NewStats: 3,265,315 , 8,186,360 topics. Date: Saturday, 14 June 2025 at 12:01 PM 5717d

Me I don't know if the OP wants to know as regards the bible, but this is another problem me I have with believing in God, they say you have freewill only to throw you in hell if you exercise that which they allege was given to you.
Like there is a big prison we are all in without gates and has a big sign in front of it that says you are free to leave but there snipers in the roof waiting until you are hundreds of kilometers away then they kill you.
Heaven and hell are just concepts that had to be invented because the harsh truth of reality is that we are not always rewarded for being good.

Heaven and hell are just concepts that had to be invented because the harsh truth of reality is that we are not always rewarded for being good.

My personal opinion is that they were actually invented to do the opposite. Like I said, the carrot and the stick.

You've got to go right back to the beginning of Christianity. It was a new religion and like any new religion, to be successful you've got to gain followers. Judaism doesn't really have a concept of Heaven and Hell - whenever Heaven is referred to, it normally meant the sky and the stars. They instead relied on their god to be the carrot and the stick. Take a look at Yaweh and you'll see he's capable of extreme acts of violence but also acts of comion. His character was the means of making people follow him. He was the carrot and the stick in himself.

But Christianity didn't have that when it came along. All it had was the carrot - a loving, comionate god. They needed a stick so they created Hell. But then God couldn't be considered the carrot as he would be on the same level as Hell (albeit at the opposite end) so the concept of Heaven was put up to counterbalance. You then had your carrot and your stick to start converting and keeping followers.

But I believe that they didn't think it out properly. They didn't realise just how important the concepts of Heaven and Hell would become and they ran out of control. By then it was too late to do anything about it. People had become hooked and the fear set in.

To my mind, it doesn't matter if anyone believes in the two concepts or not. It doesn't even matter if my theory on how they came about is right or not. It's all down to how much you let those two concepts rule over you and wether or not you can control the fallout they bring with them.

The idea of heaven and hell does'nt make any sense, according to the bible christains are the only people that will go to heaven but then again who are the christains because there is no universal christainity. . .the various christain religions for only about 30 percent of the world population meaning that the remaining 70 percent of the world's population will go to or are already in hell, does that make any sense? most people are practising their various religions for no faults of their own, they were simply born into their various religions and were taught since childhood that it is the ultimate religion, these teachings then translate to their own realities, the same thing applies to islam. . . . the only hell in this world is poverty, ignorance , closed mindedness, and illetracy while the only heaven is wealth, knowledge and open mindedness. . . . . there can never be a hell or heaven when we have both christains and moslems claiming to have visited such places. . . . by the way why was there no hell during the so called time of noah, abraham, moses etc in the bible?

@Bastage,

Bastage:

It wasn't meant as a joke. Seriously. With the greatest and utmost respect to you pilgrim, you're afraid. Maybe you won't it it here, but if you look deep, deep down into yourself, you'll see fear there.

This is the very sort of thing that I often feel sorry for those who are too assertive this way. You don't live my life for me; and just imagine if I came across alleging things about you which I don't know. Why are you trying to force you own assumptions upon me where I have not stated it so? What is so wrong with people simply reasoning along without trying to force their allegations against others, Bastage?

For your info, you have no clue about my life; and I think that trying to force your idea of a fear upon me is quite a waste and unintelligent way of discussing. The experiences of people are quite different from your presumptions; and with all due respect, I don't have any fears deep in my heart. It is not out of fear that I believe in God - just as it would be irrational for someone to come back and allege that the reason why you assert you know there is a God is out of fear. If you cannot believe in God, you're not alone - there are many people who make those assertions and yet shy away from telling what they know about the God they postulate. But there again, I think it is quite irrational to allege things against me that you have no clue about. Unless you are at pains to just make these assertions to satisfy your presumptions where you simply have no clue about them.

Bastage:

Believe me, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm going on what I see in your words here in Nairaland. That's what Heaven and Hell does to you.

I don't consider your words as insult - too assuming, yes. Even if you want to go by my words, where I have indicated that my reason for believing in God is out of fear? Bastage, I have seen so many things in my life - things which are far too orphic to even describe in words. I have seen things that cause me fear, and things which gave me a false sense of pride and confidence. In all that I have seen and experienced, there's not one of them that has been the basis of my believing in God, or in heaven or hell. Belief in Heaven or Hell does nothing of the sort you have been trying to force yourself to allege against me; and it does not help you to be too assuming.

Bastage:

And it's just so damn hard to kick the habit of being afraid. But if you can kick it? Try.

