Body, Soul, and Spirit

[Doulos Iesou]

Told me what, please clarify. What post # should I read.

Translators are fallible, and sometimes err, as certain decisions must be made on interpretation. This however isn't one of them, the comma placement in the English is based upon the Greek grammar.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

If that is the case can you tell me what garden they were in?

Well, it just so happens that the Bible presents the word another time besides here and Revelation, and it is in 2 Corinthians 12:3, here is the text.

And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 2 Corinthians 12:3 (ESV)

"Paradise" is akin to "third heaven," as v.2 says he was caught up to "third heaven," which is described as paradise in the subsequent verse.

This likely is the place where Jesus the thief were, to the place where this man was caught up to. "Third heaven" or "paradise."

If you'd like more details about it then I will have to disappoint, as the man could not utter what he saw there.

I'm not assuming, my post was a general post and not to any one person. I have heard many Christians claim that Paradise is in Hades or the heart of the Earth.

I certainly don't think so, that would be an extremely odd thing for a Jew to believe.

 

[Butch5]

Translators are fallible, and sometimes err, as certain decisions must be made on interpretation. This however isn't one of them, the comma placement in the English is based upon the Greek grammar.

Hi Doulos,

I looked at your examples and was wondering why you chose examples that start, "today," as opposed to ones where Jesus or someone says, I tell you today, or I say to you today. I'm doing some research on this and finding that the phrase 'I tell you today' may be a Hebrew idiom.'

 

[Butch5]

Well, it just so happens that the Bible presents the word another time besides here and Revelation, and it is in 2 Corinthians 12:3, here is the text.

And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 2 Corinthians 12:3 (ESV)

"Paradise" is akin to "third heaven," as v.2 says he was caught up to "third heaven," which is described as paradise in the subsequent verse.

This likely is the place where Jesus the thief were, to the place where this man was caught up to. "Third heaven" or "paradise."

If you'd like more details about it then I will have to disappoint, as the man could not utter what he saw there.

OK, but this assumes people go to Heaven, does it not? I don't see that taught in the Scriptures

I certainly don't think so, that would be an extremely odd thing for a Jew to believe.

I'm speaking of modern day Christians, not Jews.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

OK, but this assumes people go to Heaven, does it not? I don't see that taught in the Scriptures

It certainly seems as though there are some there.

It also doesn't assume, you seem to assume that they don't and therefore preclude the possibility of the interpretation. I am simply following the observations of the text.

We get our theology from the text first, not the other way around, but I know you know this.

I'm speaking of modern day Christians, not Jews.

I was commenting that it would be an odd view for Jesus as a 1st Century Jew to have, therefore I am confused as to why Christians would have this view.

 

[Butch5]

It certainly seems as though there are some there.

It also doesn't assume, you seem to assume that they don't and therefore preclude the possibility of the interpretation. I am simply following the observations of the text.

We get our theology from the text first, not the other way around, but I know you know this.

I say that because I find nothing in Scripture that says people go to heaven when they die. I don't think that's an assumption, I just don't see any evidence of that.

I was commenting that it would be an odd view for Jesus as a 1st Century Jew to have, therefore I am confused as to why Christians would have this view.

I agree that it is an odd view for a Christian to have, but have seen many who have it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hi Doulos,

I looked at your examples and was wondering why you chose examples that start, "today," as opposed to ones where Jesus or someone says, I tell you today, or I say to you today. I'm doing some research on this and finding that the phrase 'I tell you today' may be a Hebrew idiom.'

I googled that, and I certainly do not find anything compelling about this argument.

Found Here: http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-was-jesus-really-saying-to-the-malefactor-in-luke-2343

1) This is not an idiom, an idiom is a combination of words that have a figurative meaning owing to its common usage.

A common idiom for example would be: "Its not rocket science," which basically means that something isn't difficult or complicated.

2) This doesn't explain away the fact that Greek authors would front temporal information in order to substantiate when the remainder of the clause would take place.

Can you find another instance where Jesus used this "idiom?"

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I say that because I find nothing in Scripture that says people go to heaven when they die. I don't think that's an assumption, I just don't see any evidence of that.

This would be your opinion, and this text seems to contradict that.

I agree that it is an odd view for a Christian to have, but have seen many who have it.

Yes, but it is not mine.

 

[Butch5]

I googled that, and I certainly do not find anything compelling about this argument.

Found Here: http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-was-jesus-really-saying-to-the-malefactor-in-luke-2343

1) This is not an idiom, an idiom is a combination of words that have a figurative meaning owing to its common usage.

A common idiom for example would be: "Its not rocket science," which basically means that something isn't difficult or complicated.

2) This doesn't explain away the fact that Greek authors would front temporal information in order to substantiate when the remainder of the clause would take place.

Can you find another instance where Jesus used this "idiom?"

In other instances where it's used there is the inclusion of the word "that" indicating that what was said afterword was meant be with today.

30 Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times." (Mar 14:30 NKJ)

21 Now He begins to be saying to them that "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears."(Concordant Literal Luke 4:21)

9 Now Jesus said to him that "Today salvation came to this home, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. (Concordant Literal Luke 19:9)

However, I have found quite a few instances of the "today" statement where the word today is used of when the word is spoken.

