[freeman4]

It's called textual criticism. Look it up; it's one of the most basic fields of study about the Bible, and especially about the New Testament. Go learn what manuscripts are, why we need to study them, and what the results are.

And please stop resurrecting 5-year-old threads.

As for your comment on the "today" thing, that is one of the worst approaches to Greek grammar I have seen yet. As if changing the English punctuation is going to alter the grammatical structure of the original? In the Greek text, "today" modifies "will be with me." If he had said "today I am on the cross" the thief would have replied "No duh, I can see that!" It's a meaningless statement that makes Jesus sound like an idiot, and it bears no resemblance to anything ever said in Koine Greek. Genuine Greek scholars have debunked this idea dozens of times in the past 50 years or so, because it's nonsense. It's wishful thinking. It's deliberate manipulation for the sake of a predefined doctrine. And it's wrong.

You know exactly what I am talking about with you Greek degree and all. Jesus told him on that day as they both were on the cross that he, the thief would be in the Kingdom of God later. Jesus did not go anywhere that day, it would be 3 days and 3 nights later because the angles said he was still in the tomb.

[classyT]

Jesus spoke about a CERTAIN ( meaning he was real person) named Lazarus and a rich man. They both died... one went to a place of torment, Lazarus to a place of rest ( paradise) a great gulf was between them. My Lord and savior truly DID go somewhere that day he gave up his spirit on the cross and that is exactly where Mr. Thief went as well. The Lord's body was in the tomb... but he was very much alive. I believe after he rose from the dead he ushered the saints that were in the resting, peaceful place ( paradise) to the Father in heaven. But ONLY after he sprinkled his own blood on the Holy of Holies. Paradise is now empty... having said that the place of torment still exsists. I don't know Greek but I know that much

[dwashbur]

You know exactly what I am talking about with you Greek degree and all. Jesus told him on that day as they both were on the cross that he, the thief would be in the Kingdom of God later. Jesus did not go anywhere that day, it would be 3 days and 3 nights later because the angles said he was still in the tomb.

Apart from the fact that much of that doesn't make sense, I told you the Greek grammar REQUIRES that "today" modifies "you will be with me" and not "I say to you." Show me any other instance in ancient literature where someone makes a statement like "I say to you today." Well, no duh, you're saying it today. As if someone would say "I say to you day after tomorrow"? It's not only bad Greek grammar, it's substandard English grammar. It's not something people of that time said, because they didn't talk like blithering idiots. Here's the conversation:

"Lord, remember me WHEN you come into your kingdom."

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth. TODAY you will be with me in paradise."

When am I coming into my kingdom? Today. This stuff happening right now bites the big one, but it won't last long. Just hang on, it's going to get better. And it'll get better today.

ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ̓ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ

There's what he said. Luke 23:43. ἀμήν σοι λέγω "truly to you I say" is a literal translation. It's a common formula that Jesus used a lot. Without any modifiers like "today" or "to your face" or "so's your mother." It's a basic introductory phrase.

σήμερον

The word in question. It means "today."

μετ̓ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ "With me you will be in Paradise." See, it works like this: we have two modifiers, "today" (adverb) and "with me" (prepositional phrase), right together, one right after the other. In typical Greek, they go together as well: "Today with me you will be." If you are going to try and say that "today" belongs with "truly I say to you," then you've got to take "with me" as well. That yields the delightful "Truly, I say to you today with me..." Needless to say, that doesn't make sense. Then again, neither does "truly I say to you today."

That's the explanation based on the Greek grammar of the time and place. Let's hear yours, and don't forget to tell what it's based on.

[freeman4]

Apart from the fact that much of that doesn't make sense, I told you the Greek grammar REQUIRES that "today" modifies "you will be with me" and not "I say to you." Show me any other instance in ancient literature where someone makes a statement like "I say to you today." Well, no duh, you're saying it today. As if someone would say "I say to you day after tomorrow"? It's not only bad Greek grammar, it's substandard English grammar. It's not something people of that time said, because they didn't talk like blithering idiots. Here's the conversation:

"Lord, remember me WHEN you come into your kingdom."

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth. TODAY you will be with me in paradise."

When am I coming into my kingdom? Today. This stuff happening right now bites the big one, but it won't last long. Just hang on, it's gonna get better. And it'll get better today.

ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ̓ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ

There's what he said. Luke 23:43. ἀμήν σοι λέγω "truly to you I say" is a literal translation. It's a common formula that Jesus used a lot. Without any modifiers like "today" or "to your face" or "so's your mother." It's a basic introductory phrase.

σήμερον

The word in question. It means "today."

μετ̓ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ "With me you will be in Paradise." See, it works like this: we have two modifiers, "today" (adverb) and "with me" (prepositional phrase), right together, one right after the other. In typical Greek, they go together as well: "Today with me you will be." If you are going to try and say that "today" belongs with "truly I say to you," then you've got to take "with me" as well. That yields the delightful "Truly, I say to you today with me..." Needless to say, that doesn't make sense. Then again, neither does "truly I say to you today."

That's the explanation based on the Greek grammar of the time and place. Let's hear yours, and don't forget to tell what it's based on.

That is fine, with all your knowledge and expertise see it as you will, but I can tell you that scripture proves that NO ONE is in Heaven except God and His Son is on His right side. Show me different.

[dwashbur]

That is fine, with all your knowledge and expertise see it as you will, but I can tell you that scripture proves that NO ONE is in Heaven except God and His Son is on His right side. Show me different.

Seriously? That "knowledge and expertise" enables me to see it the way it IS, not the way I want it to be. It makes no difference to me one way or the other whether "absent from the body" is "present with the Lord" or there's a "soul-sleep" type unconsciousness until resurrection, because there would be no sense of time passing anyway. So I don't have any particular dog in this fight, because either way, I end up living forever with Jesus, and that's good enough for me.

As for your last statement, show you different? I just did. Clearly, you weren't paying attention. T has shown you passage after passage, including the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Paul's many statements that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and all the rest. We have both shown you different many times, with legitimate analysis of the Scriptures. And just like above, when we do, you try to change the subject rather than deal with the passages in question. If you really believe that my "knowledge and expertise" just enables me to see it the way I want, then explain to me, using the actual history and behavior of the Greek language, why your approach to the verse above is correct and mine is wrong. Instead of dodging the subject, how about you deal with it head-on and show me where my grammatical analysis is wrong?

[gromitt82]

ClassyT

I see the Bible as a set of books transmitting what the writers thought to be oral traditions and messages which were necessary to keep people walking the line and believng in the one and only God there is. This applies to the O.T.

As for the N.T. the Gospels are supposed to be the Word of Jesus, although we cannot be sure that they relate with 100% exactitude what Jesus said or did. This for a very simple reason. The Gospels we have ARE NOT the only ones written or transmitted. However, I truly believe the essential part of Jesus' messages is clearly spelled out in ALL of them.


When you say the Spirit inspired the O.T. you are accepting the same principle as the Jews who claim the Torah was inspired to Moses by Yahveh and/or the Muslims who claim that Allah practically dictated the Koran during Mohammed voyage to Heaven. Incidentally, whether we say God, Yahveh or Allah, we are always referring to the same one and only Lord.

Nevertheless, this statement cannot be proved and to the best of my knowledge the Church does not consider it a dogma. If you want to believe it, it is perfectly fine.

The Faith we need to deserve Salvation is the faith to believe in Jesus' Words and in Jesus' message of love.

Particularly this last one. The 11th Comandment. "Love one another as I have loved you"...

This one is the most important one because if you fulfill it you automatically fulfil the other 10.

And I'm ashamed to say that I DO NOT FULFILL IT. For I read what is going on in our world and it leaves me rather cold when I should set out to try to do something about it.

My heart tells me all the time what I should do but my head suggests just as often that I'm too old to attempt anything.

Most of us expect our Lord to pat us on the back and tell us we did a grand job while down here. But did we actually?

Gromitt82

[freeman4]

Lazarus and the Rich Man:

There are some who defend this story as an actual historical event by saying that, "There is no reason why this could not be a true story." However, I believe that an unbiased examination of this story reveals that it is a parable, and that there are many reasons it could not be an actual narrative detailing punishment of sinners going on in hell at that time.

As a literal event, this story brings us to many absurd conclusions. For example, without symbolism, it implies that the rich man went to hell because he was literally clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day. There is no mention of him committing sin in any way, or even of being uncharitable to the beggar. It simply states that he had his riches in this world, and the beggar has his in the next. It also implies that Lazarus was blessed because he was at the rich man's gate, full of sores, and begging crumbs while the dogs came and licked his sores. If all this indeed were to be interpreted as a literal narrative, the only conclusion that we could draw based on what's written here, is that beggars and them who have sores, go to heaven, and anyone wearing fine linen colored purple or who is rich and has means, are destined for torment in hell! Of course, that makes no sense, but without a symbolic meaning, this is the only conclusion from the passages we can reach. But the Bible shows us that many righteous men were very rich. Righteous Joseph, the son of Israel, held the treasures of the Pharaoh, giving to whom he would, and was arrayed like a royal prince [1] as second man in the realm. Again, righteous Job was God blessed and a God-fearing man, and yet he was also so rich[2], with as many as 7,000 animals, he was spoken of as was the greatest of all the men of the east. Moreover:

[gromitt82]

Freeman4

Perhaps you would like to read Luke 18:25 when quoting Jesus saying "Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Clear enough, is not it?
Gromitt82

[freeman4]

Freeman4

Perhaps you would like to read Luke 18:25 when quoting Jesus saying "Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Clear enough, is not it?
Gromitt82

Because a person has money or is rich is no reason for them to not be in Gods kingdom. In Jerusalem there are gates that are called the needles eye. For a camel to go through a gate they may have to shed some of their load so they will be able to go through. That could be the case of some rich individuals, they may have to give a little so to say.

[classyT]

Grommitt,

REALLY? All the Lord meant is that many rich people have money and don't see their need for HIM. Having said that he didn't say it was impossible. In fact he didn't even say there wouldn't be many rich people there... he said it wasn't as easy. But then he also said... with God ALL things are possible. So the rich, the poor will all be there.

[freeman4]

Grommitt,

REALLY? All the Lord meant is that many rich people have money and don't see their need for HIM. having said that he didn't say it was impossible. In fact he didn't even say there wouldn't be many rich people there...he said it wasn't as easy. But then he also said ...with God ALL things are possible. So the rich, the poor will all be there.

You are so right.

[gromitt82]

Freeman & ClassyT

Whatever you say! Perhaps you belong to the small minority of people who deserve being treated as "rich". If that is the case, my heartily congratulatiions.

Incidentally, Mr. Slim, Mr. Buffet and/or Mr. Gates, when they pass away they will have to leave behind their colossal fortunes, so perhaps they should be thinking of sharing part of them with those who have nothing..

Gromitt82

[classyT]

Grommit,

The Lord is not interested in our checking accounts but rather our heart and whether we have accepted him. There will be plenty of poor people lost without Jesus. What does money have to do with salvation?

My goodness, Jesus died to give us life and life more abdudently. If God spared not his own son how shall he not with that FREELY give us all things. He blesses many people with money and I believe wants none of us to struggle in finance. We can't bless others if we are broke all the time. But that is neither here nor there.

I would rather be rich spiritually. If the Lord should bless me with cash flow, let me tell you mista... I wouldn't cry. It isn't money that is the root of all evil but RATHER the LOVE of it.

As far as Mr. Slim ( don't know who that is), Mr. buffet and Mr. Gates goes... they have the same choice as any of us. The must answer the same question. What will they do with Christ. If the rich can't enter than God is not just. Last time I checked my bible,. it states that God is NO respecter of persons. We entered the world with zippo will leave the same. That's my take

[dwashbur]

As a literal event, this story brings us to many absurd conclusions. For example, without symbolism, it implies that the rich man went to hell because he was literally clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day.

That's not what it says. It's strongly implied that he knew who Lazarus was but didn't particularly care; he let this beggar be miserable and die from festering sores when it was easily within his power to alleviate the man's suffering. When he gets his comeuppance, who does he call for? Lazarus! Abraham tells him, remember how it was before? He was miserable and you did nothing. But now that you're the one who's miserable, suddenly he's your good buddy.

And you're forgetting one very important fact about parables: they don't use names. The fact that this story uses a person's name is solid evidence that it's not a made-up story like the parables. If it doesn't agree with your doctrines, it's your doctrines that need work, not the biblical text.

[freeman4]

That's not what it says. It's strongly implied that he knew who Lazarus was but didn't particularly care; he let this beggar be miserable and die from festering sores when it was easily within his power to alleviate the man's suffering. When he gets his comeuppance, who does he call for? Lazarus! Abraham tells him, remember how it was before? He was miserable and you did nothing. But now that you're the one who's miserable, suddenly he's your good buddy.

And you're forgetting one very important fact about parables: they don't use names. The fact that this story uses a person's name is solid evidence that it's not a made-up story like the parables. If it doesn't agree with your doctrines, it's your doctrines that need work, not the biblical text.

There are a lot of individuals who may not have riches but think they are rich just the same. Riches can be measured in many different forms. Rich in health, in happiness and much more. One can have nothing and to him he may be the richest man in the World because of what he does have. He is probably happier than many a rich man.

[hauntinghelper]

If it doesn't agree with your doctrines, it's your doctrines that need work, not the biblical text.

The sad part is most people would rather bend scripture to what they want it to say... regardless of context of common sense.

[dwashbur]

Yet again, freeman4, your response has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.

[freeman4]

I do not thank you know what you wrote.

[gromitt82]

ClassyT

He blesses many people with money and I believe wants none of us to struggle in finance. We can't bless others if we are broke all the time.

BTW. Mr. Slim happens to be a Mexican who is the wealthiest man in the world according to Fortune magazine.

I'm amazed at how some of you people seem to have a direct line of communication with God, who tells you what is right to say and that you are doing fine.

Your expression "He blesses many people with money" implies a certitude that you know for sure what God does and/or does not. Congratulations, you must be very fortunate, indeed.

Because, little old me, from the perspective that my 87 years give me, I only recall spending my life begging God to forgive my countless sins with the hope that when doomsday come it does not find me with a negative balance. It seems that God has never considered me as a worthy interlocutor and therefore has not deemed it worthwhile to keep me abreast of Its designs. As far as I am concerned God's designs are inscrutable...

Incidentally, if sometimes I use the neutral gender when referring to God is because in my ignorance I cannot imagine God as a person of any kind. In any case, I doubt we can apply to God any earthy adjective without running the risk of being wrong.

Gromitt83

[dwashbur]

I do not thank you know what you wrote.

Ignoring "thank," let me lay it out for you then. I commented in interpretation of the story of the rich man and Lazarus. That's what we were talking about; you commented on it and I responded with more about that same topic. From there you went here:

There are a lot of individuals who may not have riches but think they are rich just the same. Riches can be measured in many different forms. Rich in health, in happiness and much more. One can have nothing and to him he may be the richest man in the World because of what he does have. He is probably happier than many a rich man.

Which clearly has nothing at all to do with what I wrote about the biblical story, and I said so.

Does that clear it up? It would indeed appear that one of us has no idea what he is writing, but I don't seem to be the one in that state.