Lol, if you are living out your own fear, you don't have to allege it against others. Doing so just simply es you off as someone who is not rational - you make statements as if you live other people's lives for them; and that is not a healthy attitude to assume.

Bastage:

You don't have to throw the concepts of Heaven and Hell away, but try redefining their relevence.

I'm sorry, I don't "re-define" the revelance of anything for anyone who has made up their minds to hold anything they so please. If you would like it to so be done unto you, what's my worry?

Bastage:

Don't get me wrong, I'm human too. I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I feel fear. But the first step is recognising it for what it is.

I don't assume your fear has anything to do with me, honestly. That is why no matter how you react on the forum about pilgrim.1, it is not my least worries to start asseting what I don't know about anybody. I recognize that people may have their own fears - I don't define it for them, nor do I assume to know it for them before they have had the opportunity of presenting what it is for them. In all the fears I may have, however or whatever they may be, they do not constitude the reason for my believing in God.

Bastage:

You want to see God, right? Do you think that fear is going to let you see Him?

Oh c'mon now Bastage. If there's anything that is a put off, it is this silly attitude of presuming what people have not said and trying to force it on them! That is so dishonest and you should learn to leave people to live their lives by themselves. My belief in God has nothing to do with fear - if at all, certainly not your own fear. I hope I don't have to keep repeating that everytime from henceforth; but I consider that attitud a very dishonest way to objectively assess a situation.

Bastage:

The saying goes that "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". Do you know how true those words are?

I don't believe in such quips.

Bastage:

So when I said to you "Why do you think He died for you?" The answer I was looking for was "So I don't have to be afraid any more". When I said "Heaven and Hell are irrelevant" I was saying "Cast out Fear".
If you can do that, all you're left with is God.  

I know why Christ died for me, and if you could take a step to appreciate my background as a former Muslim, you would see that it was not theology or fear that settled my faith in Him. If you asked those questions and expected me to give you tailored made answers, phew! I'm so sorry that you are acting like so many people who see only linear reflections - and if things don't go their way, nobody else's experience matters to them.

For me, theologically, there are several reasons why Christ came, died and rose from the dead. In a nutshell, it was to grant the gift of eternal life for all humanity. The problem immediately pops up: what about those who never lived until Christ was born? I have no worries about that - because everyone would be judged based on the testimony of their consciences - Romans 2.

However, in my daily experiences appreciating the power of Christ's death and resurrection, I have come to see things in my life that could not otherwise have been dealt with than by faith in Him. I know that many people today disdain miracles in  Jesus' name - I don't, because I have seen it happen so many times.

The powers of the diabolical powers are real, Bastage. And I have seen for myself that those powers respond to the mention of the name of the resurrected Christ. I have actually prayed for people and known fear first hand - yes, I have experienced fear; and I still do when faced with such situations. But I have also learnt that fear is the very thing that those diabolical powers thrive on. Each time I have to deal with such issues in sharing the Gospel, I have always gone with one thing: faith in the Name of Jesus Christ preached in the power of the Holy Ghost. Demons have always violently responded to that affirmation, and been subsequently cast out.

That is just one experience of the result of Christ's death and resurrection. For someone to say that Christ's death was so that I could no longer be afraid is stating too simplistically - His death and resurrection is beyond mere talk.

Cheers.

@mazaje,

mazaje:

The idea of heaven and hell does'nt make any sense, according to the bible christains are the only people that will go to heaven but then again who are the christains because there is no universal christainity

That is not true - the Bible doesn't teach what you have asserted as highlighted. It is because people take these postures already that is why they make such assertions and run away with them. Abraham was not a "Christian"; Melchizedek was not one either; the godly men of the OT were not living in the Christian era - but these are all spoken of as people who belong to the kingdom of God (Luke 13:28). An active rejection of Christ and a life spent in promoting unrighteousness is one of the reasons why people will be denied that Kingdom. It does not help to just make wild assertions and just run away with them.

@huxley,

huxley:

pilgrim.1 link=topic=188667.msg3017316#msg3017316 date=1225383430:

I understand where you're coming from. But one thing I need to ask is this: how does the above establish your idea that ONLY 144,000 will go to heave?

Strictly speaking, it DOESN'T. What is the point of giving these numbers? How would a 1st/2nd century reader have understood this?

I think that the first issue has been established, even if at all you may argue on about other things. The point is that your assertion that "only 144,000" were going to heaven was wrong - and that assertion could not be based on any reading of the Bible as you had alleged earlier:

huxley:

And according to one reading, only 144000 are suppose to go to heaven.

I was interested in seeing that "reading" you had asserted, for it was not true. It is indeed hepful that people refrain from making these wild statements and holding them as what they have read from the texts - whereas we know that is not the case.

huxley:

Was it meant to be understood by the contemporaries of the writer?

I don't see how it could have been written so as not to be understood by them.

Acts 2:34 - For David did not go up to heaven, but he said, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand . . .

John 3:13 - "No one has ascended to heaven . . . "

.

So essentially the "144000" figure carries not useful information, because fewer or more than this number of the Jewish tribe could go into heaven. What significance has this figure got then?

Yet another piece of useless rubbish from the pages of the bible!

Huxley wrote: And according to one reading, only 144000 are suppose to go to heaven.  Given that there are more that 30 billions humans have ever existed,  your chances of being amongst the 144000 is infinitesimal.

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, that only 144,000 humans will get to heaven; of course, they're able to provide bible verses to the view, even if the doctrine is debatable. But according to them, the chance of being one of the 144,000 wouldn't be as small as it would appear; the pool from which the 144,000 will be drawn is quite small compared to the number of humans who have ever lived.

Revelation 14 v 1-5:

1 And I saw the Lamb on the mountain of Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand, marked on their brows with his name and the name of his Father.

2 And a voice from heaven came to my ears, like the sound of great waters, and the sound of loud thunder: and the voice which came to me was like the sound of players, playing on instruments of music.

3 And they made as it seemed a new song before the high seat, and before the four beasts and the rulers: and no man might have knowledge of the song but the hundred and forty-four thousand, even those from the earth whom God has made his for a price.

4 These are they who have not made themselves unclean with women; for they are virgins. These are they who go after the Lamb wherever he goes. These were taken from among men to be the first fruits to God and to the Lamb.

5 And in their mouth there was no false word, for they are untouched by evil.

JWs don't interpret all of the above literally, but, we get the idea.

Below, I'm linking an ongoing discussion with a potential Jehovah's Witness convert: https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/nigeria/topic-4050.96.html
.

Nimshi:

Revelation 14 v 1-5:
JWs don't interpret all of the above literally, but, we get the idea.

Below, I'm linking an ongoing discussion with a potential Jehovah's Witness convert: https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/nigeria/topic-4050.96.html

You anticipated me, for I was coming to point out to huxley that he might have been looking at the JW's interpretation of those chapters (7 and 14) - which was why I had asked him not to stop short at the earlier verses in those chapters.

pilgrim.1:

@mazaje,

That is not true - the Bible doesn't teach what you have asserted as highlighted. It is because people take these postures already that is why they make such assertions and run away with them. Abraham was not a "Christian"; Melchizedek was not one either; the godly men of the OT were not living in the Christian era - but these are all spoken of as people who belong to the kingdom of God (Luke 13:28). An active rejection of Christ and a life spent in promoting unrighteousness is one of the reasons why people will be denied that Kingdom. It does not help to just make wild assertions and just run away with them.

really. . . you are now making excuses. . . .  what does jesus mean when he says he is the way the truth and the light and that no one goes to the father except through him? or when he says that except a man be born again he can not enter into the kingdom of god?. . . .   there are a lot of christains that will not agree with you here, the other day there was a baptist minister that was castigating barack obama on TV because barack suggested that people of other faith can be saved the southern baptist minister said   can you show me where the bible says that people can be saved through other names apart from christ?. . . . the problem is that christains can not even agree on this, while so many rightly believes what the bible says there are others like you that are trying to provide some nuance. . .  the bible unequivocally states that jesus is the only way to heaven and eternal happiness. . . . there is nothing wild in my assertions. . . .i was talking to a pastor back in nigeria some months ago who told me that its either the people living in china accept jesus or they all will rot in hell. . . .  and he is absolutely right because he has the bible to him while you only have you rational to you. . . .

@Nimshi
what is this misguided muslim doing here? why are you quoting verses from the bible? why are you not quoting from your plagiarized koran? are'nt you sure of the virgins allah promised you anymore? misguided generation. . . . .

@huxley,

huxley:

So essentially the "144000" figure carries not useful information, because fewer or more than this number of the Jewish tribe could go into heaven. What significance has this figure got then?

Yet another piece of useless rubbish from the pages of the bible!

Not so - before you write these things off or react that way, why don't you at least get a good grasp of what you postulate? If the JW group had made such assertions of "only 144,000" going to heaven, and you had followed on that interpretation, does that necessarily make your own assumptions any less the "rubbish" you assert? The thing is that you could not be using the wrong assertion of ONLY a certain figure whereas it was not so - and then become disappointed in your reactions simply because you have been shown that your ideas were misplaced.

@mazaje,

mazaje:

really. . . you are now making excuses. . . . what does jesus mean when he says he is the way the truth and the light and that no one goes to the father except through him? or when he says that except a man be born again he can not enter into the kingdom of god?. . . . there are a lot of christains that will not agree with you here, the other day there was a baptist minister that was castigating barack obama on TV because barack suggested that people of other faith can be saved the southern baptist minister said can you show me where the bible says that people can be saved through other names apart from christ?.

For one, if I had been making "excuses", does that suggest that your assertions were correct? Did you read in the Bible that it was only Christians that would go to heaven? No one would come to the Father except through Christ - but did you forget to read John 8:56 - "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad"?

Before you allege anything against me, please let me understand where you really stand. You cannot be making wild assertions and using them to placate your soul that I was making any excuses. I don't know why you guys seem to be too reactive on simple issues like this.

In any case, it is true that not so many people would agree with me on these issues. That's okay - but please observe, this is not about Obama, and Obama is not a teacher of the Word. His political statements actually have no bearing upon what I have stated or believe thereto - so it would help you mazaje to be focued on the simple issues being discussed here, yes?

pilgrim.

To tell the truth it didn't suprise me that you've reacted in the way you have. People don't like itting weakness.

just imagine if I came across alleging things about you which I don't know.

I wouldn't give a shit. Honestly. I'm so comfortable with my God you can throw anything you like at Him and it won't stick. I won't defend him either - He's big enough and ugly enough to take care of himself. Whereas you feel the need to run around after yours like someone running around after a puppy taking a crap.

But like I said, I'm not assuming. Your words speak volumes.

I have to deal with such issues in sharing the Gospels

You don't share girl, you preach!!! Like every other fundamentalist, you ram it down people's throats. That's not sharing.
The fact that you have to keep defending your god and pushing your views onto others shows your fear. If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't need to do that. You'd realise that God can take care of himself. Or do you think that by offering "advice" and "preaching" you're on the fast-track to Heaven? If the latter, that's a little too close to "service to self" and Satanism for my liking.

His death and resurrection is beyond mere talk.

Beyond mere talk but then you comment.

In a nutshell, it was to grant the gift of eternal life for all humanity.

In all the fears I may have, however or whatever they may be, they do not constitude the reason for my believing in God.

Two ways to look at this. You're either lying through your teeth or you're too dumb to recognise that you're on the end of a damn big stick.

Demons have always violently responded to that affirmation, and been subsequently cast out.

The one thing nobody can accuse you of is humility. Unfortunately, that accusation can be levelled at the vast majority of shallow fundamentalists.


Ciao for now!!!

huxley:

So essentially the "144000" figure carries not useful information, because fewer or more than this number of the Jewish tribe could go into heaven. What significance has this figure got then?

Yet another piece of useless rubbish from the pages of the bible!

Not quite, yet. The Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) claim consistency in their understanding/teaching of this doctrine. The number 144,000 for them is literal. Excluded from this number is everyone who died before Jesus Christ was born (this position is used to explain the Acts 2:34 earlier quoted), so the Israelites of old are all disqualified. As of their current teaching, there're about 8,000 or so of the 144,000 still living and breathing. An extension of this doctrine is that only Christians will get to heaven, as is obvious from the above.
.

pilgrim.1:

@mazaje,

For one, if I had been making "excuses", does that suggest that your assertions were correct? Did you read in the Bible that it was only Christians that would go to heaven? No one would come to the Father except through Christ - but did you forget to read John 8:56 - "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad"?

Before you allege anything against me, please let me understand where you really stand. You cannot be making wild assertions and using them to placate your soul that I was making any excuses. I don't know why you guys seem to be too reactive on simple issues like this.