Your point number 2 is something I'm not sure about. Where did this come from?

 

[Butch5]

This would be your opinion, and this text seems to contradict that.

I'm not sure how lack of evidence is an opinion. I don't think this passage proves it since Paul said he didn't know if it was in the body or not.

Yes, but it is not mine.

I didn't suggest it was your opinion, I've just heard it from quite a few Christians.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luk 23:43)

43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luk 23:43)

By moving the comma you change the meaning of the sentence. The first one says that Jesus would be with the thief in Paradise that day, the second doesn't. In the second Jesus is saying, I say to you today. In other words Jesus is adding emphasis to the statement that the thief would be in Paradise.

The problem here is that you think you can just move the comma around to fit whatever, but this is not the case. These are two separate clauses within the same sentence. The word today begins the second clause, and is fronted in order to demonstrate the time at which Jesus' promise will take place, it informs the future indicative "will be," to be later that day.

I think what's really important in this passage is the word Paradise, the translators transliterated the word "paradeisos" instead of translating it. I suspect this is translator bias.

Do you suppose to know more about the Greek language than those who translate it? Or have insight to their bias?

Assumptions are shaking grounds for assertions.

Also, the word Paradise in the English language accurately depicts what the Greek word conveys.

The Greek word translated Paradise means a garden, it is used of Eden. It is used in the Septuagint quite a bit, however, that idea doesn't fit the conventional idea of where the thief went and that I believe is why it was transliterated rather than translated. Literally in the passage Jesus said you will be with me in the garden.

Actually it fits it quite well as you will soon see.

Many overlook the context when addressing this passage. What did the thief ask? Did he ask Jesus, Jesus where are we going to be later today when we die? No, he wasn't concerned about that, his question was that he asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into His kingdom. The thief's concern was not about his death but rather whether or not he'd be in the kingdom.

I certainly do not ignore or overlook the context. The thief asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into His kingdom, and then Jesus gave him assurance that on that very day, he would be with him in that kingdom, or as he describes it, Paradise.

Why the garden? It's the kingdom. Before the fall Adam walked with God. Adam had access to the Tree of Life. Notice what Jesus said to the believers in the church at Ephesus.

7 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God."' (Rev 2:7 NKJ)

Where is the tree of life right now? Does it not exist at the moment? I certainly think that it exists currently.

In Revelation 22, the tree of life is described as being in the city of New Jerusalem. Where did New Jerusalem come from?

Jesus said to those who overcome He would give to eat from the tree of Life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God. This is where Jesus was telling the thief that he was going to be. He would have access to the tree of life in the garden.

This is the answer to the thief. Telling him where he would be the day he died was not what he wanted to know, he wanted to be in the kingdom, Jesus answered his question.

The text you didn't cite, nor did Butch5, was this text:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 2 Corinthians 12:2-3 (ESV)

This man was caught up into paradise, which is also described as "third heaven," which seems clear to me to probably be the same place. The Heavenly City of Jerusalem, in which the garden and the Tree of Life presently is and will descent to the Earth at the restoration of all things and the union of heaven and Earth.

Some people will say that if the passage reads, I tell you today, it's redundant, of course Jesus was saying it that day. They say there's no reason to tell the thief that He is saying it that day, the thief already knows that. However, by adding the word today Jesus is adding emphasis to His statement. The thief is dying that day and so was Jesus, there wouldn't be another chances to ask. The thief doesn't know where he is going and whether or not he'll be in the kingdom. Rather than making him wait Jesus rendered His judgment right there on the cross telling the thief, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise. The thief can die in peace knowing that he will be in the kingdom when that day comes.

That's nice, but there is still the issue of how the grammar actually renders the passage.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

In other instances where it's used there is the inclusion of the word "that" indicating that what was said afterword was meant be with today.

30 Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times." (Mar 14:30 NKJ)

This example doesn't support what you proposed, but is another acceptable way to introduce the temporal element.

I can find several other instances where Jesus doesn't use the conjunction "hoti" prior to introducing the temporal element.

21 Now He begins to be saying to them that "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears."(Concordant Literal Luke 4:21)

9 Now Jesus said to him that "Today salvation came to this home, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. (Concordant Literal Luke 19:9)

These two are non-applicable, as it isn't Jesus who uses the conjunction, but the other who uses the conjunction "hoti" to introduce the discourse.

However, I have found quite a few instances of the "today" statement where the word today is used of when the word is spoken.

Your point number 2 is something I'm not sure about. Where did this come from?

Please see these two posts.

I once made the same argument, until I actually studied the grammar in the passage, which takes discourse analysis.

The Greek word for today is fronted at the beginning of the clause, which it then denotes a temporal element.

Whenever semeron is fronted at the beginning of a clausal unit, it is designating the time in which the rest of the clause takes place.

For example:

σήμερον ἀπαρνήσῃ με τρίς

Translation:

"Today, you will deny me three times."

