Christians: The thief on the cross

[Nails]

The more I think about it do the number of resurrections really matter? We are really mincing words. You could count the number of believers listed in the book of life each as individual resurrections if you wanted. That would make many more than three. My point being- there is a distinction between believers and non-believers or 'the just and unjust". The important distinction being that some will live eternally to serve the Lord (first group) and some will live eternally to eternal torment (second group).

 

[james2ko]

I think you are reaching for things which just aren't there. the text implies that those taken from the sea are involved in the throne judgment, and I see no reason to think otherwise. Two resurrections.

That's what mainstream Christianity believes (Mat 24:11). If you haven't notice, I am not associated with that dogma.

Salvation is not difficult (Rom 10:9). To say that trials and tribulations are required is to say that God loves Paul more than you or I. Not true, for God is impartial. The ground is level at the foot of the cross, my friend, and He loves all equally to include those who believe and those who do not.

So just believe and your in? Perhaps God must somehow have an ace up his sleeve for allowing demons in the kingdom because they also believe:

Jas 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!​

If there is no immortal soul, what happens to those believers whose bodies are burned, or annihilated? If there is no soul or spirit apart from the body,

So you believe a cremated or mutilated body is too difficult for God to reassemble and reunite with the persons unconscious human spirit?

why would Peter refer to his body as a tent to be put off (2 Pet 1:14 NKJV)?

Peter perceived he would soon die. We've already discussed what happens to a person's spirit when they die.

What about the major flesh/spirit dichotomy taught by Paul?

What about it?

The spirit must be capable of existing independently of the physical body, otherwise there could be no glorification. The flesh is physical and will die. When the believer is resurrected he will receive a glorified body. This is a new physical body, not the one which you had when you died. It has been transformed; the same but different.

The bible speaks of a "spirit in man" or human spirit. This spirit gives our brain intellect (Job 32:8). This is what distinguishes us from animals. But it has no consciousness apart from the brain. They need each other to form a thought. Upon death, God stores this spirit which contains a recording, if you will, of our character, personality, experiences, strengths, weaknesses. This "recording" will be re-inserted in the person's resurrected body at one of the three resurrections.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not sure whether to even continue this debate. We are miles apart in how we're interpreting Revelation. That in and of itself would not be reason for me to bow out of our discussion. Your attitude towards my beliefs might be, though.

2. A careful read of Revelation chapter 20 will reveal more information than meets the eye. Verse 6 gives us info on the first resurrection. We both agree that is exclusive to those who have overcome in this age.

Depends on what you mean by "this age." As far as who will be raised in the First Resurrection, I believe it will be those who have repented of their sins and acknowledged that Jesus Christ is their Savior, and who have done so prior to Christ's Second Coming. You may believe that, too, but we are clearly at odds with respect to what happens to man's spirit after it leaves his body. Unless I am understanding you incorrectly, you believe that death marks the end of "this age." I believe that Christ's Second Coming marks the end of "this age." Of course this difference of opinion can be explained by the fact that you appear to believe that the spirit, along with the body, dies, while I believe that the spirit remains in a state where it can learn, grow, repent and make decisions. Because we are unlikely to be able to come to agreement on this point, we will never be able to see eye-to-eye on when "this age" ends.

Verse 5 gives us important details about the 2nd resurrection. After the 1,000 years have expired, the "rest of the dead" are those who lived during this 6,000 year dispensation without a fair opportunity to know the only name by which to attain salvation (Acts 4:12).

Huh? What 6,000 year dispensation? Where's you pick up that detail?

They will be resurrected to physical mortal life along with the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah (Matt 10:15) Tyre, Sidon, Bethsaida, Chorazin (Mat 11:21-22) Nineveh, the Queen of Sheba (Mat 12:41-42). This 2nd resurrection is described as a period of judgment which Isa 65:20 hints could be as long as 100 years. They will be judged [not condemned] according to their works and obedience to what is written in the "books" of the bible (vs 11-12) much in the same way Christians are being judged today (1 Pet 4:17).

Now consider vs 13: "The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works." This is yet another resurrection! Most likely after the 100 yr judgment period. Notice there is no statement that the "book of life" is opened to this group. Why? Simply because they must have already had their chance for salvation and rejected it! God will not force anyone to choose his way of life.

The last human beings will be resurrected to physical mortal life from their graves which could have been at sea (where they may have perished in their first life); from death (without burial in their first life); or from a hole in the ground [hades]. They will lamentably be sentenced and executed in the lake of fire (vs 14-15) which at this point will engulf the whole earth (2 Pet 3:7) This is the dreaded second death to which there is no resurrection. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man illustrates the essence of this 3rd resurrection.

I don't even know how to begin to comment on this. This just doesn't tie in to my belief system enough for me to even be able to make heads or tails of it.

3. To imply the thief will come up in the first resurrection would contradict every thing Jesus and the Apostles taught about salvation--that it would be difficult (Matt 7:14), full of trials, hardship, and tribulation (Acts 14:22). Those in the first resurrection would have been tried and tested in this life and had to endure and overcome before given the awesome responsibility of possessing a powerful, eternal, spirit body (Rev 2:26). There is no way the few words uttered by the thief, moments before his death, would satisfy these criteria. Now for him to be resurrected, after the millennium, when the effect of obeying God's laws would have transformed the earth to a beautiful paradise, then be given a period of time to be tested and proven, with Christ and the saints assisting him along the way. This scenario would render Christ's reply to the thief more inline with biblical teaching.

I totally disagree, but again, it's because I don't see the death of the body as the death of the spirit. Furthermore, I don't see anything in Revelation to imply that anyone is going to have a second chance on earth. I believe that's what you're saying, and if it is, I'm not buying it.

4. The belief that our soul or spirit is conscious independent from the body is commonly known as the immortal soul doctrine. It was first introduced by the devil himself when he told Eve, "You shall not surely die." It was adopted by the Greeks from the Egyptians (see book of the dead) which was later embraced by the Jews and perpetuated by mainstream Christianity. Nowhere in the Old or New Testament will you find this idea of an immortal spirit conscious outside the human body. Furthermore, from a Christian perspective, the concept of an immortal soul is illogical.

Perhaps you may wish to rephrase these last comments. I don't particularly care what label you want to slap on my beliefs, but don't tell me the doctrines I hold sacred are from the devil himself. That's insulting and I don't deserve it.

If man had an immortal conscious spirit, what benefit and or need would there be to reunite an already living, conscious, coherent entity with a dead one through a resurrection?

The whole point of the resurrection is to give new, eternal life to the physical body. This can only be done by the spirit re-entering it and making it immortal and incorruptable.

5. You must be referring to 1 Pet 3:19. Some Christians maintain the tradition that Christ was preaching to departed human "spirits in prison" while He was in "hell." That idea is simply not scriptural. Verse 20 makes it plain that those to whom Christ preached (concerning their rebellious activities on earth) were demon spirits which were, and still are, in a type of spiritual prison and that He preached to them during the days of Noah. Notice how 2 Pet 2:4-5 parallels and expounds on the meaning of 1 Pet 3:19-20:

1Pet 3:19-20 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

2 Pet 2:4-5 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell [tartarus]and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;
​

The Greek word translated "hell" in vs 4 is "tartaroo" or "tartarus" . Notice what Vine's Expository Bible Dictionary has to say:

"The verb tartaroo, translated "cast down to hell" in 2Pe_2:4, signifies to consign to Tartarus, which is neither Sheol nor hades nor hell, but the place where those angels whose special sin is referred to in that passage are confined "to be reserved unto judgment"; the region is described as "pits of darkness."
​

1 Pet 3:19-20 is not talking about the three days and nights Jesus was dead in the grave at all! He was in "hell" or "tartarus", during the days of Noah, preaching to the demon spirits confined there! This is the only time in the whole NT the term "hell" is referred to as "tartarus" and it's distinctly referring to demon spirits not unrepentant human spirits!

That's nice. I disagree.

 

[Katzpur]

Apologies, I reread your post and now I think I understand a little better what you were saying. I think there are only two resurrections, the first being that of believers, and the second that of non-believers.

I agree with that in essence.

The question of the thief on the cross is interesting. I see it as a technicality that Jesus had not yet been resurrected yet because, if Jesus is God, He knows a mans heart and that what he says is sincere. It is true that the original Greek has no punctuation, and I don't fully understnd how the comma placement can change the meaning drastically, especially in light of the fact that there were no commas to begin with; ie you can put the comma wherever you want or leave it out altogether.

Jesus said 'today you will be with me in paradise', and I see no good reason to believe any other interpretation, but to take His words literally. I am also of the persuasion that salvation is by God's grace alone through faith.

I believe James is saying that Jesus was more or less saying, "You will be with me in paradise. I'm telling you that today." Why He would have found it necessary to point out to the thief that He was telling him that "today" is beyond me. It would seem pretty obvious, don't you think? I believe that Jesus was telling the thief that the two of them would see one another in paradise before that day had ended.

The question which remains for me is one I have had for a long time. What happens to a believer immediately after death? Jesus told the thief today you will be in paradise. Does that mean that he, the thief dies, then, as if he were sleeping, wakes up and is with Christ at the milennium period (or the white throne judgment depending on your theology) or, as Catholics profess is there a purgatory like conscious holding area?

I don't believe the Catholics are right in their belief in Purgatory, but that this doctrine is one that resulted from the corruption of a similar doctrine which was lost as a part of the apostasy which took place in the early Church. The spirit, according to my belief, leaves the body at death and is judged worthy of paradise or hell. The spirit does not die -- ever. It continues to exist until the time it re-enters the body, giving the body new life, and resurrecting it to an immortal, incorruptible state. A spirit in hell can, however, be released from hell to await the resurrection in paradise. It is my belief that the spirits of the believers (i.e. the spirits in paradise) are currently preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to the spirits of the unbelievers (i.e. the spirits in hell). It should be obvious to anyone that billions of people have lived and died without ever having had the opportunity to hear the gospel. Why anyone would think that a loving God would punish these souls for having had the misfortune to be born at the wrong time or in the wrong place to have had the same chance you and I have had to rise in the First Resurrection is beyond me. I simply cannot conceive of it.

By the way, just as an additional thought for you to consider... Paradise is not the same place as Heaven. When Mary saw Jesus near the garden tomb on Easter morning, He told her not to touch Him since He had not yet ascended to His Father in Heaven. So, if He had not yet ascended to His Father in Heaven but told the thief they would see each other that day in Paradise, He was obviously referring to a different place. I'm going to go with the idea that the thief would not be oblivious to this meeting. How about you?

 

[Katzpur]

That's what mainstream Christianity believes (Mat 24:11). If you haven't notice, I am not associated with that dogma.

It would certainly save me a lot of guesswork if you'd tell me which religion you are associated with. Based strictly on a couple of comments you made months back, I guessed you were LDS. Now I'm thinking JW. I know some people are hesitant to be very specific in terms of their religion, but if you wouldn't mind disclosing this information, it would probably save us tons of talking back and forth. At least I'd have a point of reference when talking to you. It helps me to know that Pegg is a JW since I do have a little bit of an understanding of their beliefs.

The bible speaks of a "spirit in man" or human spirit. This spirit gives our brain intellect (Job 32:8). This is what distinguishes us from animals. But it has no consciousness apart from the brain.

It might be nice if you were to add, "in my opinion," since you are as unable as the next person to prove this to be the case.

 

[Katzpur]

I am also of the persuasion that salvation is by God's grace alone through faith.

Could you explain the multitude of scriptures which say that we must also commit ourselves to obeying Christ's commandments?

 

[Nails]

Could you explain the multitude of scriptures which say that we must also commit ourselves to obeying Christ's commandments?

Obedience is the evidence of faith (James 2:18), and the natural result of God's grace working in the heart of the believer (Eph 2:8-10). The Christian follows Christ's commands (Mt 22:36) out of love for God.

By definition, to love God is to obey his commandments (1 Jn 5:3).

Obeying God alone does not bring salvation. Also, As James2ko rightly pointed out, belief alone does not bring salvation. Obedience, as a byproduct of receiving grace, is the natural expression of love for God and our appreciation of Him for granting salvation. God has everything, it all belongs to Him, and there is nothing you can do to earn His favor (Isa 64:6). I want to obey God's commandments because I love Him and want to please Him.

In summary, salvation is by grace through faith (Eph 2:8) which is evidenced by works (Jam 2:18), which is, obedience (1 Jn 5:3).

 

[james2ko]

I'm not sure whether to even continue this debate. We are miles apart in how we're interpreting Revelation. That in and of itself would not be reason for me to bow out of our discussion. Your attitude towards my beliefs might be, though.

1. Since when did you get so sensitive . I simply gave you the origins of the immortal soul doctrine. It's all public knowledge for the exception of the conversation between satan and eve. That part is just my belief.

Unless I am understanding you incorrectly, you believe that death marks the end of "this age." I believe that Christ's Second Coming marks the end of "this age."

2. I'm not sure which comment I made to lead you to this conclusion, but I do believe this age ends with Christ's coming.

Depends on what you mean by "this age." As far as who will be raised in the First Resurrection, I believe it will be those who have repented of their sins and acknowledged that Jesus Christ is their Savior, and who have done so prior to Christ's Second Coming. You may believe that, too, but we are clearly at odds with respect to what happens to man's spirit after it leaves his body. If course this difference of opinion can be explained by the fact that you appear to believe that the spirit, along with the body, dies, while I believe that the spirit remains in a state where it can learn, grow, repent and make decisions. Because we are unlikely to be able to come to agreement on this point, we will never be able to see eye-to-eye on when "this age" ends. The whole point of the resurrection is to give new, eternal life to the physical body. This can only be done by the spirit re-entering it and making it immortal and incorruptible.

3. This analogy by the apostle James may bring light to the spirit-body relationship:

Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
​

If the body without the spirit is dead, we can logically conclude the spirit without the body is also "dead". Which is precisely what the rest of the bible indicates. Think of the body and spirit as a cassette in a cassette player. The cassette [human spirit] has recorded information of our character, personality, likes and dislikes, idiosyncrasies, etc stored which can only be heard or "bought to life" if inserted in the cassette player [body]. Similarly, the cassette player can be "bought to life" only if it has the cassette inserted. They are totally interdependent. One cannot properly function on its own without the other. This is why a resurrection is needed to unite the two dead entities to form a functioning being! The relationship between the human spirit and body is simple to understand but not so simple to accept.

Huh? What 6,000 year dispensation? Where's you pick up that detail?

Joh 5:28 "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice"
​

4. All means every single man, woman, and child who has lived and died from Adam to Christ's return, will eventually be resurrected!

I totally disagree, but again, it's because I don't see the death of the body as the death of the spirit. Furthermore, I don't see anything in Revelation to imply that anyone is going to have a second chance on earth. I believe that's what you're saying, and if it is, I'm not buying it.

5. Why is it so far fetched to believe this? The bible is full of examples of people getting a second chance at life on this earth (Elisha raising the woman's son, Lazarus, the saints after Christ's resurrection) Why would it be so difficult to believe God will not do it in the future? Furthermore, I find it very encouraging to know that my unbelieving dead loved ones will one day live again and get a fair, unhindered opportunity to know Christ. Don't you?

That's nice. I disagree.

6. I've been waiting since November 2010 for a reply to these verses and that's the best you can come up with?

 

[Katzpur]

In summary, salvation is by grace through faith (Eph 2:8) which is evidenced by works (Jam 2:18), which is, obedience (1 Jn 5:3).

Okay, with that additional explanation, I can agree with you.

 

[james2ko]

The more I think about it do the number of resurrections really matter? We are really mincing words. You could count the number of believers listed in the book of life each as individual resurrections if you wanted. That would make many more than three. My point being- there is a distinction between believers and non-believers or 'the just and unjust". The important distinction being that some will live eternally to serve the Lord (first group) and some will live eternally to eternal torment (second group).

It would certainly matter to the "unlucky" billions who died before Christ was born and those in recent times who have never even heard the name of Christ. So which group would all of these folks fall under?

 

[james2ko]

I believe James is saying that Jesus was more or less saying, "You will be with me in paradise. I'm telling you that today." Why He would have found it necessary to point out to the thief that He was telling him that "today" is beyond me. It would seem pretty obvious, don't you think? I believe that Jesus was telling the thief that the two of them would see one another in paradise before that day had ended.

Not quite. He could have been trying to encourage the thief during his agonizing ordeal by implying the wait will not be long. Especially when you consider Jesus knew the thief would have no knowledge of the passage of time between his death and his next breath at the 2nd resurrection, after the millenium, in a beautiful paradisaic environment. From the thief's perspective, it would "feel" as if it were the same day. This same lack of knowledge in the passage of time was illustrated by Jesus in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man (Luk 16:27-31).

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

I have read this thread with some interest, partly because I have watched the various modern theories expounded but I do not think they are historically correct, nor do most of the theories apply to the OP. I think the OP took a wrong turn at the second post.,

In post #1 Strength & Honor started the OP with the following :

” This thread is in reference to baptism.
The story of the thief on the cross is a very powerful demonstration of Christ's love and compassion for humanity. But it has always been a story put forth as an example of how NT baptism might not be for salvation. The story, from Luke 23, goes like this, starting in verse 39:
39One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" 40But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41"And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
42And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
43And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
Those who believe that baptism is not for salvation often use this story as evidence of that belief - the implication being that, if this thief did not need to be baptized, then neither do I. However, I find it hard to agree with that for 2 reasons:

1. This happened before Christ's death burial and resurrection, and therefore, before NT baptism even took effect as a part of salvation. So whether he was baptized or not is irrelevant. It wasn't until after Christ's death was the New Covenant initiated, having, as Paul puts it, nailed the Old Law to the cross.

2. This is a specific incident - a one-time occurrence of Jesus personally telling someone face-to-face that they would be saved. This does not happen today! Christ does not come down from heaven and point out individuals publicly as being saved. So, this specific mode of salvation does not apply to us today.

For these two reasons, and perhaps others, the thief on the cross story seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Any thoughts or comments?

However, I think the thread took a wrong turn at the second post when Pegg said :

our thought on the thief on the cross has to do with the resurrection

The OP asks a question regarding a first century Christian doctrine, but the question is answer is given from a 20th century doctrine. The two are very different.





Jesus promise to Dymas (the thief) was NOT that Dymas would be with Jesus in the “resurrection “ that day”, but rather, Dymas was promised to be “μετ εμου εν τω παραδεισω” (with me in “PARADISE&#8221 that day. The definition of παραδεισω (paradise) in the LXX, in Mac 7,25&26, in II Mac 5:17 and 7:12 and other places is that of a park, a garden (LXX), “an abode of the blessed dead”. Any new definitions to the old standard definitions should be explained and supported by new data.

Also, the wrangling over the placement of a comma based on our personal bias is not needed since there are a great deal of early Judao-Christian texts from the earliest period which make it clear that the early judao-christiand definitions are correct and the earliest Judao-Christian text THEMSELVES describe THEIR interpretations of what was meant by Paradise , as an abode of spirits awaiting the resurrection.



“THE PLACE IN THE MIDDLE”

In describing the “intermediate” world between mortality and Final Judgment Both writers and translators of various early texts, both correctly and incorrectly, use many words to refer to this place such as SHEOL - HADES - SPIRIT WORLD, PARADISE, sometimes "HELL" is used. (I believe they get it correctly more often than RE posters do however&#8230 Occassionally, it is only the context that saves us from great confusion.

For example the prophet Enochs description that “paradise is in between the corruptible and the incorruptible.” (2En 8:5) indicates the ancient meaning for Paradise which moderns often forget. This ancient usage of the word “Paradise” changes the meaning of Jesus promise to Dymas (the thief crucified beside Jesus) that “today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (lk 23:43). It was not “heaven” Dymas was promised, but it was “paradise”, the place between corruptible mortality and incorruptible heaven.
Quote:

Of mortals it was said, “ Either he will be in this world or in the resurrection or in the places in the middle.” (The gospel of Phillip)

All who leave mortality through death enter the place in the middle, i.e. Sheol, hades, spirit world, paradise, etc.

The “complainer” Ezra complains regarding the end of his life :

“Bewail me, all holy and just ones, because I have entered the bowl of Hades.” (Apoc of Ez 7:1) The glorified Jesus reminds Ezra that he had been there as well, AND IMPORTANTLY, Neither was speaking of "HELL as the post-judgement place of punishment. Jesus tells the prophet Ezra : “Hear, Ezra, my beloved one. I, being immortal, received a cross, I tasted vinegar and gall, I was set down in a grave. And I raised up my elect ones and I summoned up Adam from Hades (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4).

But more on this later.



ALL WHO DIE GO TO THIS SPIRIT WORLD (THE PLACE IN THE MIDDLE)
In this ancient theology, all souls, including the Patriarchs, upon dying, have their spirits placed into this spirit world.

“do you not know that all those who (spring) from Adam and Eve die? And not one of the prophets escaped death and not one of those who reign has been immortal. Not one of the forefathers has escaped the mystery of death. All have died, all have departed into Hades, all have been gathered by the sickle of Death.” (TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM (recension A) 8:9; 7)

“ And Death said, “Hear, righteous Abraham, for seven ages I ravage the world and I lead everyone down into Hades – kings and rulers, rich and poor, slaves and free I send into the depth of Hades (T of Abr (rec A) 19:7) .

“For Death deceived Abraham. And he kissed his hand and immediately his soul cleaved to the hand of Death....13...the undefiled voice of the God and Father came speaking thus : “Take, then my friend Abraham into Paradise, where there are the tents of my righteous ones and (where) the mansions of my old ones, Isaac and jacob, are in his bosom... (TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM (recension A) 20:9,13-15)

None of these references refer to the "Hell" that individuals may be sent to after the Judgment, but Hades was also used in translations as a name for this "spirit world"; the "place in the middle". Another point of confusion regarding the place in the middle (paradise, hades, sheol – whatever name is used in this context) is that the experience there is NOT the same for all individuals since individuals are divided according to their degree of righteousness. Thus it was often referred to as a "prison" of sorts.


In describing Sheol, Enoch is shown that it has separate “areas” for individuals to be “assigned to”. In his vision, The Old Testament Prophet Enoch asks the angel :

.”For what reason is one separated from the other? And he replied and said unto me, “These three have been made in order that the spirits of the dead might be separated. And in the manner in which the souls of the righteous are separated (by) this spring of water with light upon it, in like manner the sinners are set apart when they die and are buried in the earth and judgment has not been executed upon them in their lifetime,... until the great day of judgment...They will bind them there forever–even from the beginning of the world. ....Such has been made for the souls of the people who are not righteous, but sinners and perfect criminals; they shall be together with (other) criminals who are like them. (1Enoch 22:9-13)

Since the righteous are with the righteous, they seem to adapt to a calm existence, the unrighteous, being grouped with others of their type and having increased awareness of the result of their moral choices become unhappy in their regrets and distress.


The descent of Christ into “the place in between” (sheol, hades, hell, etc.) after his death


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


The descent of Christ into this spirit world after his death is described in multiple ancient accounts and they are very clear that Christ went to the world of spirits , to the place where dymas (the thief crucified beside jesus) went.

One is The Gospel of Bartholomew. In this account, the Apostle Bartholomew asks he risen Jesus : “Lord, when you went to be hanged on the cross, I followed you at a distance and saw how you were hanged on the cross and how the angels descended from heaven and worshiped you. And when darkness came, I looked and saw that you had vanished from the cross; only I heard your voice in the underworld,.....Tell me, Lord, where you went from the cross.”

In this christian account, Jesus summarizes his descent into Hades saying :

"I went to the underworld to bring up Adam and all the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.... When I descended with my angels to the underworld ,in order to dash in pieces the iron bars and shatter the portals of the underworld”... “ I shattered the iron bars....And I brought out all the patriarchs and came again to the cross.... “I was hanged upon the cross for your sake and for the sake of your children.” (The Gospel of Bartholomew chapt one)

The early Christian Gospel of Nicodemus, text contains multiple testimonies of the living Jesus after his resurrection AND descriptions of Jesus actions in Hades when he visited the “spirits imprisoned” there. Joseph (of Arimathea) observes to those discussing Jesus resurrection :

“Why then do you marvel at the resurrection of Jesus? It is not this that is marvelous, but rather that he was not raised alone, but raised up many other dead men who appeared to many in Jerusalem. And if you do not know the others, yet Symeon, who took Jesus in his arms, [Luke 2:34] and his two sons, whom he raised up, you do know. For we buried them a little while ago. And now their sepulchers are to be seen opened and empty, but they themselves are alive and dwelling in Arimathaea”...Joseph said: “Let us go to Arimathaea and find them.” Then arose the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, and Joseph and Nicodemus and Gamaliel and others with them, and went to Arimathaea and found the men of whom Joseph spoke.” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch one)

These men then speak with the resurrected sons of Symeon (who were NOT Christians and were NOT baptized while they were alive). These two had died, and gone to the world of Spirits, converted to Christianity while in the spirit world, and had then been resurrected with many others at the resurrection of Christ and who were walking among and teaching others regarding Jesus. The brothers described what happened in this Spirit world (sheol, hades, etc).

“We, then were in Hades with all who have died since the beginning of the world. And at the hour of midnight there rose upon the darkness there something like the light of the sun and shone, and light fell upon us all, and we saw one another, and immediately our father, Abraham, along with the patriarchs and the prophets, was filled the joy, and they said to one another: “This shining comes from a great light.” The prophet Isaiah, who was present there, said : “This shining comes from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This I prophesied when I was still living: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, the people that sit in darkness saw a great light.” Then there came into the midst another, an anchorite from the wilderness. The patriarchs asked him: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am John, the last of the prophets, who made straight the ways of the Son of God, and preached repentance to the people for the forgiveness of sins.....And for this reason he sent me to you, to preach that the only begotten Son of God comes here, in order that whoever believes in him should be saved,....Therefore I say to you all: When you see him, all of you worship him. For now only have you opportunity for repentance because you worshiped idols in the vain world above and sinned. At another time it is impossible” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch two)

I might make the point here that it is not only John the Baptist’s spirit who is teaching the gospel, but the spirits of the other Patriarchs among the spirits of men are teaching the gospel and many other spirits are also “called to testify” and teach gospel truths to the others in the spirit world. Though the complete Story of Dymas is incomplete, it is clear that Jesus’ Promise that he would be in this “paradise” with other spirits was fulfilled as the early Christian literature describes.


Speaking of these spirits in the middle, it is recorded that Dymas was given a cross and sent to “paradise” with the other spirits who were awaiting resurrection :

While they were saying this there came another, a humble man, carrying a cross on his shoulder. The holy fathers asked him: “who are you, who have the appearance of a robber, and what is the cross you carry on your shoulder?” He answered: “I was, as you say, a robber and a thief in the world, and therefore the jews took me and delivered me to the death of the cross together with our Lord Jesus Christ. When, therefore, he hung on the cross, I saw the wonders which happened and believed in him. And I appealed to him and said: ‘Lord, when you reign as king, do nor forget me.’ And immediately he said to me: ‘Truly, truly, today, I say to you, you shall be with me in Paradise’ [Lk 23:43]. So I came into Paradise carrying my cross, and found Michael the archangel, and said to him: ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified, has sent me here. Lead me, therefore, to the gate of Eden.’...Then the archangel said to me: ‘Wait a short while. For Adam also, the forefather of the race of men, comes with the righteous, that they also may enter in....(Ch XI> The Gospel of Nicodemus- Christ’s descent into hell)

The point of all this reference to early Judao-Christian texts is to confirm that the earliest Christians themselves believed that there was indeed a place of cognizant spirits between death and resurrection and Jesus promise to Dymas was fulfilled in this early Judao-Christian Context.

Clear
twfueitt

 

[james2ko]

It would certainly save me a lot of guesswork if you'd tell me which religion you are associated with. Based strictly on a couple of comments you made months back, I guessed you were LDS. Now I'm thinking JW. I know some people are hesitant to be very specific in terms of their religion, but if you wouldn't mind disclosing this information, it would probably save us tons of talking back and forth. At least I'd have a point of reference when talking to you. It helps me to know that Pegg is a JW since I do have a little bit of an understanding of their beliefs.

I am simply a bible believing Christian who dared question what I repeatedly heard, read or was taught about Christianity. I was willing to prove what all my peers have accepted without question. I find it strange my peers would completely ignore 1Th 5:21 and often vigorously defend their beliefs feeling absolutely no need to examine proof of why they believe what they do--or to consider how they came to such beliefs.

Human nature wants to follow the crowd. And this has been the case with virtually every one of the popular church teachings, traditions and practices found in orthodox Christianity including all its offshoot denominations, sects, and cults--which have, for the most part, developed their doctrines almost entirely from paganism, false customs and human reasoning. True Christianity has been hijacked and this is why the masses have followed a god that was conceived and developed entirely outside the pages of the Bible. And this is also the reason why you may find my beliefs so foreign.

It might be nice if you were to add, "in my opinion," since you are as unable as the next person to prove this to be the case.

Whoops..sorry..almost forgot..all of the above is obviously my opinion

 

[Nails]

It would certainly matter to the "unlucky" billions who died before Christ was born and those in recent times who have never even heard the name of Christ. So which group would all of these folks fall under?

Not a question I need to answer, I trust that God has it covered. He's a lot smarter than me. That said I suppose I'd have to appeal to general revelation (rom 1:19) and the appropriate faith response. Feel free to call that a cop out. I don't know the answer, but I am confident that God does.

 

[Clear]

1)

James 2KO said : “True Christianity has been hijacked and this is why the masses have followed a god that was conceived and developed entirely outside the pages of the Bible. And this is also the reason why you may find my beliefs so foreign.”

Katzpur, I must agree with James in his sentiment that apostasy from Authentic and early Christian doctrines has occurred. However, the deep irony is that I do not think that most individuals like James2KO realize that the logic they apply to the religious theories of others, applies to their own modern Christian theories as well.

If you compare the beliefs of early christians from their text I gave in posts 32 and 33, you will find that James2KOs doctines SEEM so different because they ARE very different. I believe the historical texts from the Early Judao-Christians were very, very clear on this point and make this plain to anyone who reads posts #32 and #33.
.

James forgot to mention his own theory of Dymas' promise applying to the resurrection he’s expounded upon in the last few posts is VERY different than that the early christians described in post #32 and #33, or to his theory that spirit isn’t cognizant either before or after mortality (which the early christians obviously believed in, since they tell us they do in their texts I’ve quoted from in post #32 and #33.

For example, I’ve already shown that the early Judao-Christians believed that the Promise Jesus made to the Thief Dymas on the cross can be taken at face value, rather than subjecting it to james2KOs modern rhetoric and torturous logic in order to create an entirely different gospel where the promise applies to the resurrection, rather than to paradise. Read the early texts in post #32 and #33 and see if their descriptions of this doctrine even NEED any explanation, much less rhetorical explanation or strange logic in order to give them clear meaning.

It’s not just James2KO that suffers from a criticalness of other that they do not apply to their own christian theories, but MOST modern Christians tend to apply rules and criticisms to other christianities, which their own theories cannot pass. Christians, as a group, tend to point out the apostasy of “the Jews” and use them as a negative example, while they cannot see the same principle at work among themselves. ALL of us, tend to make subtle changes in doctrines in alignment with our own biases, which, over time, add up to entirely different doctrines. That IS part of the value of historical periscopes, we can see what WAS taught in the early stages of Christian doctrinal development.

For example, James2K0 expounds upon a religious theory where the spirit does not have cognizance when it is separated from the body, whereas such a doctrine was heresy to the earliest Judao-Christians who believed not only that spirits existed in paradise (the in between place), but also existed before they were placed into mortality through birth.

I do not think such departures from the earliest doctrines happened all at once as though someone woke up and suddenly decided one day to consciously “teach a heresy”, but rather I believe that subtle changes to original doctrines added up over time so as to create a doctrine that would be unrecognizable to the ancient Judao-Christians.



2) James2KO

I DO agree with you that, regardless of any religious theories you hold regarding Christian doctrine, it does not matter WHAT specific persuasion of theist you are. I do think your theories are interesting and the logic whereby you support them is quite interesting as well. James, these are difficult issues for non-historians to discover, I wish you the best of luck in your spiritual journey. I hope I have not offended you in pointing out the differences between your theories and early christian doctrines. If so, I apologize.


Clear
twacseen

 

[james2ko]

Not a question I need to answer, I trust that God has it covered. He's a lot smarter than me. That said I suppose I'd have to appeal to general revelation (rom 1:19) and the appropriate faith response. Feel free to call that a cop out. I don't know the answer, but I am confident that God does.

He sure does and He reveals it to us in His Word. Don't you find it just a bit odd God would leave the destiny of billions upon billions unaccounted for in His revelation to mankind? Consider these passages:

John 3:17: For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

1Ti 2:4: who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Pet 3:9: The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is long suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Luke 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
​

How else would these scriptures be fulfilled unless God resurrects every man, woman, and child that ever lived from Adam to the return of Christ, whom He has purposely blinded (Mk 4:12)--- by allowing satan to deceive and blind humanity (Rev 12:9; 2 Co 4:4)--- at the end of the millennium (Rev 20:5) in a satan-free, (Rev20:10) Christ-ruling, God-centered, paradisaical environment (Isa 11:6-9) and allot them time (Isa 65:20; Rev 20:11-12) to accept or reject the only possible name under heaven which may grant them salvation? (Acts 4:12)

 

[Pegg]

Not quite. He could have been trying to encourage the thief during his agonizing ordeal by implying the wait will not be long. Especially when you consider Jesus knew the thief would have no knowledge of the passage of time between his death and his next breath at the 2nd resurrection, after the millenium, in a beautiful paradisaic environment. From the thief's perspective, it would "feel" as if it were the same day. This same lack of knowledge in the passage of time was illustrated by Jesus in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man (Luk 16:27-31).

the other point to consider is that Jesus himself spent the next 3 days in hell/the grave...so he wasnt with the man in paradise at all.

Also Jesus words to Nicodemus clearly show that his own belief was not that man ascends to heaven after they die. He told nicodemus:
John 3:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man

 

[Sum1sGruj]

When a saved one dies, from their perspective they immediately go to Heaven.
The reason is because if you are dead, a millenium could go by and you would not even know it passed. It would be instantaneous at the time of death from one's eyes.

Anyways, I don't believe anyone has to be baptized. The idea of having it to be an absolute requirement mars the essential concept of Jesus altogether.

 

[Katzpur]

When a saved one dies, from their perspective they immediately go to Heaven.
The reason is because if you are dead, a millenium could go by and you would not even know it passed. It would be instantaneous at the time of death from one's eyes.

And you know this how?

Anyways, I don't believe anyone has to be baptized. The idea of having it to be an absolute requirement mars the essential concept of Jesus altogether.

Why not. Jesus commanded us to be baptized. Why would you say it's unnecessary for us to keep one of His commandments?