In any case, it is true that not so many people would agree with me on these issues. That's okay - but please observe, this is not about Obama, and Obama is not a teacher of the Word. His political statements actually have no bearing upon what I have stated or believe thereto - so it would help you mazaje to be focued on the simple issues being discussed here, yes?

not to go into another marathon of postings with you. . .  who are the followers of christ? christains are. . . . will a muslim, hindu, vodoo worshipper, or a shrirk go to heaven according to the bible? the answer is NO. . .so what are you saying? why are you talking about abraham? is he not a great figure in the bible? he is one of the exceptional characters of the bible so i dont understand why you are making reference to him, ohh i forgot he is not a christain . . .why are you not talking about buddah or prophet mohammed? read what the bible said "your father abraham" it clearly said your father . . . . about barack obama i was just giving you an instance of how a pastor in the united states said that barack obama is not a christain because he suggested that people of other faiths will go to heaven(the pastor was furious because obama suggested that). . . the bible clearly states that christains(followers of christ) are the only people that will go to heaven. . .moderate muslims are now claiming that the koran also allows people of other faith acceptace into heaven too their heads  disagrees with their minds when it comes to the idea of heaven and hell hence they make up excuses but any body that reads the bible and the koran will see that the books clearly states that only the adherants of both religions will go to the heaven that are been preached the those books. . . . . i know a lot of christains here on nairaland that wil not agree with you on this one, even davidylan will disagree with you on this one. . . . . some will call you a heretic for making such assertion. . . .

@Bastage,

Bastage:

pilgrim.

To tell the truth it didn't suprise me that you've reacted in the way you have. People don't like itting weakness.

Lol, you seem pretty determined to force your assumptions on me. But I'm sorry, you may read my entries as weakness; but if that's your own world, I don't have the prerogative of defining it for you.

Bastage:

I wouldn't give a shit. Honestly. I'm so comfortable with my God you can throw anything you like at Him and it won't stick. I won't defend him either - He's big enough and ugly enough to take care of himself. Whereas you feel the need to run around after yours like someone running around after a puppy taking a crap.

Thanks for the compliments.

Bastage:

But like I said, I'm not assuming. Your words speak volumes.

You don't share girl, you preach!!! Like every other fundamentalist, you ram it down people's throats. That's not sharing.

Again, thanks.

Bastage:

The fact that you have to keep defending your god and pushing your views onto others shows your fear.

Lol, I have said somewhere that I was not called to defend God or Christ - that is not what Christian apologetics is all about. The fact that I share and point things out from Scripture (as others do) does not mean that I "defend" God. If I never existed, He knows just how to draw others to Himself. But just so that people get to understand that some of the ideas they hold are not quite what the Bible states, that's why I engage them in discussions.

Bastage:

If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't need to do that. You'd realise that God can take care of himself.

Lol, why are U here, Bastage? Are you asking me to "shoo" and  and not appear on the forum because of you? Lol. God doesn't come down to type on a PC; and just what is wrong with me talking about Him in a forum?

Bastage:

Or do you think that by offering "advice" and "preaching" you're on the fast-track to Heaven?

Did I ever say that at all? Is this another retired way of alleging your presumptions into my posts?

Bastage:

If the latter, that's a little too close to "service to self" and Satanism for my liking.

Thanks, not so.

Bastage:

Beyond mere talk but then you comment.

I hear.

Bastage:

Two ways to look at this. You're either lying through your teeth or you're too dumb to recognise that you're on the end of a damn big stick.

Neither, but thanks anyway.

Bastage:

The one thing nobody can accuse you of is humility. Unfortunately, that accusation can be levelled at the vast majority of shallow fundamentalists.

I hear. Em, all your allegations against me - you hoot for humility, yes? I see. Enjoy.

@mazaje,

mazaje:

not to go into another marathon of postings with you. . .

You guys are funny! Your replies don dey grow naw. . which one be "marathon" inside again?

mazaje:

who are the followers of christ? christains are. . . . will a muslim, hindu, vodoo worshipper, or a shrirk go to heaven according to the bible? the answer is NOso what are you saying? why are you talking about abraham? is he not a great figure in the bible? he is one of the exceptional characters of the bible so i don't understand why you are making reference to him,

Hehe. . mazaje, wetin dey bite you so? I no fit laugh finish. Wait, you asserted that only Christians would go to heaven, not so? My reply started by showing you that your assertion was wrong - that was why I mentioned a few names that lived before Christ was born - wetin dey chase you wey you dey hyperventilate like so?

have you found me the verse that establishes your assertion earlier?

Christian apologetics

That about sums it all up.

You have to apologise for what you believe is right. Nobody needs to apologise if they're telling the truth. You wouldn't need to defend your god if he wasn't imperfect.

The fact that I share and point things out from Scripture (as others do) does not mean that I "defend" God. If I never existed, He knows just how to draw others to Himself. But just so that people get to understand that some of the ideas they hold are not quite what the Bible states, that's why I engage them in discussions.

LOL. A discussion means that both parties interact. Not with you. You preach. You don't share. The other party has to sit and listen because you, and only you, are correct.

pilgrim.1:

@mazaje,

You guys are funny! Your replies don dey grow naw. . which one be "marathon" inside again?

Hehe. . mazaje, wetin dey bite you so? I no fit laugh finish. Wait, you asserted that only Christians would go to heaven, not so? My reply started by showing you that your assertion was wrong - that was why I mentioned a few names that lived before Christ was born - wetin dey chase you wey you dey hyperventilate like so?

have you found me the verse that establishes your assertion earlier?

jesus said he is the way the truth and the life and that no one goes to the father except through him, some of his apostles made similar asertions in the bible, what did jesus mean when he says that a man can not enter into the kingdom of god without being born again? do moslems, shrirks, taoist,vodoo worshipper and hindus believe in being born again? the answer is no, infact most of them dont even know what it means and those of them that do, they simply do not believe in it. . . . that the biblical god killed so many people for worshipping other gods even their innocent children. . . he is a jealous god who wants people to whorship him alone . . . . show me where he says that those who worship other gods will inhereit his kingdom in the bible. . . . .

@Bastage,

Bastage:

That about sums it all up.

You have to apologise for what you believe is right. Nobody needs to apologise if they're telling the truth. You wouldn't need to defend your god if he wasn't imperfect.

I can't laugh enough! Please get to understand what apologetics is - it is not to "apologise"; and there is no need to decry these things if you can't talk about your own god. You are beginning to come across as someone who must necessarily be disturbed by another where he fails to be satisfied in his own world. I have not held you from discussing about your belief, so what is all the fuss about what I believe?

Bastage:

LOL. A discussion means that both parties interact. Not with you. You preach. You don't share. The other party has to sit and listen because you, and only you, are correct.

Lol, Bastage, you seem to be the only person always making these cries. If I don't interract with others, they would say so. I have not asserted everytime that I must be correct - and those who feel that they disagree with what I state had the opportunity to point their own persuasions. Alleging your worries against me is not helping your world.

Cheers.

@mazaje,

mazaje:

jesus said he is the way the truth and the life and that no one goes to the father except through him, some of his apostles made similar asertions in the bible, what did jesus mean when he says that a man can not enter into the kingdom of god without being born again? do moslems, shrirks, taoist,vodoo worshipper and hindus believe in being born again? the answer is no, infact most of them don't even know what it means and those of them that do, they simply do not believe in it. . . . that the biblical god killed so many people for worshipping other gods even their innocent children. . . he is a jealous god who wants people to whorship him alone . . . . show me where he says that those who worship other gods will inhereit his kingdom in the bible. . . . .

The killings cropping up into your reders again, yes? I am still waiting for your answers to the questions I raised about atheistic murders - you seem to be evading that same issue and always repeating this same point in every thread. Have you made a better world for yourself with atheistic murders, mazaje - or are you the only person who is so ignorant of that fact as well? Even when you want to ask the question in reference to your initial assertions, I have pointed out why you were wrong - I left you a simple request, have you offered any?

lease get to understand what apologetics is - it is not to "apologise"

No it's definition is to defend. Read the bit afterwards where I mention "defending".

But I gotta laugh when you don't see that your having to defend is having to apologise.

Pilgrim,

When Jesus said "Today, you shall be with me in paradise", I suppose he meant it. What would the bandit have understood by that statement?

Agreed that He meant it - whether or not the bandit understood its import lucidly. We cannot interpret for him his own perception for him as we cannot force ideas into people's minds until they declare them themselves. But in consonance to the fact that Christ meant precisely what He meant, no one who carefully reads that verse in connection with other verses on the subject would fail to see its significance.

Not quite clear what you are saying here. What did Jesus mean?  There are many times when you seem to understand what Jesus meant.  Can you read the meaning out of this text?

I submit that,  Jesus anticipated his death and the bandit's dead as well.  With full knowledge that they were both going to die and in view of the prevailing belief that the dead either go to hell or paradise, such words in Jesus's mouth would make sense.

If Jesus meant something other than the surface meaning, it is not obvious if the bandit would have got the full meaning of the words.  Why would Jesus deliberately want to hide or mislead his listener?

Dear huxley, people are not lumped into one general group to face the same judgement - that is not what the Bible teaches. Paradise is a sphere that no wicked person will experience - it is never used once in the Bible as a place that holds the wicked dead. Rather, the wicked dead are held in hades, and not in παράδεισος ('paradeisos').

Was the bandit wicked?  Why did Jesus promise him entry into paradise?

Presumeably, that promise would have been kept and the two would have met in paradise.  When Jesus arose after three days, did he leave the bandit in paradise?  Or did the bandit never went into paradise, in spite of Jesus.



So where is paradise?  What is paradise?

And is the bandit still in paradise awaiting the judgment day?

Bastage:

No it's definition is to defend. Read the bit afterwards where I mention "defending".

But I gotta laugh when you don't see that your having to defend is having to apologise.

Defending the Christian faith is not to "apologise" for it; nor does it mean to defend "God". That is why I have asked that you do not disturb yourself unnecessarily - unless you just want to confirm the restlessness of your own belief.

@huxley,

huxley:

Pilgrim,

Not quite clear what you are saying here. What did Jesus mean?  There are many times when you seem to understand what Jesus meant.  Can you read the meaning out of this text?

If you do not understand, you don't have to make false assertions, huxley. I don't claim to understand everything, and that is what expositions are about - even though it may not appeal to you.

As regarding paradise, I have shown earlier that it is a different sphere from heaven. The Bible speaks about several spheres of heaven in various ways:

      John 14:1 - "In my Father's house are many mansions:
                          if it were not so, I would have told you.
                          I go to prepare a place for you"

     There is also the "third heaven"  - 2 Corinthians 12:2

Many people simply read "heaven" and then assume that is all there is. However, with respect to paradise, it is a sphere where the righteous dead are held unto the day of the final judgement. This is clearly distinguished metaphorically in Luke 16 as Abraham's bosom (v. 22) as distinct from the place where the wicked dead are reserved unto the day of judgement ("hades" - v. 23). When Christ spoke about 'paradise', He was referring to the place where the blessed dead are reserved until they come forth into the Day of eternity at the resurrection.

huxley:

I submit that,  Jesus anticipated his death and the bandit's dead as well.  With full knowledge that they were both going to die and in view of the prevailing belief that the dead either go to hell or paradise, such words in Jesus's mouth would make sense.

Granted. The question is: where do they go?

huxley:

If Jesus meant something other than the surface meaning, it is not obvious if the bandit would have got the full meaning of the words.  Why would Jesus deliberately want to hide or mislead his listener?

There is no indication that He was hiding anything from His listener in that age. However, I cannot force my own assumptions into it to infer therefore that the man in question fully understood what Christ said to him - at best, it was a prospect that would delight his heart, for he understood he was not going to hades. Whether or not he fully grasped the meaning of paradise cannot be inferred from that age alone.

huxley:

Was the bandit wicked?  Why did Jesus promise him entry into paradise?

I think that you would need to go to the text and see for yourself.

huxley:

Presumeably, that promise would have been kept and the two would have met in paradise.  When Jesus arose after three days, did he leave the bandit in paradise?  Or did the bandit never went into paradise, in spite of Jesus.

I could say that the repentant man was in paradise inspite of Jesus' resurrection. There's no confusion there in as much as hades is not to be confused for paradise.

huxley:

So where is paradise?  What is paradise?

As above - answered already.

huxley:

And is the bandit still in paradise awaiting the judgment day?

I think you're needlessly repeating yourself - as this is as much to ask as earlier:

huxley:

When Jesus arose after three days, did he leave the bandit in paradise?

The question of what Jesus meant in invoking paradise for the criminal becomes clear when one considers "a reading" of the promise Jesus made.

Peritto4u: where are you when you're needed?
.

