Regarding FaithofChristian’s new, modern interpretation of John 5:28-29 to support his new theory.
When other posters point out that the words you are assigning new and strange meanings to are not what the words meant to early Christianity, you responded “i do not go by worldviews. Nor what Christianity thinks.” (FaithofChristian, post #116)
The problem with this attitude is that you are claiming a historical text (John 5:28-19) means something to you that it did not mean to the ancients who wrote it and the ancients who heard the speech and read the text. IF, you make a historical claim, then you must pay attention to historical meaning and historical context else the theory lacks sufficient historical claim to validity and is easily dismissed.
Changing original historical meanings to historical religious words and historical religion disassociates your theory from authentic historical meaning and from authentic historical Christianity. It is the creation of new and different religion or a contamination of the old and original, yet may confuse individuals who think your new interpretations are related to authentic, original “Christianity”. If you named your new religion “spiritual deadism” then this confusion would not occur.
Another problem your attempt to assign different, new meanings to religious words is that the scriptures you use, often do not support your case, but instead support those who are critical of your new theory.
You attempted to use 1 Corinthians 15:55 which in greek is “Που σου, θανατε το νικος που σου, θανατε το κεντρον.” Which means, of course “Death where is your victory, death where is your sting?” This sentence 55 comes on the heels of sentences 53 and 54 where they speak of a “perishable nature must put on the imperishable” and this “mortal nature” which must put on “immortality”. Neither of these references refer to specific lack of belief, but speak to a “perishable nature” and a “lack of immortality”, that is, they are speaking of death and mortality and this context are placed in juxtaposition to resurrection.
Both of the references to θανατε / physical indicate this specific Death is overcome by resurrection (and no reference is made to spiritual death overcome by belief) in this specific example. If the phrast in vs 52 where “the dead will be raised imperishable” means being saved from “lack of belief”, you need to make the case for the linguistic shift in this case.
Your new theory runs into the same problem by your reference to Psalms 49:15 (48:15 in LXX). You example undermines your theory rather than supporting it.
Psalms says “Except God shall ransom my soul from out of [the] hand of hades whenever he should receive [literally : take] me.” The word you are using for “grave” is αδου (“hadou” = hades). As other posters have pointed out, this is a place, not a condition of “lack of belief”.
In relation to your new interpretation of John 2:28-29, none of these examples support your theory and all of these examples undermine it. You cannot expect this theory to float with so many historical and logical holes in it. Please, remain at peace regarding the many posters pointing out the problems with your new religious theory. While it is perfectly fine to theorize anything you want, the problem is that your new theory cannot survive in the world of historical Christianity.
Good journey in life to you FaithofChristian.
Clear
σιτωτζω
When other posters point out that the words you are assigning new and strange meanings to are not what the words meant to early Christianity, you responded “i do not go by worldviews. Nor what Christianity thinks.” (FaithofChristian, post #116)
The problem with this attitude is that you are claiming a historical text (John 5:28-19) means something to you that it did not mean to the ancients who wrote it and the ancients who heard the speech and read the text. IF, you make a historical claim, then you must pay attention to historical meaning and historical context else the theory lacks sufficient historical claim to validity and is easily dismissed.
Changing original historical meanings to historical religious words and historical religion disassociates your theory from authentic historical meaning and from authentic historical Christianity. It is the creation of new and different religion or a contamination of the old and original, yet may confuse individuals who think your new interpretations are related to authentic, original “Christianity”. If you named your new religion “spiritual deadism” then this confusion would not occur.
Another problem your attempt to assign different, new meanings to religious words is that the scriptures you use, often do not support your case, but instead support those who are critical of your new theory.
You attempted to use 1 Corinthians 15:55 which in greek is “Που σου, θανατε το νικος που σου, θανατε το κεντρον.” Which means, of course “Death where is your victory, death where is your sting?” This sentence 55 comes on the heels of sentences 53 and 54 where they speak of a “perishable nature must put on the imperishable” and this “mortal nature” which must put on “immortality”. Neither of these references refer to specific lack of belief, but speak to a “perishable nature” and a “lack of immortality”, that is, they are speaking of death and mortality and this context are placed in juxtaposition to resurrection.
Both of the references to θανατε / physical indicate this specific Death is overcome by resurrection (and no reference is made to spiritual death overcome by belief) in this specific example. If the phrast in vs 52 where “the dead will be raised imperishable” means being saved from “lack of belief”, you need to make the case for the linguistic shift in this case.
Your new theory runs into the same problem by your reference to Psalms 49:15 (48:15 in LXX). You example undermines your theory rather than supporting it.
Psalms says “Except God shall ransom my soul from out of [the] hand of hades whenever he should receive [literally : take] me.” The word you are using for “grave” is αδου (“hadou” = hades). As other posters have pointed out, this is a place, not a condition of “lack of belief”.
In relation to your new interpretation of John 2:28-29, none of these examples support your theory and all of these examples undermine it. You cannot expect this theory to float with so many historical and logical holes in it. Please, remain at peace regarding the many posters pointing out the problems with your new religious theory. While it is perfectly fine to theorize anything you want, the problem is that your new theory cannot survive in the world of historical Christianity.
Good journey in life to you FaithofChristian.
Clear
σιτωτζω