Does god want everyone to be saved?

[viole]

Really? Maybe that's just because it's unfamiliar to you.

Okay, let me try again. During the three days in which Jesus' body lay in the tomb, His spirit visited a place Mormonism calls the "Spirit World." This is the place where the spirits of everyone who has ever lived go to at the moment of death, when the spirit leaves the physical body behind. There is no reference in the Bible to the "Spirit World" specifically, but there are several passages of scripture describing the two different states of mind the human spirit finds itself in while in the Spirit World -- namely "Paradise" and "the Spirit Prison." (The "Spirit Prison" is also occasionally referred to as "Hell," but it is not a place of eternal torment, a lake of fire, or any such thing. It is a state of emotional anguish the wicked experience upon realizing the impact of their choices while in mortality, and the realization that there really is going to be "hell to pay" (pun intended). During the time Jesus spent in the Spirit World, He visited both those for whom existence was now like paradise and those for whom it was like being imprisoned. He was there in spirit form (i.e. no physical body); everyone else there was also in spirit form.

On Easter Morning, Jesus was resurrected from the dead. (I state this as fact, but I do understand that from a non-Christian perspective, this is merely a myth.) What this means is that His spirit once again entered His physical body, which lay dead in the tomb. When that happened, His body was given new life. But this time, He was made immortal. He could no longer be killed again, or die or natural causes or by any other means. He would live eternally from that moment forward. When He first saw Mary, He said, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father." I have always been taught that, since His body was no longer in the tomb, Mary was looking at the physical, resurrected Christ. If that is the case, Mary would have been able to touch and feel His body. She would have ended up embracing Him, not herself, as would have been the case had she tried to hug a spirit. Jesus didn't actually explain to her why she shouldn't touch Him; He only tells her not to because He hasn't yet been back to His Father's presence (His Father being in Heaven).

That is bizarre. What does it mean "do not touch me since I have not ascended to my Father, yet"? I really wonder what Maria must have thought. Probably: how could I hug you if you already took off to Heaven?

Later on, He tells His Apostles to touch the wounds in His hands and feel, and points out that He has a body of flesh and bones and is not merely a spirit. The Bible doesn't tell us precisely when the situation changed, but apparently He did at some point go to Heaven and then return to Earth. After all, we know He wasn't here constantly after His resurrection, and His Apostles and others always seem surprised to see Him among them. According to the biblical account, He remained on Earth at least some of the time for the next 40 days, at which time He told His followers that He would be leaving them and sending the Holy Ghost to be with them. He was seen ascending into Heaven at that time, where He has been ever since.

So, He went briefly to Heaven and back so that He could be touched?

Well, that touching test was superfluous, anyway. The fact that he could be heard implies that it could create physical sound waves. Not the speak of the photons reflecting off His body. Apparently, exciting vocal chords, having one's ear excited and reflecting light does not require having ascended to the Father, first.

He was resurrected into the physical world, after having spent three days in the spiritual world. He evidently at least went to Heaven temporarily at some point between when Mary saw Him and when His Apostles did, since His allowing people to touch Him appears to be contingent upon that action.

I don't see any other logical explanation.

Well, I have one, but it might sound a bit too mundane. Three days dead in a grave without a good shower first, might be inconvenient when trying to convey a message of eternity and glory. Especially when you get too close.

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

NW Translation renders 1 Timothy 2:4: "4 whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth." Regarding this, Reasoning on the Scriptures, p.358 observes "The Greek expressions rendered “all” and “everyone” in these verses are inflected forms of the word pas. As shown in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962, Vol. I, p. 46), pas can also mean “every kind or variety.” So, in the above verses, instead of “all,” the expression “every kind of” could be used; or “all sorts of,” as is done in NW. Which is correct—“all” or the thought conveyed by “all sorts of”? Well, which rendering is also harmonious with the rest of the Bible? The latter one is. Consider Acts 10:34, 35; Revelation 7:9, 10; 2 Thessalonians 1:9. (Note: Other translators also recognize this sense of the Greek word, as is shown by their renderings of it at Matthew 5:11—“all kinds of,” RS, TEV; “every kind of,” NE; “all manner of,” KJ.)"

 

[Katzpur]

That is bizarre.

Sometimes I wonder why I even waste my time.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Mr. and Mrs. Adam (and Eve) to me were married adults - Genesis 2:24. They were Not minor children.
They were forewarned about the danger about the forbidden tree. -> You eat, You die.
There was good and plenty in the paradisical Garden of Eden with only one stipulation only on one tree.

I think Satan did Not start out a dangerous stranger (Ezekiel 28:13-15). Danger started later with Satan's angelic free-will choices, and that is when things went bad. That one tree stood for or represented respect for God's authority.
Mr. and Mrs. Adam (and Eve) could have simply told Satan to go away.
( even minor children have been taught to tell strangers to go away )
Satan disguised himself: As a ventriloquist throws his voice, that snake (in the grass) was Not really a talking snake but cunning Satan just using that serpent.

Unlike with a minor child being lured with candy, Satan used cunning lies to attract (Not kidnap) Eve - Genesis 3:1-6.
( the Bible is silent as to how long a time passed by as Satan worked on Eve to believe him over God and Adam )
He told Eve her eyes were bound to be opened and she would be like God ( or in Eve's case as a goddess )
In other words: Who is this God over you Eve, Who is He to tell you what to do, Why not rebel for your own good.
Eve was already told what the evil/bad would be according to Eve's words at Genesis 3:3 "death".
Remember too that megalomaniac Satan lied to Eve that she would Not die. - Genesis 3:4
That is why I was trying to convey Eve may have concluded (have knowledge from Satan) that she could experience the evil/bad without really dying. Bottom line: Eve was deceived, Adam wasn't - 1 Timothy 2:14.
So, the blame is placed upon husband Adam's headship because Adam was Not deceived - Romans 5:12

"Mr. and Mrs. Adam (and Eve) to me were married adults - Genesis 2:24. They were Not minor children".
A&E may have physically been adults, but intellectually they clearly were mere children. These were adults who had never been lied to, adults that had never come in contact with a stranger. These were 'adults' that didn't even understand the concept of deception. Adults that have been completely sheltered from any and all danger would be as naive and clueless as children.

"( even minor children have been taught to tell strangers to go away )"
Exactly! Even minor children are warned about the dangers of the world. Yet there's no indication that God lectured A&E on the dangers of the Satan He had created. This Satan that God KNEW would try and deceive A&E. What chance did Eve stand against the Father of Lies, this megalomaniac Satan who was so cunning and deceptive when you claim that the reason Eve was tempted to eat the fruit was because she wanted to learn about evil/bad. If God didn't bothered to even warn Eve about this evil/bad Satan bent upon tricking and deceiving her, what chance did she really have against him?

That's why if you send your child out into the world completely oblivious to the dangers of lying deceptive strangers, it's true the child is at fault for choosing to help the stranger find his puppy, but the parents bears a FAR greater share of the blame for failing to properly prepare the child for the dangers the child would face. Add to that the fact that you're an all-knowing parent who KNOWS that this evil stranger is waiting outside the door to try and trick your child, then your failure to properly warn your child borders on the criminal.

 

[Clear]

Viole said (post #101) : That is bizarre. What does it mean "do not touch me since I have not ascended to my Father, yet"? I really wonder what Maria must have thought. Probably: how could I hug you if you already took off to Heaven?.... So, He went briefly to Heaven and back so that He could be touched?”

Sometimes I wonder why I even waste my time.

Katzpur : I admit that I had to smile at this interplay. I'm not sure why Viole is connecting the concept of "touching" or "not touching" Jesus and it's relation to other great cosmic events but your greater knowledge of early Christian worldviews may simply be giving you an advantage on this point. (Perhaps you are just being given a hard time....)

I just wanted to make a single observation regarding this verse that Viole is having difficulty making sense of.


The Greek of this phrase in John 20:17 is “…Μη μου απτον ουπω γαρ αναβεβηκα προς τον πατερα μου...” The word Viole is rendering “touch” also means “to hold”. The word απτομαι is not merely “touching” in many ancient usages, but it is often an aggressive "holding onto".

For example, in the OGIS Papyri (315.56) of 164-3 b.c.) the word is used “ηπτετο μαλλον ημων” when "holding onto" a viewpoint and "pressing" one’s view "upon another" person. It is difficulty with "letting go" of something.

The Syll Papyrus (849.6) of 177-176 b.c. uses the words ““ει δε τις κα απτηται σωσιχας...”. In this sense, the word is used in the sense of “Laying hold of” or “appropriating” a thing. In this ancient usage, it is not merely “touching”, but a holding onto something that is being referred to. It is the context that determines whether it means to "touch" or to "hold onto" or the more aggressive use "to appropriate" something.

Because the word is so often used as "to hold onto" (aggressively), I believe the Lord is gently telling Mary not to “hold him” in the sense of preventing his leaving her. In this model, he is offering a tender expression such as when someone tells another beloved, “I really have to go” when another duty calls (as it did the risen Christ who had other cosmic duties).

The other concept is that we do not know what the entire conversation consisted of between Mary and Jesus nor how long the conversation lasted. Individuals who read the bible tend to think the bible is quoting entire and complete conversations rather than important snippets from an entire life time. John reminds us in 21:25 that Jesus said and did much that was not written down, so much that John hyperbolizes on those many, many, unrecorded discussions and acts, saying the world would not have room to contain the things Jesus said and did if one were to attempt to write them all down.

If Jesus and Mary had a lengthy conversation, I would expect that, at some point, Jesus would have said, “Mary, I have to go now". If she had held to him, then it is perfectly consistent for him to say, in essence, “let me go, I have other things I have to do.” After all, he had other things of cosmic importance to do for others whom he also loved.

While the concept of conversation is speculative, the meaning of απτομαι as a form of “holding onto” is solid, historical, usage.

Good luck in coming to your own models as to what happened and why.


Clear
νεακδρω

 

[Katzpur]

Clear, your knowledge never, ever ceases to amaze me. Your explanation clarified the meaning of that scripture so well; I really appreciate your speaking up!

 

[viole]

Sometimes I wonder why I even waste my time.

I hope you are not a missionary, you give up too soon.

Maybe I will try to use those arguments with JWs. They are much more annoying than mormons. Do you think they will leave me in peace afterwards?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

duplicated

 

[Katzpur]

I hope you are not a missionary, you give up too soon.

Trust me, I'm not even close to being a missionary.

 

[Katzpur]

duplicated

Just a heads up... If you can still get back into a post to edit it, you can just as easily delete it entirely as change it to say, "duplicated."

 

[viole]

Trust me, I'm not even close to being a missionary.

Honest question. Do you have female missionaries? Or black guys?

I only observed white guys with a white shirt, a tie and a tag.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Just a heads up... If you can still get back into a post to edit it, you can just as easily delete it entirely as change it to say, "duplicated."

I am a computers ignoramus. So, I am not sure what is faster.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Katzpur]

Honest question. Do you have female missionaries? Or black guys?

I only observed white guys with a white shirt, a tie and a tag.

Of the Church's 70,000 missionaries, about 64% are young men, 28% are young women and 8% are retired couples. And yes, there are Black missionaries, Caucasian, Asian, etc. I don't know the breakdown by race, though, and I don't even think that information is kept on file.

 

[Katzpur]

I am a computers ignoramus. So, I am not sure what is faster.

Ciao

- viole

It's sixes. You just click "Delete" instead of "Edit," and you don't need to give a reason, even though it will prompt you for one.

 

[viole]

Of the Church's 70,000 missionaries, about 64% are young men, 28% are young women and 8% are retired couples. And yes, there are Black missionaries, Caucasian, Asian, etc. I don't know the breakdown by race, though, and I don't even think that information is kept on file.

Ok. Learned something new today. Daily primary objective fulfilled.

Second question: why do they mission?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Katzpur]

Ok. Learned something new today. Daily primary objective fulfilled.

Second question: why do they mission?

They believe they have something worth sharing, something that will change people's lives for the better.

Now I have a question for you? I just noticed you live in Switzerland. Wow! Is that your native country, and is your first language German, French or Swiss-German? I'm curious because my dad taught German on the university level for about 35 years. It's a beast of a language to learn. I've been trying all my life to learn to feel comfortable speaking it.

 

[viole]

They believe they have something worth sharing, something that will change people's lives for the better.

Now I have a question for you? I just noticed you live in Switzerland. Wow! Is that your native country, and is your first language German, French or Swiss-German? I'm curious because my dad taught German on the university level for about 35 years. It's a beast of a language to learn. I've been trying all my life to learn to feel comfortable speaking it.

I am a Swede who moved to Switzerland. Lucerne area. Mathematicians are sought after by Swiss financial institutes, apparently. Now, I am a citizen of both countries. So, you can confuse them at no risk

My languages, in decreasing order of proficiency are: Swedish (mother tongue), Italian, German and English. I know Italian because my hubby is from Rome (and his English is useless), and because I got my Phd in mathematical physics in north eastern Italy. German is a piece of cake when you know Swedish. English is part of standard Swedish education. I understand Swiss German, but I do not speak it. It would sound funny.