Σήμερον σωτηρία τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ ἐγένετο,

Translation:

"Today, salvation has come to this house,"

And finally.

σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ

Translation:

"Today, you will be with me in Paradise."

The translators rightly put them in because of how the Greek authors used these words at the front of the clause to denote the time in which it took place. It is consistently translated such, and only here do people who don't know the Greek contest it. It is those who deny the translated text here who insert their beliefs in order to change the meaning of the text, when the translated text is actually built on solid grammatical evidence and discourse analysis.

And here:

There also is no range of meaning for this word to mean anything other than a variation of "today."

The variation we see in it's translation is either "today" or "this very day" or "very day."

The possible senses are:

today (noun)
The day that includes the present moment (as opposed to yesterday or tomorrow).

today [temporal] (adverb)
On this day as distinct from yesterday or tomorrow.

now = today (noun)
the present time, understood as the day that includes the present moment.

The usage of the word in Luke 23:43 is as an adverb, and explicitly temporal. There simply is no room for manipulating the text to change it's meaning from how it is always translated. The evidence doesn't suggest your interpretation, and you will not find a Greek scholar anywhere who would agree.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I'm not sure how lack of evidence is an opinion. I don't think this passage proves it since Paul said he didn't know if it was in the body or not.

It is your opinion that it lacks evidence, I am presenting an argument (which I believe to be very compelling) that this text among others supports the notion.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It's my understanding that the comma is correct either before or after the word today. I know Doulos disagrees with this, however, I have heard this from people who translate the Scriptures.

It isn't correct in either position, which is why every single translation of the text available from reputable sources has it prior to word today.

Who do you know that believes it can be in either place, and is there a way for you to present their argument?

I don't think saying the thief was in the garden that very day fits with the Scriptures. As I said in the other post, the thief was't concerned with where he would be that day, he was concerned with entering the kingdom. The kingdom isn't here yet so I don't know how the thief could have entered it. The thief wanted to enter the kingdom, I don't think the kingdom is in Hades.

Indeed, he was concerned with entering the kingdom, which he apparently did that very day.

 

[Butch5]

This example doesn't support what you proposed, but is another acceptable way to introduce the temporal element.

I can find several other instances where Jesus doesn't use the conjunction "hoti" prior to introducing the temporal element.

I didn't propose anything, I simply pointed out the addition of hoti.

These two are non-applicable, as it isn't Jesus who uses the conjunction, but the other who uses the conjunction "hoti" to introduce the discourse.

I believe they are as they show way the language was used.

Please see these two posts.



And here:

I saw those. I was wondering where you got that information.

 

[Butch5]

It is your opinion that it lacks evidence, I am presenting an argument (which I believe to be very compelling) that this text among others supports the notion.

KJV 2 Corinthians 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. {I will come: Gr. For I will come}
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (2Co 12:1-4 KJV)

Apparently Paul didn't know if this was a vision or a real occurrence, I'm not sure how this proves people go to Heaven when they die.

 

[Butch5]

It isn't correct in either position, which is why every single translation of the text available from reputable sources has it prior to word today.

Who do you know that believes it can be in either place, and is there a way for you to present their argument?

The context of that statement was grammatically. I don't believe that Jesus statement is correct with either placement. I can't speak for others, however, there are translations that place the comma after today, the CLV is one that does.

Indeed, he was concerned with entering the kingdom, which he apparently did that very day.[/QUOTE]


I'd have to disagree with this statement

 

[Doulos Iesou]

KJV 2 Corinthians 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. {I will come: Gr. For I will come}
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (2Co 12:1-4 KJV)

Apparently Paul didn't know if this was a vision or a real occurrence, I'm not sure how this proves people go to Heaven when they die.

What would "out of the body" mean to you? Or what would the words "caught up" seem to denote to you?

I was also connecting to the fact that this man was caught up to "third heaven" which was also called "paradise," which means it is a place that exists in the present that one can be "caught up" to.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The context of that statement was grammatically. I don't believe that Jesus statement is correct with either placement. I can't speak for others, however, there are translations that place the comma after today, the CLV is one that does.

This was translated by Adolph Ernst Knoch who believed the soul dissolved after death. I don't think it would be a coincidence that he ignored the grammar in order to assert this doctrine upon the text.

Exegesis must guide our understanding of Scripture, not our theological presuppositions.

I'd have to disagree with this statement

You can disagree, but it shows that I have an explanation for how my interpretation fits with not only the grammar (yours does not), as well as with the context.

 

[Butch5]

This was translated by Adolph Ernst Knoch who believed the soul dissolved after death. I don't think it would be a coincidence that he ignored the grammar in order to assert this doctrine upon the text.

Exegesis must guide our understanding of Scripture, not our theological presuppositions.

I think that can be said for any translation. Have you considered that the grammatical rule you're using may also fall into this category? I don't disregard the grammar at all but I've asked before where this rule comes from.

You can disagree, but it shows that I have an explanation for how my interpretation fits with not only the grammar (yours does not), as well as with the context.

Actually, what it shows is that I wasn't going to take the thread in that direction. I believe I could show relatively easily that the thief didn't go into the kingdom that day.