulcan would have never made such a progression to 1)misread and then 2)misinterpret and then 3)regurgitate in deformity. To disagree with certain teachings of the mainline churches has no connection to denying Jesus Christ. Live long and prosper, John

Fascanating, you said 'certain teachings', a true vulcan would look at things accurately, and card being a knowledgable woman of the faith, who also preaches, surely would know that the orthodox or mainstream church regard Jesus as saviour, since this is one of their main teachings. Cardinal said, she can't think of one thing that mainstream church teaches that is accurate. Now if she had said,"certain teachings" then I would agree with you, but in her post she said, not one thing is accurate, so logically that would include the teaching of Jesus as saviour of mankind.  :2c:

Now go fly like an eagle  :laughing7:

[Lefein]

When I said I have a Vulcan manner of speaking...lol, I was talking about my "educated" manner of speech. ^^

[eaglesway]

 I shall fly away like an eagle and enjoy the view from up yonder- grace and peace, John

[WhiteWings]

I am just trained to write in a certain way that is very "Vulcan"

Rhifv Areinnye daeohre.

Decendent from the Vulcans you mean.

In the episode at star date 152740.728 there is Romulan called TT :winkgrin:

[Cardinal]

To disagree with certain teachings of the mainline churches has no connection to denying Jesus Christ. Live long and prosper, John

:cloud9: Thanks for clarifying for me, Eaglesway; you did get the gist of what I was trying to say.  :girlheart:

TT;  :spank:  :winkgrin:

[Molly]

Molly,
Did you understand my last post?
It was in response to yours, just above it.

Yes, I did, Beloved Servant.  clouds of witnesses

Thank you! :cloud9:

[Beloved Servant]

  
                 :cloud9: