C
Cristian_B
Guest
Yes.So I ask again, my new friend, are you with me so far?
- Status
C
Cristian_B
Guest
I took a brake from the computer.Dude! Four days with no answer? You’re NOT wimping out! Are you? You can’t be serious! Don’t bail on us now that we’re so close to the truth! C’mon! Get a pair and get with the program! (And if that’s good with you, please tell me what the word *with *means when I say “get *with *the program.”)
So, as far as I understood, you are trying to tell me that Jesus by ‘me’ He meant ‘the Father’ since ‘They are One’.
But … I am I and He is He. Have you ever heard of a wife saying ‘meet with me at 10 o’clock at the bar tomorrow morning’ referring to her husband? I don’t believe that would make much sense. When Jesus said ‘me’ He referred to Himself. When He said ‘Father’ He referred to the Father. When He talked about the spirit He referred to the Spirit. When He said ‘you’ (e.g.: if you love Me keep my commandments) He was referring to us. If we are one with Christ was Jesus referring to Himself then? (If I love Me I will keep My commandments). I believe you know that
the Son ≠ the Father
S
spockrates
Guest
And by with me, you do not possibly mean that you are here in the same room. For your profiles says you are in Spain, and I am in the State of Indiana! So with does not necessarily mean in the same location, I’m sure you agree.
The question, then, is what does the word with mean when I ask, “Are you with me?”
S
spockrates
Guest
Glad you are back, Cristian! To answer your question, I am not actually saying that, at least not at the moment. In fact, I’m not saying much of anything, but instead asking you questions to see what you have to say. Currently I’m asking if you believe the word *with *can mean something other than to be in the same physical location as someone or something.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Yes, I’m with you in the sens that I agree with you and I understand what you said so far.
How can the thief agree with Jesus in Paradise and understand Him in Paradise?
So … post the different meaning of ‘with’ that you’ve got.
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, I think you are correct. One can be with another by virtue of relation, though not by virtue of location. You are in Spain, I am in Indiana, yet I’m with you in that you and me agree.
There is certainly precedence for this in scripture. Consider Jesus’ own words that were quoted earlier:
When Jesus described to his disciples how hard it was for those God blessed with worldly wealth to get into heaven, they were astonished and asked who, then could be saved? Jesus answer was
“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
(Matthew 19:26)
My thought is that He was saying that those who are in agreement with God and cooperating with His will for their lives are those whom He enables to do the impossible. What’s your thought?
S
spockrates
Guest
That’s an extremely good question! How indeed? To find the answer together, let’s start with the obvious and work our way to the not-so obvious:
Would you say that the thief on the cross to whom Jesus said this
“I tell you the truth today you will be with me in paradise.”
(Luke 23:43)
was with Him during their crucifixions? (By with, I mean *not *just in the sense of being within earshot, but also in the sense of being in complete agreement with our Lord and Savior. That is, do you think the thief was in one accord with Christ?)
C
Cristian_B
Guest
I agree with you.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
I’d say yes.
S
spockrates
Guest
Thanks for replying, Cristian. It seems, then, that it is possible (but not yet certain) that the thief who died that day would be with Jesus that day in Paradise, even if Jesus were in Hell, or Hades, or some other underworld. Though he was not with Christ in person, he was with him in agreement. Paul appears to say the same thing about those of one church to whom he wrote:
Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit.
(1 Corinthians 5:3)
Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit.
(1 Corinthians 5:3)
S
spockrates
Guest
Now, have we *proven *the comma should go before today? No. Have we *shown *there is no extinction of the soul? No, not at all! But we have demonstrated that it is at least *possible *that Jesus could have been saying the thief’s soul would live, apart from his body, after his body died. Don’t you think?
C
Cristian_B
Guest
No, I don’t think so.
But anyway, it’s not like God is going to say: ‘you will not enter Heaven for not believing in the immortality of the soul’.
Since I believe He won’t, this discussion isn’t very important.
There are more important matters to talk about than this.
God bless,
Emanuel
S
spockrates
Guest
Good talking with you, too! And may God richly bless you.
S
spockrates
Guest
But if you change your mind and you’d like to explore the truth of the matter just a few posts more, please let me know what you believe Paul meant:
If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
(Philippians 1:22-24)
If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
(Philippians 1:22-24)
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Spock, this just occurred to me.
‘with’ can mean physically with or in agreement with. But this happens in English. This is valid in our society and culture. How do we know this applies to the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic language as well? How do we know whether ‘with’ had the same two (at least) meanings like in the English language in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew as well?
‘with’ can mean physically with or in agreement with. But this happens in English. This is valid in our society and culture. How do we know this applies to the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic language as well? How do we know whether ‘with’ had the same two (at least) meanings like in the English language in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew as well?
J
jasev
Guest
You’re kidding. Right?
S
spockrates
Guest
S
spockrates
Guest
I think we’d have to ask a Greek or Latin scholar, for the most reliable extant ancient manuscript copies of the New Testament are written in those languages. If you know one, here is the translation of Luke 23:43 in Greek:
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμήν λέγω σοι σήμερον μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ
and here it is in Latin:
et dixit illi Iesus amen dico tibi hodie mecum eris in paradiso
I got both from here:
blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=23&t=KJV#43
I’m sure you will find someone who knows Latin well on this forum.
There are other ways to find answers if you cannot find a linguistic expert. For example, whenever I find a passage of scripture the meaning of which is uncertain, I look for a more clear passage to shed some light on the one that’s clear as mud. That’s why I asked you what Paul meant here:
If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
(Philippians 1:22-24)
For it seems to me the meaning is more clear.
S
spockrates
Guest
Please let me know if you care to discuss this more, Cristian. If not, then please know that I valued the time we spent together.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Okay.Please let me know if you care to discuss this more, Cristian. If not, then please know that I valued the time we spent together.
No, not really. I’m quite tired lately.
God bless you, and good bye.
- Status