Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never argue to be contrary. I always give reasons. There is simply no implication of a resurrection in the passage referenced. One thing about this place is that people do not always agree with each other.
If someone pointed to an American Flag and said, “This is the flag of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln”, would that in itself imply that they are going to be resurrected? If there were no resurrection, as the Sadducees believed, how would the wording in Exodus have been different? God would surely never say “I was”. When the scriptures talk about dead people, they do not say they are alive. If they say anything at all about them, they say they are dead. If God is the God of the living and not the dead, then he is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because they were dead. They may or may not be resurrected in the future depending on one’s belief. But they are currently dead. If God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then he is the God of the living and the dead.
In Ezekiel 37, the earliest explicit reference to a future resurrection, God says, “I will put breath in you, and you will come to life.” Those who will be resurrected in the future are not currently alive. They are dead.
Another (possible) reference to resurrection is in 1 Samuel.
Those in the grave are dead until they are raised up.
The idea of a resurrection is being retrofitted in Exodus to make sense of what Jesus is saying. But the idea of resurrection is just not there.
Keep in mind Job lived before Moses, so they did know of a resurrection.
KJV Job 14: 13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
Job saw the grave/sheol/hell as a place better than sitting on ashes in pain AND knew the day would come when god would call the dead back to life. Jesus knew this too.
The thief next to Jesus knew this:
ASV Luke 23:42 And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.
Job knew of the Messiah:
NIV Job 19:25 I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
Common knowledge for anyone who can read:
NIV Daniel 12:13 "As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance."
I never argue to be contrary. I always give reasons. There is simply no implication of a resurrection in the passage referenced. One thing about this place is that people do not always agree with each other.
If someone pointed to an American Flag and said, “This is the flag of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln”, would that in itself imply that they are going to be resurrected? If there were no resurrection, as the Sadducees believed, how would the wording in Exodus have been different? God would surely never say “I was”. When the scriptures talk about dead people, they do not say they are alive. If they say anything at all about them, they say they are dead. If God is the God of the living and not the dead, then he is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because they were dead. They may or may not be resurrected in the future depending on one’s belief. But they are currently dead. If God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then he is the God of the living and the dead.
In Ezekiel 37, the earliest explicit reference to a future resurrection, God says, “I will put breath in you, and you will come to life.” Those who will be resurrected in the future are not currently alive. They are dead.
Another (possible) reference to resurrection is in 1 Samuel.
Those in the grave are dead until they are raised up.
The idea of a resurrection is being retrofitted in Exodus to make sense of what Jesus is saying. But the idea of resurrection is just not there.
You haven't understood anything that I've said concerning Jesus' point.
But Jesus is the one who brought up Exodus 3:6, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in His conversation with the Sadducees concerning the issue of the resurrection. Therefore you are disagreeing with Jesus. So take it up with Him.
By the way, the resurrection refers to the body. There is no such thing as soul sleep. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in heaven, alive and conscious at this very moment. In the future their bodies will be resurrected and they will go back into their bodies which have been resurrected as bodies of incorruptibility and immortality. But soul sleep is another topic, and I have discovered that as with everything else, those who believe in soul sleep will simply continue to believe in it no matter what is shown to them in the Scriptures which refutes it.
So I will simply post this article on the subject of soul sleep and leave it at that.
Keep in mind Job lived before Moses, so they did know of a resurrection.
KJV Job 14: 13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
Job saw the grave/sheol/hell as a place better than sitting on ashes in pain AND knew the day would come when god would call the dead back to life. Jesus knew this too.
The thief next to Jesus knew this:
ASV Luke 23:42 And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.
Job knew of the Messiah:
NIV Job 19:25 I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
Common knowledge for anyone who can read:
NIV Daniel 12:13 "As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance."
Job 14 does not appear to support the idea of resurrection if one looks at the quotes in context. (Job 19 is another matter.)
1 Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble.
2 He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.
3 And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee?
4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;
6 Turn from him, that he may rest, till he shall accomplish, as an hireling, his day.
7 For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
8 Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground;
9 Yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant.
10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
11 As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up:
12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.
13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
v 2 says that man “continueth not”
v 5 says that a man’s life has set bounds
vv 7-9 mention that a cut down tree might bloom again
vv 10-12 say that this is not true of men who “riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep”
vv 14-15 the supposed link to a resurrection, actually refers to the set time of a man’s life (as per v5) and the calling and answering is in fact death.
25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
That sure sounds like a future bodily resurrection at the end of days. Why the difference?
Luke presents yet another scenario, judgment with reward or punishment immediately after death. See also Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16 for that same idea.
Daniel’s Night Vision is of course all about the end of days and explicitly refers to a resurrection at that time for judgment. Daniel is the source of the Son of Man meme. In Daniel 7 after the evil forces are described as hideous beasts from below, a figure descends from heaven “looking like a son of man”, i.e. a human being in contrast to the beasts. This descent of the Son of Man at the end of days is referenced in the Olivet Discourse in all three Synoptic Gospels.