You should move here. i am sure mormons would pay considerably less taxes than vanilla Christians. Like atheists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[URAVIP2ME]

"Mr. and Mrs. Adam (and Eve) to me were married adults - Genesis 2:24. They were Not minor children".
A&E may have physically been adults, but intellectually they clearly were mere children. These were adults who had never been lied to, adults that had never come in contact with a stranger. These were 'adults' that didn't even understand the concept of deception. Adults that have been completely sheltered from any and all danger would be as naive and clueless as children.
"( even minor children have been taught to tell strangers to go away )"
Exactly! Even minor children are warned about the dangers of the world. Yet there's no indication that God lectured A&E on the dangers of the Satan He had created. This Satan that God KNEW would try and deceive A&E. What chance did Eve stand against the Father of Lies, this megalomaniac Satan who was so cunning and deceptive when you claim that the reason Eve was tempted to eat the fruit was because she wanted to learn about evil/bad. If God didn't bothered to even warn Eve about this evil/bad Satan bent upon tricking and deceiving her, what chance did she really have against him?
That's why if you send your child out into the world completely oblivious to the dangers of lying deceptive strangers, it's true the child is at fault for choosing to help the stranger find his puppy, but the parents bears a FAR greater share of the blame for failing to properly prepare the child for the dangers the child would face. Add to that the fact that you're an all-knowing parent who KNOWS that this evil stranger is waiting outside the door to try and trick your child, then your failure to properly warn your child borders on the criminal.

In Scripture, to me, age 30 was about the age considered for an adult male.
It took time and thought for Adam to observe and name all the animals in Eden -> Genesis 2:19
So, intellectually Adam had the intelligence to think and ponder about a fitting name for the animals.
So, I think it could seem quite likely Adam was already alive for about 30 years before he even met Eve,
To me, there is No indication to think Eve sinned the day she was created, or even shortly thereafter.
Satan probably worked on Eve for a long enough time for her to start thinking in a different pattern.
No child is lured in the way Satan lured Eve.
Eve knew, according to Genesis 3:2-3, that death came with breaking the 'do not eat' law.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In Scripture, to me, age 30 was about the age considered for an adult male.
It took time and thought for Adam to observe and name all the animals in Eden -> Genesis 2:19
So, intellectually Adam had the intelligence to think and ponder about a fitting name for the animals.
So, I think it could seem quite likely Adam was already alive for about 30 years before he even met Eve,
To me, there is No indication to think Eve sinned the day she was created, or even shortly thereafter.
Satan probably worked on Eve for a long enough time for her to start thinking in a different pattern.
No child is lured in the way Satan lured Eve.
Eve knew, according to Genesis 3:2-3, that death came with breaking the 'do not eat' law.

And Adam with the intelligent to ponder and name all of the animals, but who was still never taught anything about lies and deception would STILL be as innocent and immature as a child when it came to the concept of deception and lies. Same holds true for Eve. How is someone who doesn't even know what a lie is supposed to avoid being deceived?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And Adam with the intelligent to ponder and name all of the animals, but who was still never taught anything about lies and deception would STILL be as innocent and immature as a child when it came to the concept of deception and lies. Same holds true for Eve. How is someone who doesn't even know what a lie is supposed to avoid being deceived?

They were told ' do not eat ' was ' right '. They were told 'eat ' was 'wrong'.
The stipulation ' do not eat or you will die ' showed that nothing was concealed or hidden from them.
They knew there was only one limitation on one tree. That tree stool for the law of the land of Eden.
So, when the serpent contradicted and said that they would Not die, to me that would show a contradiction.
Even a child could come and say that Johnny said '_____' is Not good to eat, but Jimmy says it is fine to eat that.
Hey Dad, who is right Johnny or Jimmy, or in the case of A&E ask their Father, "Who is right You or the Serpent?"
After all, Adam and Eve had to realize all the good that God did for them lacking for nothing, so there is No reason to think they would be afraid to ask their Father a question before making a decision.
Just because the Serpent put a thought in Eve's mind did Not mean that thought had to build a nest in her mind.
Eve could have kicked out that thought, or Eve could have gone to Adam for his input, or said to Adam let's ask Father about this situation .........