--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F4500000Date: 04/04/98 From: CHARLIE RAY Time: 11:10am \/To: RANDG WOOD (Read 0 times) Subj: FRESH MANNA, Mt 6:14-15 Hi RANDG, ***deleted*** I just wanted to point out several errors you've made in your devotional below. ***deleted*** RW> Well, I got started on that when I was taking first-year N RW> Testament Greek. For some reason, I memorized the Lord's pra RW> in Greek; and then found that actually saying it in Greek had RW> these advantages:-- (1) At first, while it's still unfamilia RW> it forces you to slow down, to think through what you're sayi RW> (2) It's one language closer to the language the Lord origina RW> taught it in-- a straight translation from Aramaic into Greek RW> rather than a translation of a translation-- so you'd hope to RW> closer to the original meaning; (3) At one place, the Englis RW> version we're familiar with, rather obscures, fails to bring RW> a key point which is made more clearly in the Greek:-- It is by no means certain that Jesus taught in Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew, for example, is written to a Jewish community of believers. So if Jesus taught in Aramaic to the Jews why does Matthew not write in Aramaic? Of course, some scholars have speculated that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic because the Greek of Matthew's Gospel is full of syntactical evidence that suggests a strong background in Aramaic. The natural language of the writer of Matthew was more than likely a Jew and Greek is his second language. I think it best that we leave this one open rather than assuming that Jesus taught in Aramaic. It is highly likely that He also knew Koine Greek since that was the common trade language of Palestine along with the other areas conquered by Alexander the Great. RW> We're used to saying, "Forgive us our trespasses as WE FOR RW> those who trespass against us". What the Greek likely said i RW> "Forgive us our trespasses as WE FORGAVE [/HAVE FORGIVEN] tho RW> who trespass against us". I.e., we are to -have- forgiven pe RW> who've sinned against us, before we ever get to this part of RW> Lord's prayer. This forgiveness is to have been a past actio RW> completed in the past, before we even begin the Lord's prayer Unfortunately, this is completely against the context. For one thing the verb apheimi is in the second aorist tense and the subjunctive mood. The aorist tense does not convey time except as context dictates and the subjunctive mood can indicate aspect only. In fact, the normal mood used in conditional sentences is the subjunctive mood. The syntax of the sentence in Greek is that of a simple conditional statement. If we forgive then the Father will forgive us. You've interpreted the verb as if it were a perfect tense and that is completely wrong. The Father's forgiveness is in the future tense and indicative mood of the same verb. So, rather than something that has taken place in the past, the aorist simply refers to an action that takes place at some point in time prior to a future reception of the Father's forgiveness. As I said, this is merely a conditional sentence and the condition to receiving any *future* forgiveness from the Father is we must forgive now. One must remember that it is difficult to translate the Greek aorist into good English because there is no equivalent tense in English. English is an analytical, syntactical language while Greek is a synthetic language. English meaning is determined by word order within a sentence while Greek is determined more by the formation of words in conjugations of verbs and cases of nouns and adjectives, etc. Sincerely in Christ, Charlie Ray, Chaplain 1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (NIV). chaplain@isgroup.net --- * WR # 461 * Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide. * Origin: Get All Your Fido Here! telnet://docsplace.dynip.com (1:3603/140) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F4500001Date: 04/04/98 From: CHERYL PANION Time: 10:11am \/To: HARVEY A. SMITH (Read 0 times) Subj: new here with question:) HI.. I'm new to his echo.. somewhat new with God and Jesus also... about 4 months < anyways a question is.. if Jesus said on his dying day to the theif on the cross beside him.. you will be with me now (not in them words) but in the bible it says when Jesus comes back to get us he will raise the dead first.. my question is.. if were to be in heaven when we die.. (spirits) then why would he come and raise us from our death? I hope i worded this right.. Thanks for any info.. < --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Knight-Line! * Tacoma, WA * (206) 565-0594 (1:138/239.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F4500002Date: 04/04/98 From: MICK JAMES Time: 01:20pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: The True Gospel If we want to know if we are preaching the true gospel one way to do it is to see if what we proclaim to be the true gospel would ever generate the objections that Paul anticipated his gospel would generate. Lets start in Romans 6:1. There Paul says: Romans 6 1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? Now do you preach grace so freely that someone would accuse you of that? Or do you preach a gospel that says we must do something to keep ourselves saved? If you do than I am sure your answer would have been diffrent that Paul's. The next objection: 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Would anyone ever bring that objection to your gospel? If so would you answer like Paul? Now here are the 2 that are the most devastating to the free willers: Romans 9 14. What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. After Paul states that God loved Jacob and hated Esau he brings that objection. Does anyone ever accuse you of saying God is unrighteous. If not you are probaly not preaching like Paul did. One only needs to read how Paul responds to that objection. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Would you ever dare to say to someone in response to God being unfair that he can do whatever he wants to? The next objection is in response to this statement: 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. Now here is the objection: 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Does anyone ever ask you why God would ever find fault with anyone since no one can resist his will? That objection can only be brought against someone preaching irrestible grace. If so would you ever say this? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? If we are preaching the gospel that Paul preached we would generate the objections that Paul anticipated and we would have similar answers don't you think. In closing let me ask you about your prayers. When you pay do you say something like this "I thank thee God that thou did wait until it pleased me to come to thee; and that thou did knock until I was good enough to open the door of my heart to thee and that thou gave me grace when I decided to receive it"? When a true child of God thanks God in prayer for his salvation it is something like this: "I thank thee Lord for thy grace that overpowered my rebellion and opened up and entered my heart. Had you let me alone I would have perished in my sin." Now which one is closer to how you pray? The first is closer to what free willers claim to believe but the 2nd, which is not a free will prayer, is basically the prayer of all truly converted people. If you pray like the first you are probably unconverted and if you pray like the 2nd than you probably are a Calvinist in the heart and need only to have your head catch up to you heart. For the cause of God and truth..... Mick James S.S. An Ambassador for Christ * ***** * * "ek autou kai di autou kai eis auton ta panta auto he doxa eis tous aionas amen" --- * SLMR 2.1a * Free will is the avowed enemy of free grace --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: The Mad House (1:107/360.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F4500003Date: 04/03/98 From: KEN YOUNG Time: 02:25am \/To: ROBBY DITTMANN (Read 0 times) Subj: Modernism Re: Modernism > HR> I want to be careful not to sound like I am putting > HR> down faithful Christians who are Pentecostals, it is > HR> important to note that they put their Christianity > HR> first. My concern is similar to that expressed by Paul > HR> that Christians not drive others away by speaking > HR> unknown languages publicly without Spiritual > HR> interpretation. > In my experience, I have never seen a group that taught "tongues speaking" > within biblical context. Not that there isn't one out there, but i have neve > seen, nor heard of, any. That may be because speaking in tongues cannot be taught. Not can faith healing. Both are very real, and are scriptural concepts, but it is from God, and is not something one can teach. Of course, it is important to make sure it is actualy of God. Some seem to get lost in God's gifts, and forget all about God, Himself. Origin: The Hide-A-Way, Manheim, Pa 717-665-4094 (FidoNet 1:270/430) --- VFIDO 6.20.00 Gamma Candidate 10 * Origin: The Hide-A-Way (1:270/430) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F4E00000Date: 04/07/98 From: RANDG WOOD Time: 01:31pm \/To: CHARLIE RAY (Read 0 times) Subj: APHEKAMEN Brother Charlie: Thank you for your suggestions for improving our Fresh Manna on MATTHER 6:14-15! (1) You observed, |It is by no means certain that Jesus taught in Aramaic. Indeed, in one draft of this, I actually included the word "presumeably?", but found the commentaries I consulted seemed to agree this was the most likely underlying language. One Bible dictionary we have here, says "probably". In view of these things, I have now changed "the language the Lord originally taught it in--", to "the language the Lord probably taught it in--". And that change will appear in all future publication of this Fresh Manna. This doesn't completely fulfill all you suggested, but it does convey much of your meaning, in the same space as before. [I have to keep it to the same space, since each Fresh Manna is set up for people to print on one page of 8 1/2" x 11" paper.] <0>IXTHUS<< (2) You suggested, |the verb apheimi is in the second aorist tense and the |subjunctive mood. The aorist tense does not convey time except |as context dictates |... |You've interpreted the verb as if it were a perfect tense and |that is completely wrong. More than that, it's even found in the PRESENT tense in some manuscripts, including whichever one that part of the Textus Receptus was based upon. This is thought to be patterned on the version of the Lord's prayer reported by Luke, in LUKE 11:4, where the verb is in the present. This wouldn't affect the interpretation, of course. As you noted with regard to the aorist, even if it were present tense, our forgiving others still precedes our asking God to forgive