You haven't understood anything that I've said concerning Jesus' point.
But Jesus is the one who brought up Exodus 3:6, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in His conversation with the Sadducees concerning the issue of the resurrection. Therefore you are disagreeing with Jesus. So take it up with Him.
By the way, the resurrection refers to the body. There is no such thing as soul sleep. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in heaven, alive and conscious at this very moment. In the future their bodies will be resurrected and they will go back into their bodies which have been resurrected as bodies of incorruptibility and immortality. But soul sleep is another topic, and I have discovered that as with everything else, those who believe in soul sleep will simply continue to believe in it no matter what is shown to them in the Scriptures which refutes it.
So I will simply post this article on the subject of soul sleep and leave it at that.
I suggest you take this up with ShanaBrown who gave me 'hell' for pointing out the inconsistencies in scripture concerning when reward and punishment happen as well as the reasons for the mismatches. The story of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 refers very explicitly to reward and punishment being meted out at the end of days when the Son of Man returns. (So does Daniel BTW.) The recipients are surprised at the judgments so obviously they were not judged before. Luke has judgment happen at death, something ShanaBrown strongly disagrees with, citing several articles to show Luke really meant no such thing. Matthew is addressing a Jesus following but Jewish audience. He tells the traditional Jewish story. Luke is addressing a gentle audience and co-opts Greek mythological norms in his story. Matthew and Luke do not agree. But then Luke disagrees with Matthew very often.
People can always find scriptural justification for what they want to believe. And other people can always find scriptural justification for the opposite.
And you never addressed my questions about how Exodus 3 by itself indicates a resurrection.
I suggest you take this up with ShanaBrown who gave me 'hell' for pointing out the inconsistencies in scripture concerning when reward and punishment happen as well as the reasons for the mismatches. The story of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 refers very explicitly to reward and punishment being meted out at the end of days when the Son of Man returns. (So does Daniel BTW.) The recipients are surprised at the judgments so obviously they were not judged before. Luke has judgment happen at death, something ShanaBrown strongly disagrees with, citing several articles to show Luke really meant no such thing. Matthew is addressing a Jesus following but Jewish audience. He tells the traditional Jewish story. Luke is addressing a gentle audience and co-opts Greek mythological norms in his story. Matthew and Luke do not agree. But then Luke disagrees with Matthew very often.
People can always find scriptural justification for what they want to believe. And other people can always find scriptural justification for the opposite.
And you never addressed my questions about how Exodus 3 by itself indicates a resurrection.
I have said nothing about the issue of rewards and punishment and when they happen. The article I posted on soul sleep made a brief mention of it, but that's not why I posted it. I posted it only concerning the issue of soul sleep.
As I said, you are disagreeing with Jesus since He was the one who brought Exodus 3:6 into the discussion He had with the Sadducees concerning the resurrection. I've explained more than once the point that Jesus was making by doing so but you seem unable to understand it. But I don't care to take up anymore of my time on this.
First of all, Jesus Christ never read the Bible. He didn't have to. He already knew all the Scripture. To think otherwise is blasphemy or ignorance.
Second of all, Huffington Post is garbage.
First can you prove that with scripture? Why not? Instead you have arrived at that conclusion because "it just has to be that way." And does this verse not count? And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And there was delivered unto him the scroll of the prophet Isaiah . . ." (Luke 4:16-17) Shouldn't He just have been able to quote from the top of His head? Many years ago I knew of an Old Testament seminary professor who learned he was going blind and memorized the ENTIRE OT so that he could continue teaching. Surely Jesus could do that well? But instead He read. And He read, because as a man He had the self-imposed limitations of man as well.
It's amazing Jesus could read. Nazareth was a poor uneducated community. I personally suspect Jesus spent some time with the Essenes communing with them and perhaps learning to read. In many ways, his own preaching was shaped after an Essene "book" character called a Teacher of Righteousness.
Quote:
From the Habakkuk Commentary we learn of the 'Teacher of Righteousness' and the 'wicked priest' or the 'man of the lie' which could only have been Aristobulus II, last of the Hasmonean kings. It is here that we learn of the Essene leaders execution. Now, a major item of contention between the Essene and the Hellenized Hasmoneans was the 364 day calendar of the Essene as opposed to the 365 1/4 day calendar of the Hasmoneans. Aristobulus was determined to exile the Teacher and summoned him for inquisition and trial. On the day of Passover, which differed because of the use of different calendars used by the priesthood and the Essene, he appeared before the priests and challenged their calendar for which he was arrested, tried and convicted. He was scourged and executed during the Passover festival.
--------
The Essene community believed that the 'Teacher of Righteousness' would "establish the kingdom of heaven upon earth. The entire concept is parallel to that which Jesus entertained concerning Himself. Immediately upon returning to the earth in power, the Teacher was to conduct the Last Judgment and become the head and ruler of the new kingdom; the Gentiles would be enlightened by him, accept his gospel, and become regenerate;"—Martin A. Larson, "The Story of Christian Origins."
So there is every possibility that in the years before Jesus began His ministry, He lived with the Essenes. He learned about the Teacher of Righteousness. And He patterned His life to follow it.
Regarding your worship of scripture:
John 5: 39.40 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
The scriptures stand as an impediment to life for many because, in their mistaken evaluation of scriptures, men seek life from them, where it cannot be found, rather than listening to the utterances of Jesus, where it can be found. In this respect, Enns makes quite a bit of sense, although not to those tied up in the scriptures they way the Pharisees and Sadducees were--and as are some evangelicals.
.
Second, and finally, Huffington Post makes a lot more sense than you do.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 10-01-2014 at 01:36 AM..
Regarding #1, in Luke 20:37-38 Jesus referred to Exodus 3:6 in order to refute the Sadducees claim that there is no resurrection. His point was simply that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would rise again because God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will have physical life in the future. It's pretty straight forward so I'm not sure why the author of the article regards that as creative flare on Jesus' part.
Regarding #2, Jesus did not pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament were valid and which were not. All the Old Testament is valid. But the age of Israel was about to end and the Mosaic Law was about to be set aside and changes were coming with a new dispensation. In fact, Jesus' first advent could well be considered a new dispensation in itself within the age of Israel (ages and dispensations are not the same thing. An age can have a number of dispensations in it). Also, some of what Jesus said in His ''you have heard it said, but I say to you'', statements were not refuting the Mosaic Law, but were instead refuting the views of some groups. Regarding Matthew 5:43 in which Jesus says,
''You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
There is nothing in the Mosaic Law commanding you to hate your neighbor, and therefore Jesus was not refuting something in the Mosaic Law which it did not command. However, there were some groups who advocated hating your enemy even though it was not a part of the Mosaic Law.
The Expositor's Bible Commentary states the following regarding Jesus' comment in Matthew 5:43.
The command ''Love your neighbor'' is found in Leviticus 19:18, but no OT Scripture adds ''and hate your enemies.'' Rabbinic literature as it was later preserved does not usually leap to so bold and negative a conclusion. Thus some commentators have taken this passage as a later Christian mockery of Jewish values. But other considerations question this.
1. The Qumran covenanters explicitly commanded love for those within the community (''those whom God has elected'') and hatred for the outsider (cf. 1QS 1:4, 10; 2:4-9; 1QM 4:1-2; 15:6; 1QH 5:4), and they doubtless represent other groups with similar positions. This love-hate antithesis may be mitigated by the covenanters' conviction that they alone were the faithful remnant; at least some of the language anticipates divine eschatological language. But not all of it can be dismissed so easily (cf. Davies, Setting, pp.245ff.). [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 157]
Jesus was not refuting the Mosaic Law in Matthew 5:43, but was refuting the views held by some groups without regard to the Mosaic Law.
Jesus called the Mosaic Law the word of God or the commandment of God in Matthew 15:6. And yes, Jesus did expand and clarify certain things such as in Matthew 5:21-22 for example.
Regarding #3, Jesus did not ''debate with His own Bible''. This goes back to what I said in #2 above.
Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide follows the Glossa Ordinaria (the greatest Scripture commentary of the pre-scholastic period) – “I maintain, therefore, that this saying was not in the Law, but was said by the Scribes who interpreted the Law. For they, because they found in Lev. xix. 18, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour,’ or ‘thy friend,’ as the Vulgate translates, inferred from thence that they should hate their enemies. Wherefore Christ here corrects this interpretation of theirs, and explains the Law, that by neighbour or friend every man is meant, even a foreigner, a Gentile, and an enemy. For all men are neighbours, through their first forefather, Adam, and brethren one of another. We are also brethren through our second Father, Christ, through whom we have been born again, and, as it were, created anew in the likeness of God, and called to the common inheritance of God, our Father in heaven. So S. Jerome, Augustine, Theophylact, and others.”
Hence, Christ here abolishes the false teachings of the Scribes who had misinterpreted the Law and corrupted the original meaning of the Scriptures. - The New Theological Movement: Whoever said, "Thou shalt hate thy enemy"?
Jesus is telling the Sadducees they are wrong but he is not using Exodus 3 as 'proof text' because the proof is not there.
Exodus 3:
6 He saith also, `I am the God of thy father, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob;' and Moses hideth his face, for he is afraid to look towards God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
for pointing out the inconsistencies in scripture concerning when reward and punishment happen as well as the reasons for the mismatches. The story of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 refers very explicitly to reward and punishment being meted out at the end of days when the Son of Man returns. (So does Daniel BTW.) The recipients are surprised at the judgments so obviously they were not judged before. Luke has judgment happen at death, something ShanaBrown strongly disagrees with, citing several articles to show Luke really meant no such thing. Matthew is addressing a Jesus following but Jewish audience. He tells the traditional Jewish story. Luke is addressing a gentle audience and co-opts Greek mythological norms in his story. Matthew and Luke do not agree. But then Luke disagrees with Matthew very often.
