Tasted Death for every Man !

[JLB]

don't recall saying they must be first saved, I don't think I would have said that, but could have made a mistake.

Post 144

rogerg sad —

On the contrary, they who are able "hear" and "believe" (the true Gospel) can only do so BECAUSE they first were saved -- that's the only way for it to happen:



I’m glad you don’t believe this doctrine, because some here at this forum do believe and promote the idea that we are saved first (“sovereignly by the Holy Spirit) then later on we are able to believe the Gospel.


Many who believe the teachings of Calvinism, believe this.




JLB

 

[rogerg]

This could be read two ways, did believe as many as, were ordained to eternal life. Or it could read, and did believe, as many as were ordained to eternal life.

Well, it's late so I may not be thinking clearly and I may be missing it I'll reexamine it again tomorrow) but to me, both readings you've provided seem the same : both include "as many as were ordained" with the second "as were ordained" in each preceding "eternal life". Seems to me that to support your position which (respectfully) I disagree. you would have to say something like "as many believed and were ordained to eternal life": that is, the "believed" causing the "ordained", which, I don't think it does.
Also, to me, the literal translation you provided, in my opinion, seems to support my interpretation.

.

Here Paul said that the Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. So, the reason those Jews didn't have eternal life was of their own doing. They chose not to believe. On the other hand the Gentiles chose to believe and were ordained to eternal life.

Eternal life is Christ and visa versa. Anyone who doesn't have Christ doesn't have eternal life. So, they were judged
unworthy not because of their lack of faith but because they lacked Christ, which was the reason they did not have faith.
To have true faith, Christ has to exist spiritually within us. If He's not, then neither can true faith be there: Christ first, faith second. The acquiring of true faith cannot be of our own doing because, as we are told, He is "author and finisher". of our faith. Please observe:

[Heb 12:2 KJV] 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

and as I previously posted:

[Mar 4:11-12 KJV]
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

Going back to Acts 13:46 for a second, and comparing to Mark 4:12, we can see that the gentiles in 13:48 were able to hear the Gospel, but the Jews in 13:46 could not. However in 4:12 we can also see that while they were able to "hear" in a physical sense, they were not able to understand in a spiritual sense. Why? Because to know the mystery of the kingdom of God one must be "ordained" and from that, it would be "given" to them as it was given to the gentiles. So it would therefore have been an impossibility for them to acquire faith -- being ordained must come first.

The Reformed understanding of verse 48 contradicts the concept in verse 46. In verse 46 whether they had eternal life or not was based on them, they were the cause. To then say that the Gentiles were not the cause of whether or not they had eternal life is the complete opposite. This would created a problem. It would have the Jews able to choose whether not they wanted to be saved, but the Gentiles not having a choice. We see no such concept in the Scripture. There is nothing that says some can choose and some can't.

It was a spiritual truth that was being recognized and verbalized by Paul-- when the Jews put the word away from themselves, it was evidence they were not of the ordained, and therefore, proved themselves unworthy of eternal life because Christ was not in them, and thus, their sins were not covered by Him. Hence, no eternal life for them.
if you're saying the Jews ,along with all unsaved people, aren't responsible for their sin, I would disagree.
If you're saying the gentiles WERE responsible for their belief, I would again disagree.
Those who become saved, are saved, solely by Christ's offering, nothing that we do can contribute to in any way.
It is a gift that no one deserves.

I don't know -- this all probably sounds like gobbledygook and I'll have to re-write most of it. Thx

 

[brightfame52]

If we continue in the context of Heb 2:9 we come to Vs 16

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The Seed of Abraham ! This is the people He camr to rescue, to seize upon. Interestingly the phrase "he took on" in the original is epilambanomai:

to take in addition, to lay hold of, take possession of, overtake, attain, attain to

1. to lay hold of or to seize upon anything with the hands, to take hold of, lay hold of
2. metaph. to rescue one from peril, to help, succour

He came to save, rescue, help a certain people, the seed of Abraham, which is not all mankind.

Jesus Illustrated this here Lk 19:1-10

And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.

2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.

3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature.

4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way.

5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house.

6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.

7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.

8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.

10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

His Mission was to lay hold of and save the seed of Abraham, a Spiritual seed, hence that's who He tasted death for, all the seed Rom 4:16

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed[of Abraham]; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

 

[Butch5]

Roger---Well, it's late so I may not be thinking clearly and I may be missing it I'll reexamine it again tomorrow) but to me, both readings you've provided seem the same : both include "as many as were ordained" with the second "as were ordained" in each preceding "eternal life". Seems to me that to support your position which (respectfully) I disagree. you would have to say something like "as many believed and were ordained to eternal life": that is, the "believed" causing the "ordained", which, I don't think it does.
Also, to me, the literal translation you provided, in my opinion, seems to support my interpretation.

Hi Roger, that was the point of what I said. The passage reads thus,

Ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον· (Acts 13:48 BGT)

And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe -- as many as were appointed to life age-during; (Acts 13:48 YLT)

The difference is where we pause. We could say, and believed as many as, (Pause) were ordained, Or, we could say, believed (pause) as many as were ordained. The first one indicates that those who were ordained were those who believed. The second one indicates that those who were ordained believed. I didn't reorder the words as the Reformers did. The first one could read, as many as believed were ordained. You see the Reformers reworded the verse to eliminate this interpretation, thus imbedding their interpretation into the text.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48 KJV)

Notice how they've reworded the verse. The word believed isn't at the end of the sentence in the Greek text. It's before both, as many as, and ordained.

Also, as I pointed out the Reformed interpretation of this passage runs contrary to the context and what Paul had just said.

Roger---Eternal life is Christ and visa versa. Anyone who doesn't have Christ doesn't have eternal life. So, they were judged
unworthy not because of their lack of faith but because they lacked Christ, which was the reason they did not have faith.
To have true faith, Christ has to exist spiritually within us. If He's not, then neither can true faith be there: Christ first, faith second. The acquiring of true faith cannot be of our own doing because, as we are told, He is "author and finisher". of our faith. Please observe:

[Heb 12:2 KJV] 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

This doesn't address what I said. The point is that the Jews were the ones who determined whether or not they received eternal life. The reason isn't the issue, what is, is that they were the ones who determined their destiny. Your argument is that the in verse 48 the Gentiles believed because they had already been ordained. Yet this run contrary to what Paul had just told the Jews two verses earlier. In order to hold that position one would have to admit that the Gentiles don't get a choice as to whether or not they are ordained but the Jews do. There is nothing in Scripture that would indicate this.

Also, when Paul says Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith, it means, the Christian faith. He's talking to Christians. They all had the same faith, thus his words. 'our faith'. Paul isn't saying that Christ is the one who makes people believe. Christ is the one who brought and completed the Christian faith.

Roger---and as I previously posted:

[Mar 4:11-12 KJV]
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

Going back to Acts 13:46 for a second, and comparing to Mark 4:12, we can see that the gentiles in 13:48 were able to hear the Gospel, but the Jews in 13:46 could not. However in 4:12 we can also see that while they were able to "hear" in a physical sense, they were not able to understand in a spiritual sense. Why? Because to know the mystery of the kingdom of God one must be "ordained" and from that, it would be "given" to them as it was given to the gentiles. So it would therefore have been an impossibility for them to acquire faith -- being ordained must come first.

Firstly, we have two completely different events in these passages. Jesus was speaking to Jews. He was also in the process of gathering certain men that God had chosen to send out with the Gospel. Isaiah tells us that God had blinded Israel in part. This blinding was necessary to bring about the crucifixion. So, understanding was only given to certain people. Namely, the disciples. Acts 13:48, however, addresses a different situation where the Gospel has now gone to the Gentiles. So, there's really no comparing these two passages.

Roger---It was a spiritual truth that was being recognized and verbalized by Paul-- when the Jews put the word away from themselves, it was evidence they were not of the ordained, and therefore, proved themselves unworthy of eternal life because Christ was not in them, and thus, their sins were not covered by Him. Hence, no eternal life for them.
if you're saying the Jews ,along with all unsaved people, aren't responsible for their sin, I would disagree.
If you're saying the gentiles WERE responsible for their belief, I would again disagree.
Those who become saved, are saved, solely by Christ's offering, nothing that we do can contribute to in any way.
It is a gift that no one deserves.

I don't know -- this all probably sounds like gobbledygook and I'll have to re-write most of it. Thx

That's speculation. According to Paul the reason those Jews didn't have eternal life was because of their rejection of the Gospel. He didn't say they rejected it because they weren't ordained. He said they rejected it. That makes is their fault.

I am saying the Gentiles were responsible for their belief, everyone is. And I understand that you disagree with that. But the point is not what we believe but what the passages says or doesn't say. As I've pointed out. The passage can be understood either way, one way fits the context and the other doesn't. That makes it pretty easy to decide which is correct.

 

[Butch5]

If we continue in the context of Heb 2:9 we come to Vs 16

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The Seed of Abraham ! This is the people He camr to rescue, to seize upon. Interestingly the phrase "he took on" in the original is epilambanomai:

to take in addition, to lay hold of, take possession of, overtake, attain, attain to

1. to lay hold of or to seize upon anything with the hands, to take hold of, lay hold of
2. metaph. to rescue one from peril, to help, succour

He came to save, rescue, help a certain people, the seed of Abraham, which is not all mankind.

Jesus Illustrated this here Lk 19:1-10


His Mission was to lay hold of and save the seed of Abraham, a Spiritual seed, hence that's who He tasted death for, all the seed Rom 4:16

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed[of Abraham]; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

But you've ignored the context in which verse 9 was written.

 

[brightfame52]

But you've ignored the context in which verse 9 was written.

Only in your imagination. It appears you are ignoring the context Im highlighting. Post 183 care to discuss it ?

 

[rogerg]

f not under wrath, then God was propitiated for the child If not under wrath the child was Justified, not condemned. See as far as God was concerned, from His eternal perspective, Christs death for the sins of the elect had taken place Rev 13:8; 1 Pet 1:20, He doesnt have to wait for time Rom 4:17

brightflame52.
Still researching your point regarding "written in heaven", and it is an excellent one indeed, one I've also pondered- the deeper I dig, the more confusing it becomes to me. I'll need to do a lot more digging. All I can come up with right now is that perhaps "written in heaven" may not be synonymous with the Lamb's book of the living. They could very well be the same though but just not sure.
However, it seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that the above reply of yours, seems to capture the gist of your other points. If that is the case, then I would say (and depending upon how the "written in heaven" turns out), that everyone who died prior to Christ's offering were sent to Hell -- elect and non-elect alike. However, judgment and punishment could not be rendered there because Christ's offering had yet to complete. I think this was necessary because, without Christ, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ could not reign in the new Holy City . Without that law to serve as a spiritual legal standard , neither the elect nor non-elect (who had died prior to Christ), could face judgment, punishment or be granted eternal life. So, when Christ's offering had completed, something very basic and essential in the spiritual realm had changed: Please observe:

[Mat 27:50-54 KJV]
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Could these verses mean that sin hadn't been covered by Christ before the foundation of the world?
Also, I think there is the possibility (and I could be wrong) that in 52 & 53, they are speaking symbolically; that is, what was actually in view were those of the Elect who were alive at that time, but not yet born again: they couldn't be born again (possibly) up until then because they were still under law and hence, sin. After the resurrection their sin was remitted and their souls were placed into the new Holy City and under the law of Christ. As a result of that transition, they demonstrated the traits of true believers. The people they "appeared to" realized it. If this assessment isn't correct, then I wonder how/why regarding them, did this happen because it would have been unnecessary?

And (David speaking):

[Psa 16:10 KJV]
10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
[Act 2:27 KJV]
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

So, is David foretelling us that his soul would be placed in Hell (and not directly into Heaven) but not left to remain there? If so, then what would be the doctrine to cause that to occur?

Clarification or disagreement? Please let know- thx

 

[Butch5]

Only in your imagination. It appears you are ignoring the context Im highlighting. Post 183 care to discuss it ?

It's not in my imagination, it's on the page.

5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. (Heb. 2:5-10 KJV)

That's the context.

In post 183 you mentioned a "spiritual" seed of Abraham. Paul didn't. It would seem you're imposing this idea onto the text. Can you explain?

 

[rogerg]

In post 183 you mentioned a "spiritual" seed of Abraham. Paul didn't. It would seem you're imposing this idea onto the text. Can you explain?

Not to butt in, but I happened to be browsing and noticed your discussion. I'm wondering if these verses might shed some light to help answer Butch5's question? Not sure they will, but maybe.

[Rom 9:8 KJV] 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

I think the promise Paul speaks about in 9:8 is God's promise to Abraham, so since in 9:8, he informs that the seed of the flesh aren't the children of God, then wouldn't the spiritual seed of Abraham have be that identified in the verse since God's eternal promise began with Abraham?

[Rev 21:2 KJV] 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

So, if the earthly Jerusalem came into existence and became populated from God's promise to Abraham through his earthly seed, then wouldn't the new Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem, have come into existence and became populated by God's promise to Abraham through Abraham's spiritual seed?

Just thought I'd throw those in

 

[Butch5]

Not to butt in, but I happened to be browsing and noticed your discussion. I'm wondering if these verses might shed some light to help answer Butch5's question? Not sure they will, but maybe.

[Rom 9:8 KJV] 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

I think the promise Paul speaks about in 9:8 is God's promise to Abraham, so since in 9:8, he informs that the seed of the flesh aren't the children of God, then wouldn't the spiritual seed of Abraham have be that identified in the verse since God's eternal promise began with Abraham?

[Rev 21:2 KJV] 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

So, if the earthly Jerusalem came into existence and became populated from God's promise to Abraham through his earthly seed, then wouldn't the new Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem, have come into existence and became populated by God's promise to Abraham through Abraham's spiritual seed?

Just thought I'd throw those in

Hi Roger,

Neither of these passages mention a "spiritual" seed of Abraham either. I find that people tend to use the word spiritual without actually defining what they mean. It's been my experience that this is one of the most misunderstood of Christian words.

The New Jerusalem is said to come down out of Heaven. It's a picture of the restored Jerusalem. It is the Jerusalem that exists now that will be restored when Christ returns. It will he inhabited by physically alive people.

 

[brightfame52]

brightflame52.
Still researching your point regarding "written in heaven", and it is an excellent one indeed, one I've also pondered- the deeper I dig, the more confusing it becomes to me. I'll need to do a lot more digging. All I can come up with right now is that perhaps "written in heaven" may not be synonymous with the Lamb's book of the living. They could very well be the same though but just not sure.
However, it seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that the above reply of yours, seems to capture the gist of your other points. If that is the case, then I would say (and depending upon how the "written in heaven" turns out), that everyone who died prior to Christ's offering were sent to Hell -- elect and non-elect alike. However, judgment and punishment could not be rendered there because Christ's offering had yet to complete. I think this was necessary because, without Christ, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ could not reign in the new Holy City . Without that law to serve as a spiritual legal standard , neither the elect nor non-elect (who had died prior to Christ), could face judgment, punishment or be granted eternal life. So, when Christ's offering had completed, something very basic and essential in the spiritual realm had changed: Please observe:

[Mat 27:50-54 KJV]
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Could these verses mean that sin hadn't been covered by Christ before the foundation of the world?
Also, I think there is the possibility (and I could be wrong) that in 52 & 53, they are speaking symbolically; that is, what was actually in view were those of the Elect who were alive at that time, but not yet born again: they couldn't be born again (possibly) up until then because they were still under law and hence, sin. After the resurrection their sin was remitted and their souls were placed into the new Holy City and under the law of Christ. As a result of that transition, they demonstrated the traits of true believers. The people they "appeared to" realized it. If this assessment isn't correct, then I wonder how/why regarding them, did this happen because it would have been unnecessary?

And (David speaking):

[Psa 16:10 KJV]
10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
[Act 2:27 KJV]
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

So, is David foretelling us that his soul would be placed in Hell (and not directly into Heaven) but not left to remain there? If so, then what would be the doctrine to cause that to occur?

Clarification or disagreement? Please let know- thx

Hi, that is a lot to think about, but from the outset I believe that the elect never had their condemnation for sin imputed to them. Yes they incurred it, but because Christ was made a surety for them in the everlasting covenant of Grace, He was charged, took responsibility for their sins and condemnation, and God looked to Him to satisfy His law and justice on their behalf and not to them, God never charged the world of the elect with their sins 2 Cor 5:19

 

[brightfame52]

It's not in my imagination, it's on the page.

5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. (Heb. 2:5-10 KJV)

That's the context.

In post 183 you mentioned a "spiritual" seed of Abraham. Paul didn't. It would seem you're imposing this idea onto the text. Can you explain?

I already answered, it's about the same, the elect. Now do you want to discuss the points or not I am making?

