Post Reply
Page 15 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Luke 17:21 and the Kingdom of God
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 2:22AM #141
Blü
Posts: 24,830

Jim


Synchronicity makes you feel Jung again?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 3:31AM #142
Brainscramble
Posts: 8,954

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:45PM, howiedds wrote:


Brain:


Howie:


Again, it depends on what you mean by the Jewish testament and at what point in history. No question that Psalms and Daniel reflect the Oral Teachings of a spirit world after death



 *****Where?  I haven't been apprised of any.



I didn't find any that spoke specifically of a spirit world after death, but I did find some references in these later books that might be speaking about a resurrection or life after death. Again, it's only in these later books of Jewish testament, which were not yet Canon in Jesus' day, that we might infer a life after death.


Psalm 16:10


For thou will not abandon my soul to the nether world (sheol);


Neither will thou suffer Thy godly one to see the pit.


 


+++++This does indeed speak of life after death, but, as I understand it, not immediately after death.  It speaks of the resurrection of the dead at a later time, which we haven't seen yet.



 


Psalm 17:15 implying an awakening from the sleep of death:


As for me. I shall behold they face in righteousness:


I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with Thy likeness.


 


+++++Yes, again---it speaks of the future Resurrection.  It also seems as though the writer believed in the "sleep" of the dead, and not immediate, conscious existence in some other realm.


 



Psalm 49:16 (your 15)


But God will redeem my soul from the power of the netherworld (sheol);


For He shall receive me.


 


+++++The Resurrection.



 


Psalm 139:8


If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there;


If I make my bed in Sheol, behod, thou art there.



+++++Merely a statement from the writer that he can't get away from God.  Wherever he would go, God would be there.


(continued)



 

I am interested in your thoughts.


Pam

Christian Witness of Jehovah, the God and Father of Christ and of us all.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 3:43AM #143
Brainscramble
Posts: 8,954

Mar 20, 2012 -- 9:45PM, howiedds wrote:


Brain:


Howie:


Again, it depends on what you mean by the Jewish testament and at what point in history. No question that Psalms and Daniel reflect the Oral Teachings of a spirit world after death



 *****Where?  I haven't been apprised of any.



I didn't find any that spoke specifically of a spirit world after death, but I did find some references in these later books that might be speaking about a resurrection or life after death. Again, it's only in these later books of Jewish testament, which were not yet Canon in Jesus' day, that we might infer a life after death.


 


 


(continued)




This one from Job 19:26 might imply a life after death with no body:


And when after my skin this  is destroyed,


Then without my flesh shall I  see God:


 


+++++I need a little help with this one.  I am looking at the Jewish Publication Society's (Hebrew-English Tanakh) rendering of Job 19:26, and it says:


"This, after my skin will have been peeled off.  But I would behold God while still in my flesh."


It contradicts your version.  I'll have to do some research on that verse.  The New World Translation is close to your rendering, also.


 


 





Daniel 12:2 sounds more like a bodily resurrection:



And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

 

 

+++++Yes.  That is what I thought. 




There are many more references, but you are right in saying that most of them are described as bodily resurrections


 



+++++Thank you for looking these up & commenting on them. 
















I am interested in your thoughts.


Pam

Christian Witness of Jehovah, the God and Father of Christ and of us all.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 4:44AM #144
Brainscramble
Posts: 8,954

I checked out Job 19:26 in several Bible versions, and there is almost an even number on both sides, some versions saying "in my flesh shall I see God," and others "outside of my flesh shall I see God."


The Hebrew-Greek-English Interlinear (Jay P. Green) says, "in my flesh I shall see God."


So does The Contemporary English Version...."Yet from this body I will see God."  There is a footnote that calls this verse "difficult."


The New Oxford Annotated Bible has it also:  "Then in my flesh I shall see God."  Their footnote says:  "The meaning of v. 26 is too uncertain a one on which to base a firm conclusion, but the rendering of this verse in the NRSV would allow the possibility of a resurrected Job."


Interestingly, the Septuagint (Brenton) renders it thusly:  (from verse 25)  "For I know that he is eternal who is about to deliver me, (26) and to raise up upon the earth my skin [or, body] that endures these sufferings: for these things have been accomplished to me of the Lord."     ???


Well, it's quite intriguing, I must say.  I found a short paragraph in a volume of Bible commentary that I think sums it up nicely:


"Completely humbled, Job acknowledged his wrong viewpoint and admitted that he had spoken without knowledge.  Yet, he had expressed faith that he would "behold God."  How could that happen, since no human can see Jehovah and live on? (Exodus 33:20)  Actually, Job saw the manifestation of divine power, heard God's word, and had his eyes of understanding opened to see the truth about Jehovah."  (WT94 11/15 pp.15-20)


That seems to be as reasonable as anything, being the "difficult" passage that it is.Cool


 


 


 

I am interested in your thoughts.