Luke 23:43
In the Translation I use of the Holy Scriptures Luke 23:43 reads: "And he said to him: 'Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.'" Jesus said this in answer to the following request of one of the evildoers hung beside him: "Jesus, me when you get into your kingdom."―Luke 23:42.
However, other Bible translations punctuate Luke 23:43 differently. For instance, the King James Version says: "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
There is no question but that the position of the comma changes the meaning of the verse. In the King James Version the comma's being placed before the word "today" makes it appear that Jesus told the evildoer that he would be in Paradise that very same day. This would mean that Jesus would have to come into his Kingdom, and that Jesus, as well as the evildoer, would be in Paradise on that very day that he was speaking.
In the original Greek language of the Christian Greek Scriptures, how is this sentence punctuated? It is not punctuated at all. Why not? Because the writers of the Greek Scriptures did not use punctuation at that time. The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Volume 23, page 16, states: "No attempt to punctuate is apparent in the earlier manuscripts and inscriptions of the Greeks." It was not until the 9th century C.E. that punctuation came into general use. Although later Greek texts such as that of Westcott and Hort put the comma before the Greek word for "today," they did so according to their own understanding and religious beliefs. However, neither the comma nor any of the other punctuation was there in the older Greek texts.
Where, then, should the comma be put? What is the testimony of God's own Word on this matter? What did Jesus himself say? Did he believe he was going to inherit his kingdom and be in some kind of Paradise immediately after he died, in that same twenty-four-hour period?
Earlier, to his disciples, Jesus stated: "The Son of man must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by the older men and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up." (Luke 9:22) The two angels at the tomb told the women who had come there: "He is not here, but has been raised up. Recall how he spoke to you while he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be impaled and yet on the third day rise."―Luke 24:6, 7.
Jesus was not resurrected on the day he died, but on the third day from his death. Thus, he could not have come into his kingdom on the day of his death. Then where was he during those three days, before his resurrection? Acts 2:24 says: "God resurrected him by loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to continue to be held fast by it." So Jesus was in the grip of death during that time. Acts 2:27 further says concerning him: "You will not leave my soul in Hades, neither will you allow your loyal one to see corruption." Hence, Jesus was in Hades, which is mankind's common grave. And the Bible says that there is "no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol [LXX, Hades]." So he was out of existence in Hades, as was the evildoer.―Eccl. 9:5, 10.
Then, on the third day from his death, God raised Jesus from the dead as a mighty spirit creature. But the evildoer was not raised; he stayed in the grave.―1 Pet. 3:18.
When Jesus, after his resurrection, materialized to appear to his disciples, they asked him: "Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?" (Acts 1:6) Jesus showed that the answer was, No. The time had not yet come for his kingdom to be established.
Then, was God's heavenly kingdom, with Jesus as king, established at any time during the lives of the apostles? No, for about sixty-three years after Jesus' death and resurrection the apostle John was inspired to write that God's kingdom was still in the future. (Revelation chapter 12) And it would be under that future kingdom that paradise would be restored.
Thus, the Translation I use, in its rendering of Luke 23:43, is consistent with the truth of God's Word concerning the establishment of God's kingdom, the Paradise earth that will be restored under Kingdom rule, the condition of the dead, and where Jesus was during those three days.
Other translators have also seen the difficulty involving the comma in this scripture. The Riverside New Testament avoided the problem by not putting in a comma at all, rendering it: "I tell you truly to-day you will be with me in Paradise." On the other hand, The New Testament by George M. Lamsa renders it: "Truly I say to you today, You will be with me in Paradise." Also The Emphasised Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham reads: "Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise."
So what Jesus was saying was that when God's kingdom by Christ was established at a time then future, and when Paradise was restored to the earth, this evildoer could expect to be resurrected to have an opportunity for eternal life. He would be included among those mentioned at Acts 24:15, where it states: "There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." As an "unrighteous" person he would be resurrected and given the opportunity to learn of God's purposes and requirements. If obedient to God and his King-Son, he would live forever on that Paradise earth, qualified to be among those of whom Psalm 37:29 foretold: "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it."

Dear Perrito4u,

Perrito4u:

Luke 23:43
In the Translation I use of the Holy Scriptures Luke 23:43 reads: "And he said to him[size=14pt]:[/size] 'Truly I tell you today[b][size=18pt],[/size][/b] You will be with me in Paradise.'" Jesus said this in answer to the following request of one of the evildoers hung beside him: "Jesus, me when you get into your kingdom."―Luke 23:42.

The first thing I observe is that, while you are arguing against punctuations, you have favoured a translation here that has misplaced the punctuations marks, if any.

On the whole, the one question I would need to ask is this: where are the departed believers presently until the Resurrection?

Cheers.

New King James Version Ecclesiastes 9:5,10
{
5 For the living know that they will die;
But the dead know nothing,
And they have no more reward,
For the memory of them is forgotten.
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going }


New American Standard Bible Ecclesiastes 9:5,10
{
5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going. }

I cited from translations I normally don’t use, to prove a point and so nobody says I have "different" Bible. My point is:
Sheol = Grave That’s where they are, presently, until the Resurrection.

Perrito4u:

I cited from translations I normally don’t use, to prove a point and so nobody says I have "different" Bible. My point is:
Sheol = Grave That’s where they are, presently, until the Resurrection.

Is the Grave the same place as Hades described in Luke 16:23?

Perrito4u: nice you returned!

Which of the JW books are you quoting or copy/pasting from? Do a favour by citing the references clearly.

The JW argument for punctuation in the words of Jesus to the criminal is quite clear, even if flawed as argued by others.

Please cite your references clearly; I guess you have the JW CDROM with all the information, so that shouldn't be difficult.
.