 

[Fastfredy0]

[Rom 9:8 KJV] 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Add:

• Romans 4:11–17 ​

• Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.​

 

[rogerg]

• Romans 4:11–17 ​

• Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.​

Good ones, Fastfredy0

 

[Butch5]

I already answered, it's about the same, the elect. Now do you want to discuss the points or not I am making?

Now you're saying the elect? You're using terms without explaining what they are. What is a "spiritual" seed? Paul didn't use this language.

You're points are moot. No one denies that He came for the seed of Abraham. However, that doesn't exclude everyone else. In order to make your case you need to show where everyone else is excluded. As I've point out twice now, the argument you're making ignores the context in which Paul made the statement. "What is man"? Why don't you address that instead of just saying I disagree?

As I said before, Christ tasted death for all so tjat He might bring many sons to glory.

 

[Butch5]

Abraham's seed are heirs according to the promise. What is the promise?

 

[rogerg]

Hi, that is a lot to think about, but from the outset I believe that the elect never had their condemnation for sin imputed to them. Yes they incurred it, but because Christ was made a surety for them in the everlasting covenant of Grace, He was charged, took responsibility for their sins and condemnation, and God looked to Him to satisfy His law and justice on their behalf and not to them, God never charged the world of the elect with their sins 2 Cor 5:19

Yeah I used to think that too, and maybe still do. The problems I'm having though are these: 1) why then did God choose to include (through David) that David's soul went to Hell but that it was not to be left there; 2) why were those saints brought to life only after Christ gave up the ghost and, 3) of course, your point about the names written in Heaven (Lamb's book of life ?), before completion of Christ's offering.
Not asking you to provide answers (unless you want to, that is) but I feel like I need to find a common thread to harmonize them. Anyway, I'll keep looking.

 

[Butch5]

Yeah I used to think that too, and maybe still do. The problems I'm having though are these: 1) why then did God choose to include (through David) that David's soul went to Hell but that it was not to be left there; 2) why were those saints brought to life only after Christ gave up the ghost and, 3) of course, your point about the names written in Heaven (Lamb's book of life ?), before completion of Christ's offering.
Not asking you to provide answers (unless you want to, that is) but I feel like I need to find a common thread to harmonize them. Anyway, I'll keep looking.

I can answer that for you. However, it will require that you are open to questioning your preconceptions. If we use the Biblical word Hades and not the English word hell we can trace its usage through the Bible. In doing so we see that Hades is actually the grave. So David's soul was in the grave. If we also consider the word soul in the original languages and set aside our modern concept of soul we find that a soul is a living being. Th whole person is a soul. The word soul is also translated life in an abstract sense. So, in essence the passage indicates that David's person or life wouldn't be left in the grave. What does that refer to? The resurrection. God would not leave David's person in the grave, He would resurrect David.

 

[rogerg]

I can answer that for you. However, it will require that you are open to questioning your preconceptions. If we use the Biblical word Hades and not the English word hell we can trace its usage through the Bible. In doing so we see that Hades is actually the grave. So David's soul was in the grave. If we also consider the word soul in the original languages and set aside our modern concept of soul we find that a soul is a living being. Th whole person is a soul. The word soul is also translated life in an abstract sense. So, in essence the passage indicates that David's person or life wouldn't be left in the grave. What does that refer to? The resurrection. God would not leave David's person in the grave, He would resurrect David.

Hmmm, okay Butch5, thanks I'll think about that and do some research

 

[Butch5]

Hmmm, okay Butch5, thanks I'll think about that and do some research

Hi Roger,

In Genesis 2:7 Moses tells us what a man is. He records that God formed the man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath or spirit, same word, of life and the man became a living soul. So according to Gen 2:7 the man, body of dust, and the breath or spirit of life from God, combined to become a living soul. This is the basis for saying that a soul is the whole person. Also, the fish and animals called souls. If we approach the Bible with this preconception a lot of passages will take on new meaning.

What we have is 2000 years of people's thoughts, ideas, and concepts, working their way into the Christian faith. This has lead to a lot of confusion as people are taught things that aren't really Biblical concepts. Then when they try to reconcile these ideas with Scripture they don't fit. This leads to what we often see where people will hold a particular doctrine and then try to make passage fit that doctrine when it's obvious they don't.

As Christian's we form doctrines based on other doctrines. One doctrine leads to another. However, if our foundational doctrines have errors the following doctrines will be based on those errors. As such I've found that holding to any one doctrine as absolute isn't necessarily beneficial.