Pam

Christian Witness of Jehovah, the God and Father of Christ and of us all.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 27, 2012 - 2:37PM #145
lope
Posts: 11,028

Mar 24, 2012 -- 1:38AM, Blü wrote:


Jim, Heretic, lope


You all seem in agreement with, as Jim put it -


The main difference in our thinking Blu is that you maintain that supernatural things, as defined above, do not exist, and I am open to the possibility that they do exist.


I can't absolutely rule out the possibility that supernatural beings have objective existence.  But as you can see, it will take specific evidence, in effect a satisfactory demonstration, to persuade me that the supernatural is more probable than the arguments and (in my view) the evidence against it.  Just which supernatural beings might then be involved is a further and separate question.


As things stand, I have no expectation of such a demonstration; but should one be offered, I'll watch with interest.





I don't think the spiritual realm or spiritual things are objectivly provable.  The evidence against the spiritual realm existing are also not objective evidence that proves the non existence of the spiritual.  You refer to one being more probable.  To you it is more probable that the spiritual does not exist.  To me it is more probable that it does.  I think this will always be a subjective determination.  For the first twenty four years of my life I saw many things as  coincidence.  Finally it got improbable to me that it could be simply coincidence.  For the remaining fourty four years or so I have seen it as not probable to be simply coincidence and once I was open to that possibility I remembered many things in the first twenty four years that were just too strange to be simply coincidence.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 27, 2012 - 3:06PM #146
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

I agree with lope.  Coincidences (better yet synchronicities) are the main objective evidence we can have about the interaction of the spiritual world with us.  The other consists of ghostly apparitions or other similar events that cannot be objectively proven to everybody's satisfaction.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 2:45AM #147
Blü
Posts: 24,830

Jim, lope


I agree with lope.  Coincidences (better yet synchronicities) are the main objective evidence we can have about the interaction of the spiritual world with us.


The problem is that we're surrounded by enormous unpredictability all the time but we never notice it.  The coincidences we remember are the ones that capture our attention for particular but very various reasons; they're not representative.


Where we can control the parameters, all we find is randomness.  Lotteries are one example.



The other consists of ghostly apparitions or other similar events that cannot be objectively proven to everybody's satisfaction.


Before there can be ghostly apparitions there have to be real ghosts.  It's not helpful to your argument that no such category has been shown to have objective existence.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 3:11PM #148
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

Mar 28, 2012 -- 2:45AM, Blü wrote:


 


Before there can be ghostly apparitions there have to be real ghosts.  It's not helpful to your argument that no such category has been shown to have objective existence.




After a 20 sec. research I ended up with the following synonyms:


objective = real, factual, actual, tangible


supernatural = mystic, ghostly, uncanny, weird, bizarre, magic, unatural




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 3:16PM #149
lope
Posts: 11,028

Mar 28, 2012 -- 2:45AM, Blü wrote:


Jim, lope


I agree with lope.  Coincidences (better yet synchronicities) are the main objective evidence we can have about the interaction of the spiritual world with us.


The problem is that we're surrounded by enormous unpredictability all the time but we never notice it.  The coincidences we remember are the ones that capture our attention for particular but very various reasons; they're not representative.


Where we can control the parameters, all we find is randomness.  Lotteries are one example.



The other consists of ghostly apparitions or other similar events that cannot be objectively proven to everybody's satisfaction.


Before there can be ghostly apparitions there have to be real ghosts.  It's not helpful to your argument that no such category has been shown to have objective existence.




In other words no matter how unlikely it is coincidence, it is still just coincidence.  I don't think so.  If it makes no sense for it to be conincidence, then it may not be coincidence.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 6:27PM #150
Blü
Posts: 24,830

lope


In other words no matter how unlikely it is coincidence, it is still just coincidence.


We have no reason to think otherwise. 


Suppose you read these words this morning on the New York Times website -


Stung by cases of cheating among Long Island high school students, the college entrance exams will now require students to upload photos when they register.


And suppose you asked yourself what were the odds that those words would show up in a post on Bnet that you'd shortly read?  Your answer would have to have been, Those odds are huge.


Yet by prodigious coincidence here they are, letter perfect.  In other words, coincidence is all around us and very largely, we pay it no attention - we don't even recognize it as such.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 15 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook