In article <C5vGyD.H7s@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes: >In article <93111.074840LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>, LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET writes... > >Rick Anderson writes: > >ra>   Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying >ra> things like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what >ra> exact body of theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?" > >     "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true,  >     right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to  >     refer to 'right teaching.'     As opposed to Universal or Catholic or "FourSquare Gosple". I think that    the Greek Orthodox Church would take high offense at your misuse of the    word. Your version of Christianity is neither mainstream nor bible derived    you make claims of bible-centricity that are not derivable soley from the    Bible.  About six-seven months ago, you claimed that your primary objection    to the LDS was that "our" doctrine was not bible-derived, And now this    (and other) claims can be shown, are also not bible interpeting bible.     >                                Right teaching is derived from letting God  >     speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths  >     in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible. > 	Simple truths... oh for example?     >ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant? > >     I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are >     pertinent. > >     Luke 23:43 records Christ's promise to the repentant thief who hung on >     an adjacent cross: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in >     paradise." But was it not until later that Christ rose from the dead >     and ascended to heaven? If Christ Himself was not in heaven until >     Sunday, how could the repentant thief have been there with Him? The >     answer lies in the location of "paradise" when Jesus died. > >     Apparently paradise was not exalted to heaven until Easter Day.          "paradise exalted to heaven"  	paradise wasn't equal to heaven and _now_ it is? Yet you claim that  	peeple can not be exalted to heaven, nicht wahr?  > >     Jesus refers to it in the middle of the story of the rich man and  >     Lazarus as "Abraham's Bosom," to which the godly beggar Lazarus was >     carried by the angels after his decease (Luke 16:19-31).  Thus >     "Abraham's Bosom" referred to the place where the souls of the redeemed >     waited till the day of Christ's Resurrection.  	When I read the story, I found that  "Abraham's Bosom" wasn't so much 	a place, but somewhere the rich man could see and talk to Abraham? > >     It was not yet lifted to heaven but it may well have been a section of  >     hades (Hebrew: Sheol), reserved for believers who had died in the faith >     but would not be admitted into the glorious presence of God in heaven >     until the price of redemption had actually been paid on Calvary; or >     even that none would precede the presence of Jesus back to glory with >     the Father.  	Gee this is fairly close to what the LDS call spirit prison, and what         you have called false doctrine... > >     Doubtless it was the infernal paradise that the souls of Jesus and the >     repentant thief repaired after they each died on Friday afternoon. But >     on Sunday, after the risen Christ had first appeared to Mary Magdalene >     (John 20:17) and her two companions (Matthew 28:9), presumably He then >     took up with Him to glory all the inhabitants of infernal paradise >     (including Abraham, Lazarus, and the repentant thief). We read in >     Ephesians 4:8 concerning Christ: "Ascending on high, He led captivity >     captive; He gave gifts unto men."       [ vers deleted reproduced below quoted from the SunSpot Gopher Archive ]    >                                             Presumably He led the whole >     band of liberated captives from hades (i.e., the whole population of >     preresurrection paradise) up to the glory of heaven.     This part is _not_ supported from scripture, nor does it support your    claim that the "paradise" where Christ descended was exalted.     Making such claims on this little "evidence" ignores the witness of the    scripture > ||Sun||Ephas: ||Sun|| 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity ||Sun|| captive, and gave gifts unto men. ||Sun||  ||Sun|| (X-REF Psalms 68:18) ||Sun||  Thou has ascended on hight, thout hast led captivity captive; thou has ||Sun||  recieved gifts for men; yea for the rebellious aslo, that the LORD God ||Sun||  might dwell amoung them ||Sun|| ||Sun||Ephas: ||Sun|| 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first ||Sun|| into the lower parts of the earth?  4:10 He that descended is the same ||Sun|| also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all ||Sun|| things.)  4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and ||Sun|| some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 4:12 For the ||Sun|| perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the ||Sun|| edifying of the body of Christ: 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of ||Sun|| the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, ||Sun|| unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 4:14 That we ||Sun|| henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about ||Sun|| with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning ||Sun|| craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 4:15 But speaking the ||Sun|| truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head,     Using this to argue that paradise or spirit prison, is now changed from    a Pre-Easter postion to post-easter by God postion is not supportable.      Makeing such a claim requires more evidence than you have given here...    >ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is >ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to >ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who >ra> see Biblical things differently from you? > >     I think that this characterization is faulty. Whenever my 'personal  >     interpretation' is questioned, I usually give a reason.    Yes, and your reasons are in general not supported by any direct reading   of the scriptures. You have demonstrated that you claims to scriptural    "proof" need to be cross-checked. The referencs that you supply often do   not support your postion, if they are read in the context of the scripture.   > >     As for those that see things differently, please, put forward where >     there is a valid difference, and we can discuss it.  > >     I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one  >     views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff  >     that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can  >     have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put  >     forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to  >     dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views >     that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious.  	How about that those who have been in paradise, and have accepted 	the gosple will be judged of Jesus Christ, and then return to the 	presence of God. Is that somehow different from your expressed view 	that the paradise spoken of (or "Abraham's Bosom") > >ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really >ra> understands it? > >     If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is  >     wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong.  Simply  >     stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from  >     Scripture and then we can go on. > 	Should we go back and discuss your view on why the Angle of the Lord 	is the Lord again... ;-) > >============================= >Robert Weiss >psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu