Rob Bowman Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Zakuska,You are missing the fact that Joseph Smith challenged the learned men on the issue, claiming that they would not be able to find the word paradise in the Greek text to which they had access. The autograph of Luke is therefore irrelevant here.
Bill Hamblin Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 It's too bad no one here seems willing to acknowledge the obvious, which is that Joseph Smith was mistaken about Luke 23:43. It shouldn't be painful to admit, because Mormons say they don't believe their prophets are inerrant.For the record, I said this in #949 But if your point is that Joseph made a mistake about a Greek word, that's fine with me. Maybe he did. But that change the fact that the essence of his argument was accurate. 2
danielwoods Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 You can think what you want, but the NT is clear that the Thief didn't get to heaven.If I said to my friend, "Today you will be with me in New York!" Can you tell from my statement to my friend, that he stayed in New York? Or that he also went somewhere else after that? No. The same is true with your claim about the Thief.Unless you have further statements to point to like, "This Thief went to Paradise and no further." Or "This Thief didn't go to Heaven..." But, you haven't produced any sort of statements like that to back up your claim.
altersteve Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 If I said to my friend, "Today you will be with me in New York!"Can you tell from my statement to my friend, that he stayed in New York? Or that he also went somewhere else after that?No.The same is true with your claim about the Thief.Unless you have further statements to point to like, "This Thief went to Paradise and no further." Or "This Thief didn't go to Heaven..."But, you haven't produced any sort of statements like that to back up your claim.You seem to think paradise and heaven are the same thing. They're not. And we have plenty of statements to back that up, both from the Bible and from other scripture.
Rob Bowman Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Steve,You wrote:You seem to think paradise and heaven are the same thing. They're not. And we have plenty of statements to back that up, both from the Bible and from other scripture.They are the same thing in 2 Corinthians 12:3(4) and in Revelation 2:7, as I documented a few posts back from LDS sources. There is no statement in the Bible that denies that paradise and heaven are the same thing. It is only in Luke 23:43 that Mormons wish to argue that paradise is somewhere other than heaven. But Luke 23:43 does not draw any such distinction.In short, in reply to your claim to have plenty of statements from the Bible to back up your position: CFR.
harfad Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 It's too bad no one here seems willing to acknowledge the obvious, which is that Joseph Smith was mistaken about Luke 23:43. It shouldn't be painful to admit, because Mormons say they don't believe their prophets are inerrant.LDS.org states that the word "paradise" in 2 Corinthians 12:4 (KJV; 12:3 in most contemporary versions) "probably refers to the celestial kingdom." The Encyclopedia of Mormonism admits that "paradise" both in this text and in Revelation 2:7 "seem to refer to the highest degree of heaven (the celestial kingdom) rather than to the spirit world" ("Paradise," EM 3:1062). So it clearly is theology, not the language of the text, that drives the claim that Luke 23:43 cannot be referring to heaven.In Mormon revelation the word paradise is used to refer to the good place in the spirit world (where righteous spirits go), as distinct from the other place where the unrighteous spirits go, where they are unhappy, until the resurrection (see 2 Nephi 9:13; Alma 40:12, 14; 4 Nephi 1:14; Moroni 10:34). The context of Luke 23:43 makes it clear that it also refers to the spirit world, not to the final destiny of man after the resurrection. Obviously the thief by virtue of his faith, acknowledgement of the truth, and penitent attitude had earned the Lord's favor and blessings, and obtained a good reward in the next life. But still it is true that by “paradise” in that context the Lord meant the spirit world, not the final state of happiness (or unhappiness) that Christians tend to associate with the words heaven or hell. I think that is the point that Joseph Smith was making. As for 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7; I don't think that it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that they don't refer to the “paradise” of the spirit world, as distinct from the happy state called heaven after the resurrection. With regard to Joseph saying that the word paradise does not appear in the original languages etc., you should bear in mind that Joseph Smith preached his sermons without prior preparation, and some inadvertent errors are unavoidable in those circumstances.
