Where did Good People go Before Christ Died on the Cross?

[Desert Snake]

What I underlined is simply not true. Paul was never a disciple of Jesus. He had an hallucination and thought he was but he never knew Christ. Furthermore, there is not enough evidence that he wrote any of the books of the Bible, just as we don't truly know who wrote any of them at all. You are free to believe that if you wish but to state it as absolute fact is erroneous.

Lol, so, the Bible, author unknown, huh. I'm not sure why so many skeptical secularists are even interested in the Bible. It's out of their field of understanding, in any religious context, so, what they have to work with is pretty minimal. They goof up the theological concepts as well. I'd say, they have caused more confusion through lack of a basis than they have ''helped''. If you think about it, they take the least likely scenarios proposed by some religionists, and go with those, since they make ''sense'', in that paradigm. It's confirmation bias, obviously.

/disciple.

 

[JoStories]

Or more likely, Saint Luke did write the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (which were originally all one book). His authorship was confirmed by scholars who were much closer to the source than any contemporary experts could be. Saint Jerome (347-420), for one -- he was a brilliant linguist and scholar who devoted considerable time, effort, travel, and study to assemble all the Hebrew and Greek texts that he translated into Latin to produce the Vulgate Bible. Luke's authorship was also verified by Saint Eusebius of Caesarea (about 260-340), bishop, writer, and scholar of the Biblical canon

As a native speaker of Greek, disciple of Saint Paul, friend of Saint Mary, etc, how does he not match up historically, textually, and linguistically with these books?

They are his work, even if possibly a compilation of his work by someone else.

You are using two Catholic saints, apologists both, to substantiate your argument, which IMO, diminishes the weight of your argument. To be more of a cogent response, one would need outside sources which are credible.

 

[JoStories]

Lol, so, the Bible, author unknown, huh. I'm not sure why so many skeptical secularists are even interested in the Bible. It's out of their field of understanding, in any religious context, so, what they have to work with is pretty minimal. They goof up the theological concepts as well. I'd say, they have caused more confusion through lack of a basis than they have ''helped''. If you think about it, they take the least likely scenarios proposed by some religionists, and go with those, since they make ''sense'', in that paradigm. It's confirmation bias, obviously.

/disciple.

First of all, I am not a 'skeptical secularist', I am a Buddhist who believes in God. And since my field is theology, I have and continue to study the Bible but I don't wear blinders when I do that. I strive to set my bias aside with each new paper I write. What do you do to set your bias aside or do you even try?

 

[Desert Snake]

First of all, I am not a 'skeptical secularist', I am a Buddhist who believes in God. And since my field is theology, I have and continue to study the Bible but I don't wear blinders when I do that. I strive to set my bias aside with each new paper I write. What do you do to set your bias aside or do you even try?

I don't have much theological or religious bias, first off. So, strawman of some sort. What the issue is, a lot of the time, is that, religion can be logically formatted in different ways, or paradigms. This makes it difficult to know what one is really reading, etc. This aspect of the nature of religious ideas, etc, in this context, is not something that is inherently ''obvious'' when reading the texts.

 

[Desert Snake]

What do you do to set your bias aside or do you even try?

Btw, notice the irony here? It's like your saying that I would understand the Bible the way you do, if I didn't have bias? I disagree, completely.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

I notice that your writing display a large ignorance of Judaism, but if you want to believe incorrect information, that's fine.



Actually belief in the resurrection of the dead is one of the 13 Principles of Faith of Judaism.



Interesting...you downplay and ignore G-d's actual choice and use your own speculations instead. We understand our own Torah quite well, thank you. The concept of "chosenness" only applies to the occupation that G-d gave to us, that is, He designated us to be a Nation of Priests. Being "chosen" has nothing to do with the afterlife.

And our own Talmudic writings state that G-d offered this Chosen status to every nation on Earth, but except for the Hebrews, all other nations rejected it. "I have to cut off the end of my what!" or "I can't eat bacon!". They're not exactly the most popular set of Laws.

My knowledge of Judaism is limited to the Bible. I have little understanding of Judaism after the Apocrypha was written. I have wanted to read the Talmud but as yet, I haven't. And, I can read between the lines....you are suggesting that I should, right?

Thank you for your reply. So, are you saying that Jews believe in reincarnation? I've never seen a connection between the belief in the resurrection of the dead and reincarnation before. Many Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead but they don't believe in reincarnation. Are you a Jew that believes in reincarnation? (Please take my comments in a friendly manner. There is no sinister intention).

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

It always amazes me how people manage to take the simple words of Jesus and use the words of Paul and the OT to contort them into some kind of religious dogma. The words of Jesus are simple. They mean what they say. Using the words of others to warp them into a theology to suit yourself or your churches theology is like calling Jesus a liar. The words of Jesus need no explanation.

"The words of Jesus trump everything else in the bible. When your in doubt, see what Jesus says."
Jimmy Carter

Jesus chose Paul as his witness. Everything needs interpretation....even a novel.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Yes, I'm not a believer, but the Catholics always seemed to have a specific answer for this. I don't know where Protestants derive their answers from but they are usually not consistent.

This idea that they remain in the grave... If that's true lets dig em up and get them out of there.

If you dig up a grave all you're going to find is a decomposing corpse or dust.

Yes, that's true. Catholics only have one denomination. Protestants have 1000s, so they have different views on many issues and doctrines.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Yes, I'm not a believer, but the Catholics always seemed to have a specific answer for this. I don't know where Protestants derive their answers from but they are usually not consistent.

This idea that they remain in the grave... If that's true lets dig em up and get them out of there.

If you dig up a grave all you're going to find is a decomposing corpse or dust.

I don't hold a belief in "the soul sleeps in the grave" but I understand how the idea works: The soul is still with the body or in the spirit world, waiting for the resurrection. If you dig, you will not find. We can't see our soul with our natural eyes.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

The author of Luke is unknown, just like the other gospels. Historically, textual, and linguistically, Luke was probably written by a Hellenistic writer at the end of the first century. Written between 80 and 120 CE, Luke would have been too old to write those two books. Luke-Acts was also revised up until the end of the second century CE. I don't use church dogma when I research the history of the NT. I get my facts from the experts in that field -historians. Joestories has a PHD in theology. Ask her.

Your theory is valid.....one among many.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

It is simply a fact. Would you like confirmation of the fact or do you want to give me your evidence to support your theory that Luke-Acts was written by someone called Luke the Evangelist?

All ideas about authorship are just theories. None of the Biblical scholars would claim that their theories are fact, even if they believe it to be the truth.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Unprofitable citing bible verses.

Something to think about, a hypothetical: a 50 year old wicked human was murdered by another 50 year old wicked human. The murderer lives to be 90, and was wicked up until the final year of his life at age 89 where he found "Christ" and repented of all of his sins. What happens to both of them upon physical death?

There is not enough information supplied to make an informed decision. Could you let me know a few things first?: 1. Who is interpreting the situation? eg What is their belief? 2. What was the belief of the person who was murdered?, and 3. Is this scenario to be taken as a joke or seriously?

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

What I underlined is simply not true. Paul was never a disciple of Jesus. He had an hallucination and thought he was but he never knew Christ. Furthermore, there is not enough evidence that he wrote any of the books of the Bible, just as we don't truly know who wrote any of them at all. You are free to believe that if you wish but to state it as absolute fact is erroneous.

Someone stated that you have a Phd in theology. Is this true? If so, that's great to hear.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Where did Good People go Before Christ Died on the Cross?

The same place as everyone else...the grave. They still go there to this day, good or bad.

Yes....that's true. However, we are referring to the spirit. The title of the thread is assuming something which is not stated. As an English teacher (I am one), I'd give you 100% for answering the question correctly, even if I was implying something else.

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes....that's true. However, we are referring to the spirit. The title of the thread is assuming something which is not stated. As an English teacher (I am one), I'd give you 100% for answering the question correctly, even if I was implying something else.

I understand and my answer still applies. They die and go to the grave...body and soul. There they remain (some call it soul sleep) until the resurrection and judgment found in the Book of Revelation. Whether or not they make it to paradise on new earth is between them and God.

Edit: answered from a biblical perspective, not personal.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Name the Bible verse that states this.

While you are looking for it (you won't find it) read the Book of Revelation and pay close attention to Rev 20:11-15. Then move on over to Rev 21:1-8. There you will find that no one goes to heaven...they go to new earth if they pass judgment.

DM: You assume 2 things: 1. That I don't know my Bible well, and 2. That I would make a claim that I could support with evidence.

Here is your evidence: For Christians going directly to Heaven see John 14:1-4 and Luke 23:40-43. For the rapture see Matthew 24:40-41. You should know that all Christian doctrine has scriptural support.

In regards to Rev. 20:11-15, these verses refer to Judgement Day. Those in Hell will be judged but in reality they have already had their verdict because they are in Hell. Those in Heaven likewise can be called, but they have already had their verdict too because they are in Heaven. Rev. 21:1-8 (You don't seem to understand the mainstream Christian interpretation of these verses) This is talking about a future event, not about when someone dies. There will be a new Heaven and new Earth.

Thank you for your comments.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

First of all, I am not a 'skeptical secularist', I am a Buddhist who believes in God. And since my field is theology, I have and continue to study the Bible but I don't wear blinders when I do that. I strive to set my bias aside with each new paper I write. What do you do to set your bias aside or do you even try?

I'd like to hear a bit about your papers Jo. I wish to do a Masters of theology in the future. Would you like to share with us about your research?

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

I understand and my answer still applies. They die and go to the grave...body and soul. There they remain (some call it soul sleep) until the resurrection and judgment found in the Book of Revelation. Whether or not they make it to paradise on new earth is between them and God.

Edit: answered from a biblical perspective, not personal.

Yes, this is one Christian view.....which is an important and popular one.

 

[Nada]

Thats your evidence, facts, and or argument? This is the debate section. Perhaps you should go to the Christianity Dir where you don't have to deal with historical facts and textual research and other tiny details like that.

Perhaps you should go.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Or more likely, Saint Luke did write the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (which were originally all one book). His authorship was confirmed by scholars who were much closer to the source than any contemporary experts could be. Saint Jerome (347-420), for one -- he was a brilliant linguist and scholar who devoted considerable time, effort, travel, and study to assemble all the Hebrew and Greek texts that he translated into Latin to produce the Vulgate Bible. Luke's authorship was also verified by Saint Eusebius of Caesarea (about 260-340), bishop, writer, and scholar of the Biblical canon

As a native speaker of Greek, disciple of Saint Paul, friend of Saint Mary, etc, how does he not match up historically, textually, and linguistically with these books?

They are his work, even if possibly a compilation of his work by someone else.

Perhaps you should go.

Thanks. But I've already graduated from kindergarten.