Zakuska Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) Steve,You wrote:They are the same thing in 2 Corinthians 12:3(4) and in Revelation 2:7, as I documented a few posts back from LDS sources. There is no statement in the Bible that denies that paradise and heaven are the same thing. It is only in Luke 23:43 that Mormons wish to argue that paradise is somewhere other than heaven. But Luke 23:43 does not draw any such distinction.In short, in reply to your claim to have plenty of statements from the Bible to back up your position: CFR.Correction.They "Seem" to be the same place according to LDS sources. It doesn't Make them the same place. Edited August 18, 2012 by Zakuska
danielwoods Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Those verses are in the NT, so i'd imagine that they mean as much to you as they do to me.Besides that, believing that you won't become a joint-heir with Christ without wanting and trying to be obedient to Christ's commandments, and repenting when you mess up, does not make the burden heavy or the yoke difficult. Likewise, believing that all you have to do is 'believe' does not make the burden light or the yoke easy.The burden of sin is infinitely oppressive, and the yoke of guilt and bad consquences can feel (and be) dire. Christ's yoke truly is easy and light, not because He doesn't require anything of us, but because what He does require, keeps us safe from the hardest and most difficult paths of life.John wrote, "13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 Jn. 5:13)Assurance of eternal life with God gives us peace and John here is telling us that we have it already. We don't strive for it, we don't work for it. We have it. The actions we do as a result of having this peace in our hearts are what other people see as righteous actions. God changes our will to match his. We don't strive to change, he changes us from the inside out. Consider our earthly nature. Did we strive to become human or did God create us that way? Our spiritual nature is exactly the same way. We are a new creation in Christ. We didn't strive to become a new creation, God did it, just as he created our human nature.
volgadon Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) From the entry on Paradeisos in Kittel and Friedrich's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."Identification of the Paradise of the first age with that of the second necessarily carried with it the further idea that Paradise exists now in hidden form. This hidden Paradise is first mentioned in Eth. En. Throughout apocalyptic it is the present abode of the souls of the departed patriarchs,24 the elect and the righteous,25 and Enoch and Elijah, who were translated thither during their lifetime.26 Whereas according to the older view sheol received the souls of all the dead, only the ungodly were now sought in sheol and the righteous in Paradise, → I, 147, 11–16. Hell. ideas about the future life played a normative part in this reconstruction of the concept of the intermediate state (→ n. 13). It should be noted, however, that both old and new ideas were still current in the NT period. Either Hades or Paradise (→ I, 147, 22–30) is here the abode of the souls of the righteous after death. This duality is important for an understanding of the statements about what happened to Jesus between Good Friday and Easter Day, → 771, 37 ff Edited August 18, 2012 by volgadon 2
Zakuska Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) In Mormon revelation the word paradise is used to refer to the good place in the spirit world (where righteous spirits go), as distinct from the other place where the unrighteous spirits go, where they are unhappy, until the resurrection (see 2 Nephi 9:13; Alma 40:12, 14; 4 Nephi 1:14; Moroni 10:34). The context of Luke 23:43 makes it clear that it also refers to the spirit world, not to the final destiny of man after the resurrection. Obviously the thief by virtue of his faith, acknowledgement of the truth, and penitent attitude had earned the Lord's favor and blessings, and obtained a good reward in the next life. But still it is true that by “paradise” in that context the Lord meant the spirit world, not the final state of happiness (or unhappiness) that Christians tend to associate with the words heaven or hell. I think that is the point that Joseph Smith was making. As for 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7; I don't think that it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that they don't refer to the “paradise” of the spirit world, as distinct from the happy state called heaven after the resurrection. With regard to Joseph saying that the word paradise does not appear in the original languages etc., you should bear in mind that Joseph Smith preached his sermons without prior preparation, and some inadvertent errors are unavoidable in those circumstances.Correct. Luke speaks of the "two place" in the Parable of the Rich man and the Beggar.Luke 1619 ¶There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.Another name for "Paradise" in the 1 Century AD Jewish parlance is the "bosom of Abraham" as opposed to the prison place.If you will remember. According to Hebrews Abraham hadn't received the promise yet, nor had he made it to the shining City on the hill, (aka The Celestial Kingdom, or throne of the Father.)Bosom of Abraham" refers to the place of comfort in sheol (Greek: hades) where the Jews said the righteous dead awaited Judgment Day.JudaismIn First Temple Judaism, Sheol in the Hebrew Old Testament, or Hades in the Septuagint, is primarily a place of "silence" to which all men go. However during, or before, the exile in Babylon ideas of activity of the dead in Sheol began to enter Judaism.[6][7]During the Second Temple period the concept of a Bosom of Abraham first occurs in Jewish papyri which refer to the "Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob".[8] This reflects the belief of Jewish martyrs who died expecting that: "after our death in this fashion Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us and all our forefathers will praise us" (4 Maccabees 13:17).[9] Other early Jewish works adapt the Greek mythical picture of Hades to identify the righteous dead as being separated from unrighteous in the fires by a river or chasm. In the pseudepigraphical Apocalypse of Zephaniah the river has a ferryman equivalent to Charon in Greek myth, but replaced by an angel. On the other side in the Bosom of Abraham : "You have escaped from the Abyss and Hades, now you will cross over the crossing place... to all the righteous ones, namely Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Enoch, Elijah and David".[10] In this myth Abraham was not idle in the Bosom of Abraham, he acted as intercessor for those in the fiery part of Hades.[11]The pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch describes travels through the cosmos and divides Sheol into four sections: for the truly righteous, the good, the wicked awaiting judgment at the resurrection, and the wicked that will not even be resurrected. However, since the book is pseudepigraphic to the hand of Enoch, who predates Abraham, naturally the character of Abraham does not feature.Later rabbinical sources preserve several traces of the Bosom of Abraham teaching.[12][13] In Kiddushin 72b, Adda bar Ahavah of the third century, is said to be "sitting in the bosom of Abraham," Likewise "In the world to come Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna, permitting none to enter who bears the seal of the covenant" according to Rabbi Levi in Genesis Rabba 67.[14] In the 1860s Abraham Geiger suggested that the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16 preserved a Jewish legend and that Lazarus represented Abraham's servant Eleazar [15] [edit] New TestamentThe Bosom of Abraham occurs in only one New Testament passage, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which is only in the gospel of Luke (16:19-31; see Luke 16:22 and Luke 16:23). Leprous Lazarus is carried by the angels to that destination after death. Abraham's bosom contrasts with the destination of a rich man who ends up in Hades (though some religious groups, such as the Seventh Day Adventists regard this as a parable). The account corresponds closely with documented 1st century A.D. Jewish beliefs (see above), that the dead were gathered into a general tarrying-place, made equivalent with the Sheol of the Old Testament. In Christ's account, the righteous occupied an abode of their own which was distinctly separated by a chasm from the abode to which the wicked were consigned. The chasm is equivalent to the river in the Jewish version, but in Christ's version there is no angelic ferryman, and it is impossible to pass from one side to the other.The fiery part of Hades (Hebrew Sheol) is distinguished from the separate Old Testament, New Testament and Mishnah concept of Gehenna (Hebrew Hinnom), which is generally connected with the Last Judgment.Matthew 5:29-30; 18:9ff, Mark 9:42.[16]The concept of paradise is not mentioned in Luke 16, nor are any of the distinguishing Jewish associations of paradise such as Third Heaven (found with "paradise" in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 and Apocalypse of Moses), or the tree of life (found with "paradise" in Genesis 2:8 Septuagint and Book of Revelation 2:7).[17] Consequently identification of Bosom of Abraham with Paradise is contested.[18] It is not clear whether Matthew 8:11 "And I tell you that many will come from the East and West and will eat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." represents an alternative or complimentary cosmology to the ideas of Luke 16:19-31.[19]WOW! Thats very Mormon. Abraham acting as an "intercesory" (ie Proxy) between the Good place and the Bad place in Sheol! Edited August 18, 2012 by Zakuska 1
Zakuska Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) John wrote, "13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 Jn. 5:13)Assurance of eternal life with God gives us peace and John here is telling us that we have it already. We don't strive for it, we don't work for it. We have it. The actions we do as a result of having this peace in our hearts are what other people see as righteous actions. God changes our will to match his. We don't strive to change, he changes us from the inside out.Consider our earthly nature. Did we strive to become human or did God create us that way?Our spiritual nature is exactly the same way. We are a new creation in Christ. We didn't strive to become a new creation, God did it, just as he created our human nature.Thats news to Paul.Phil 311 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.If he already has eternal life as you claim, Why is he trying so hard to attain it?According to you Paul already has the prize but according to Paul, he's still running the race. Edited August 18, 2012 by Zakuska 1
Vance Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) Steve,You wrote:They are the same thing in 2 Corinthians 12:3(4) and in Revelation 2:7, as I documented a few posts back from LDS sources. There is no statement in the Bible that denies that paradise and heaven are the same thing. It is only in Luke 23:43 that Mormons wish to argue that paradise is somewhere other than heaven. But Luke 23:43 does not draw any such distinction.In short, in reply to your claim to have plenty of statements from the Bible to back up your position: CFR.You Evangelicals seem to be unable to understand the lack of basis for your position. Jesus and the Thief died on the same day. They went to the same place, (the world of the spirits of the dead) which was NOT heaven and COULD NOT HAVE BEEN heaven. For three days later Jesus clearly and plainly admits that He has yet to go to heaven. So, where ever Jesus and the Thief were for those three days, one thing is for sure, IT WASN'T heaven.So, based on these facts alone, it can NOT be concluded, or even presumed that the Thief went to heaven.It just doesn't fly.Quibbling about what JS said or meant or even what Jesus actually said or meant is just a red herring with regard to the fact that the Thief did NOT go to heaven. Not the first day, not the second day, not the third day and NOT even when Jesus ascended.So, your basis for believing so, is simply based upon theology, because it can NOT be based upon the NT or any other scripture. Edited August 19, 2012 by Vance
altersteve Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Steve,You wrote:They are the same thing in 2 Corinthians 12:3(4) and in Revelation 2:7, as I documented a few posts back from LDS sources. There is no statement in the Bible that denies that paradise and heaven are the same thing. It is only in Luke 23:43 that Mormons wish to argue that paradise is somewhere other than heaven. But Luke 23:43 does not draw any such distinction.In short, in reply to your claim to have plenty of statements from the Bible to back up your position: CFR.I believe Luke 23:43 draws such a distinction, since Christ later said He had not yet ascended to His Father in heaven. You may disagree and that's fine.
Flyonthewall Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I'm no scholar, that's for sure, but it sure seems the MAIN point Joseph Smith was trying to make was meaning of the scriptue is: "... This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits...". 1
Mudcat Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 And I don't mean, what are the doctrines that someone must believe to be saved. I mean, how does the NT define who a Christian is?I imagine my response won't have much feedback given the very protracted nature of the thread but...I thinkg it should obvious to everyone, I would think.Quoting from the James 4th Epistle to Amalakites regarding the misunderstandings of the 3rd Apocolypse of 2nd Peter.James 4 2:17 "It should be plainly seen that anyone that is cool with Mudcat is cool. For those that don't think being cool with Mudcat is a legitimate reason to "feel" saved. Then thou art wise. "......IMO, I don't see the NT as a dictionary or a thesaurus, in the sense that it gives a tacitly clear definition of what a "Christian" is. I don't think that is what it was designed for. If God designed the NT to offer such a definition, then I don't imagine we would have much division on who is or who isn't a Christian.I see the NT as more of a map to lead us to Christ and Christianity with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I think it's a worthless document without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.Doesn't really matter how we define what a Christian is based on anything the NT says. It's not like our statements impact true judgement on the matter. Though I think its fairly clear in the NT that it's Christ who judges such heavy issues and I am thankful for it.Regards,Mudcat 3
Calm Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I am not sure that any interaction with Bowman could be accurately called a "discussion".Just saying.Another mistranslation perhaps?
volgadon Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Another mistranslation perhaps? The Italian discutere means argument... 1
danielwoods Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Thats news to Paul.Phil 311 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.If he already has eternal life as you claim, Why is he trying so hard to attain it?According to you Paul already has the prize but according to Paul, he's still running the race.Interesting that Paul is not talking about Eternal life, but resurrection of the dead. He hadn't died yet, so he was looking forward to that. Which in no way disagrees with the passage from John, who is talking about the assurance we have as believers.
bluebell Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) I imagine my response won't have much feedback given the very protracted nature of the thread but...I thinkg it should obvious to everyone, I would think.Quoting from the James 4th Epistle to Amalakites regarding the misunderstandings of the 3rd Apocolypse of 2nd Peter.James 4 2:17 "It should be plainly seen that anyone that is cool with Mudcat is cool. For those that don't think being cool with Mudcat is a legitimate reason to "feel" saved. Then thou art wise. "......IMO, I don't see the NT as a dictionary or a thesaurus, in the sense that it gives a tacitly clear definition of what a "Christian" is. I don't think that is what it was designed for. If God designed the NT to offer such a definition, then I don't imagine we would have much division on who is or who isn't a Christian.I see the NT as more of a map to lead us to Christ and Christianity with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I think it's a worthless document without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.Doesn't really matter how we define what a Christian is based on anything the NT says. It's not like our statements impact true judgement on the matter. Though I think its fairly clear in the NT that it's Christ who judges such heavy issues and I am thankful for it.Regards,MudcatAnd this is why you are my one of my favorite non-LDS Christians. Edited August 18, 2012 by bluebell 1
altersteve Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Interesting that Paul is not talking about Eternal life, but resurrection of the dead. He hadn't died yet, so he was looking forward to that. Which in no way disagrees with the passage from John, who is talking about the assurance we have as believers.Do you believe resurrection is something we must "attain" then?
danielwoods Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Do you believe resurrection is something we must "attain" then?Last time I used the word "attain", I was told it meant no more than "receive". So yes we receive it just the same as we do life, freely given to those who have Jesus.
harfad Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I imagine my response won't have much feedback given the very protracted nature of the thread but...I thinkg it should obvious to everyone, I would think.Quoting from the James 4th Epistle to Amalakites regarding the misunderstandings of the 3rd Apocolypse of 2nd Peter.James 4 2:17 "It should be plainly seen that anyone that is cool with Mudcat is cool. For those that don't think being cool with Mudcat is a legitimate reason to "feel" saved. Then thou art wise. "......IMO, I don't see the NT as a dictionary or a thesaurus, in the sense that it gives a tacitly clear definition of what a "Christian" is. I don't think that is what it was designed for. If God designed the NT to offer such a definition, then I don't imagine we would have much division on who is or who isn't a Christian.I see the NT as more of a map to lead us to Christ and Christianity with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I think it's a worthless document without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.Doesn't really matter how we define what a Christian is based on anything the NT says. It's not like our statements impact true judgement on the matter. Though I think its fairly clear in the NT that it's Christ who judges such heavy issues and I am thankful for it.Regards,MudcatSo you think it is OK for Evangelicals to quote from the Bible (OT and NT) to tell Mormons why they aren't Christians; but it is not OK for Mormons to do the same?--Or do you think it is OK for Evans to do it while they think they are on the winning side; but as soon as they appear to be losing the argument, it suddenly becomes unprofessional and unreasonable?
harfad Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I'm no scholar, that's for sure, but it sure seems the MAIN point Joseph Smith was trying to make was meaning of the scriptue is: "... This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits...".Well, he did mean the good place in the spirit world, not the evil place. The spirit world is not all one place. The thief was promised the good place, where Jesus himself was going. It is an indication that his sins were forgiven.
altersteve Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Last time I used the word "attain", I was told it meant no more than "receive". So yes we receive it just the same as we do life, freely given to those who have Jesus.That's not what "attain" means, though. It means succeed, achieve, accomplish; to gain something with effort. Is that what Paul is saying?
altersteve Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Well, he did mean the good place in the spirit world, not the evil place. The spirit world is not all one place. The thief was promised the good place, where Jesus himself was going. It is an indication that his sins were forgiven.Jesus was also going to the "evil place" to preach to the spirits there. One could argue that that's where the thief was; therefore, the thief was indeed with Jesus in the spirit world, as Jesus had promised.
Recommended Posts