us. And the Lord's own expansion on this, in MATTHEW 6:14-15, which is the text, and the point of the said Fresh Manna, emphasizes this forcefully. As to the perfect, I must admit I had come to regard this as a perfect, and was surprised to find it an aorist! And of course the aorist has more the concept of "punctiliar action as opposed to ongoing action", than "past opposed to present action". However, Machen does say, "The aorist is like the imperfect in that it refers to past time ... the aorist is the simple past tense" (p. 81). He goes on to say, "It should be observed, however, that the aorist tense is often translated by the English perfect" (p. 82). And he continues, "The context will usually determine quite clearly whether a Greek aorist is to be translated in English by the simple past tense (e.g. I loosed) or by the perfect tense (e.g. I have loosed"). The former translation should be adopted in the exercises unless it is perfectly certain the other is intended. What the student needs to understand first is that the aorist is the simple past tense." (p. 82) This is why I wrote in the Fresh Manna on MATTHEW 6:14-15, "What the Greek likely said is, `Forgive us our trespasses as WE FORGAVE [/HAVE FORGIVEN]'". The intent was to acknowledge that not all manuscripts have the aorist, though this is indeed the majority view. Also, to show it as a simple past tense, but to indicate that in the context it had more the force of the perfect in English. I realize this doesn't deal with your point about the function of the aorist tense in conditional clauses-- |As I said, this is merely a conditional sentence and the |condition to receiving any *future* forgiveness from the Father |is we must forgive now. But that, I fear, is beyond my level of knowledge of Greek. Writing for beginners like me, Machen only describes conditions which begin with "EAN", and "EI"; not with "WS", as we are discussing. So at present, to me it would seem the present tense would convey the meaning you have described, and the aorist the meaning I have described. <0>IXTHUS<< 3) I was very interested in your analysis, |English is an analytical, syntactical language while Greek is a |synthetic language. English meaning is determined by word order |within a sentence while Greek is determined more by the formation |of words in conjugations of verbs and cases of nouns and |adjectives, etc. I wonder if you'd mind expanding on this thought a bit sometime. Sounds like something I'd like to consider further. <0>IXTHUS<< Anyway, thanks for your help. We really appreciate someone who tries to make our work more effective! || Many blessings! --Ralph || Ralph & Gene Ann Wood || randg.wood@encode.com --- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0313 * Origin: Encode Online Orillia,Ont.705-327-7629 (1:229/107) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F4E00001Date: 04/08/98 From: CHARLIE RAY Time: 11:52pm \/To: RANDG WOOD (Read 0 times) Subj: Perfective Aspect Hi Randg Wood, I took my first NT Greek class using Machen as well. My copy is at the office so I don't have immediate access to it. However, if you will go back to page 80 or 81 where you cited Machen's instructions for "translation" you will note that he also says that there is no exact translation for the aorist tense of Koine Greek into English. In general, however, since there is no "exact" translation of the aorist into English (there is no aorist tense in English) the simple past tense is "usually" adopted as the best translation. Dana and Mantey also have a section of the various contextual and syntactical uses of the aorist tense with the different moods--indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative (and sometimes the infinitive is considered as a Greek mood). However, please note following passage: Quote: The aorist and present tenses are used about equally in the NT, together making up over 80% of all verbs and verbals. At the other end of the scale, the pluperfect is used less than 1% of the time. In the non-indicative moods, the aorist is the routine tense, unless there is some reason for choosing another. The aspect of the present tense, for example, carries more information and will sometimes convey imperfective aspect. You would do well to pay close attention to tense and aspect within the Greek verb system. A writer will use tense and aspect to convey meaning within a paragraph. Fortunately, the Greek verb system has lately come under intensive scrutiny, and we have a clearer picture of how the ancient writers intended to be understood. The bad news is that the exegetical significance of the tenses is awash with misinformation, much of it left over from the 19th. century. Take as an example the lingering notions about the aorist: that its a point action, or completed, or never to be repeated. Another myth is that the aspect of the verb was thought to exactly represent the nature of the action in reality. These popular notions are not just heard from the pulpit; they crop up in reputable commentaries and the standard grammars. Whole systems of doctrine can be - indeed, are! - built upon a single punctilear aorist. It is crucial that you deal with tenses in a natural manner: Greek verbs, like those in all languages, are not artificially constructed containers, neatly compartmentalized with mathematical precision. They have a core of inherent meaning, but their meaning is heavily influenced by context, the vocabulary used, and stylistic convention. Each occurrence of a verb may tell you two things about the action: Primarily, a verb tense tells you about the ASPECT, that is, kind of action as the speaker chooses to depict it. The speakers choices may be guided by other factors, such as a conventionalized use of a certain aspect with a particular verb. Verbal aspect does not necessarily tell you the whole story of how the action took place in reality (i. e., the Aktionsart), but simply how the speaker/writer chooses to relate it in this context. The verb tenses convey three types of aspect: imperfective (or linear) = an action is depicted as progressive or continuing English analogy - he was loosing perfective (or aoristic) = an action is summarized, presented in its entirety English analogy - he loosed perfect tense is considered by many to be a third type of aspect (perfect or stative) = focusing on a state that arises from a previous action English analogy - he has loosed, it is written Secondarily, a verb tense may tell you the TIME of the action relative to the speaker/writer. The time element is fairly well defined in the indicative mood (e.g., with the epsilon augment in the aorist and imperfect), but it is absent from the non-indicative moods, including participles and infinitives. The kind of action in reality (AKTIONSART) is not determined by the tense or its aspect. It may, however, be inferred from: 1. Lexical information. Perhaps the verb by nature refers to a state (believe, love), a continuous action (grow, run), or a point in time (slap, cough). Compound verbs (verbs with prepositional prefixes) often yield a clear Aktionsart. 2. Contextual information. For example: they reigned [aorist] for a thousand years means that the kind of action in reality takes place over a thousand years. Example 1: Tesseravkonta kai; e}x e[tesin oijkodomhvqh oJ nao;" ou|to" (John 2:20) Over the space of forty-and-six years was this Temple built. Aktionsart: build is by nature a continuous activity; context indicates a 46 year span of time for building Aspect: with the aorist the speakers are viewing the action as a whole Time: in the indicative, the aorist typically denotes past time relative to the speaker; that fits here, as they look back over a 46-year stretch. NOTE however, what the aorist tense does NOT tell you: that the building took place in a point of time; that it was completed; that its done once-for-all and never to be repeated. In fact, what this particular aorist tells you is what the context tells you - illustrating that, even if you can read Greek, context always has the final word in exegesis! Example 2: ajpeqavnomen th/` aJmartiva/ (Rom. 6:2) we died to sin Aktionsart: in the context, dying to sin seems to be the common Christian experience, but Paul does not state explicitly whether that death took place in an instant or over a period of time; the verb die may suggest a point of time. Aspect: the death is viewed in its entirety, not looking at the internal timing of the action Time of Aorist Verb: this aorist tense implies that Paul and the Roman Christians died to sin in the past. That does have theological significance, if one considers that Paul could have said some of us died to sin or we should die or we will die. Time, Aspect, and Verbal Mood Indicative Mood: Present: imperfective aspect, present time Future: either perfective or imperfective aspect, expected action or state Imperfect: imperfective aspect, past time Aorist: perfective aspect, past time Perfect: present state of affairs arising from a previous action Pluperfect: past state of affairs arising from a previous action Chapman, Benjamin and Shogren, Gary Steven, Greek New Testament Insert, (Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing) 1994, [Online] Available: Logos Library System. End quote. Please note that perfective aspect is *not* the same thing as a perfect tense, which denotes a completed action in the past tense with enduring results. The aorist tense in the indicative mood rather indicates a *simple* past tense as even your quotes from Machen indicate. Sincerely in Christ, Charlie Ray, Chaplain 1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (NIV). chaplain@isgroup.net --- * WR # 461 * Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide. * Origin: Get All Your Fido Here! telnet://docsplace.dynip.com (1:3603/140) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F4E00002Date: 04/08/98 From: CHARLIE RAY Time: 10:51pm \/To: RANDG WOOD (Read 0 times) Subj: Aorist By the way, I checked the Stephens Textus Receptus (1550) and the Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1881) and both have the same reading as the Nestle-Aland 26th edition of the GNT. In all three the aphiemi is in the second person plural aorist active subjunctive. I'm using my computer so I don't have access to the textual apparatus of the NA 26th edition at hand so I'll take your word that aphiemi occurs in the present tense in some manuscripts. However, "ean" with the subjunctive simply indicates a conditional sentence. The aorist tense usually indicates a punctiliar or snapshot event in the past. However, according to Dana and Mantey, it can also indicate inception action. That is, it begins with an event in the past and may have enduring results. I would think, on further reflection, that this may be the intention of Matthew 6:14. If we forgive and that forgiveness continues or endures (at some point in the past) then in the future the Father will forgive our sins. The second occurrence is in the future tense. This second forgiveness may indicate both future to the actual event of forgiveness or it may refer to the coming judgment. I tend to think it is the former. I haven't consulted any commentaries on this so I'm just giving my spin on it. Sincerely in Christ, Charlie Ray, Chaplain 1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (NIV). chaplain@isgroup.net --- * WR # 461 * Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide. * Origin: Get All Your Fido Here! telnet://docsplace.dynip.com (1:3603/140) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F4E00003Date: 04/08/98 From: CHARLIE RAY Time: 11:15pm \/To: RANDG WOOD (Read 0 times) Subj: KJV Hi Randg, I just checked again and it seems that the present tense of aphiemi does occur in verse 12 of the KJV. I overlooked that. Quote: 12 KJV has the present "we forgive" in both Matthew and Luke and is widely supported. The aorist is attested by '* B Z 1 22 124mg 1365 1582, five MSS of the Latin Vulgate, and several MSS of the Syriac and Coptic versions. This represents a fair spread of text type. But the convincing arguments are the likelihood of assimilation to Luke and the converse implausibility of a copyist changing the present to an aorist. Footnote on Mt. 6:12 from the Expositor's Bible Commentary, New Testament Footnotes (based on the NIV). Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, J.D. Douglas, Assistant Editor, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992). Zondervan NIV Bible Library, Version 2.5.1, 1997. I still hold that the aorist tense should not be translated as a perfect here. Note the NIV rendering: Matthew 6:12-14 12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. 14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984, [Online] Available: Logos Library System. Only in verse 12 does the NIV imply a perfect tense in the second occurrence of the word. However, even that translation is not exact since, as I said, even Machen indicates that there is no exact English translation of the aorist. In the KJV the second occurrence of aphiemi in verse 12 is the second person plural present active indicative, aphiemen. An expanded translation of the present tense in verse 12 would then be: "Forgive us our debts as we are continually forgiving others on an ongoing basis." The NIV is simply trying to convey the simple past tense but it comes across as a perfect tense. Hope this helps. I'm by no means an expert but I have had two years of Greek in college and a Greek exegesis course in seminary. I also have Machen, Dana & Mantey, Burton's Greek NT Moods. I have a copy of NT Greek in Light of Historical Evidence on order. Sincerely in Christ, Charlie Ray, Chaplain 1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (NIV). chaplain@isgroup.net --- * WR # 461 * Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide. * Origin: Get All Your Fido Here! telnet://docsplace.dynip.com (1:3603/140) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F4E00004Date: 04/08/98 From: CHARLIE RAY Time: 11:34pm \/To: RANDG WOOD (Read 0 times) Subj: Forgiveness Hi Randg, I found the EBCNT says that CFD Moule makes an excellent point. If we realize the seriousness of our own debts to God, which we can never repay, then we will not take the offenses of others against us so seriously: Quote: Some have taken the second clause to mean that our forgiveness is the real cause of God's forgiveness, i.e., that God's forgiveness must be earned by our own. The problem is often judged more serious in Matthew than Luke, because the latter has the present "we forgive," the former the aorist (not perfect, as many commentators assume) aphekamen ("we have forgiven"). Many follow the suggestion of Jeremias (Prayers, pp. 92-93), who says that Matthew has awkwardly rendered an Aramaic perfectum praesens (a "present perfect"): he renders the clause "as we also herewith forgive our debtors." The real solution is best expounded by C.F.D. Moule ("` ... As we forgive ... `: a Note on the Distinction between Deserts and Capacity in the Understanding of Forgiveness," Donum Gentilicium, edd. E. Bammel et al. [Oxford: Clarendon 1978], pp. 68-77), who, in addition to detailing the most important relevant Jewish literature, rightly insists on distinguishing "between, on the one hand, earning or meriting forgiveness, and, on the other hand, adopting an attitude which makes forgiveness possible--the distinction, that is, between deserts and capacity.... Real repentance, as contrasted with a merely self-regarding remorse, is certainly a sine qua non of receiving forgiveness--an indispensable condition" (pp. 71-72). "Once our eyes have been opened to see the enormity of our offense against God, the injuries which others have done to us appear by comparison extremely trifling. If, on the other hand, we have an exaggerated view of the offenses of others, it proves that we have minimized our own" (Stott, pp. 149-50; see on 5:5, 7; 18:23-35). End Quote. Sincerely in Christ, Charlie Ray, Chaplain 1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (NIV). chaplain@isgroup.net --- * WR # 461 * Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide. * Origin: Get All Your Fido Here! telnet://docsplace.dynip.com (1:3603/140) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F4E00005Date: 04/05/98 From: HARVEY A. SMITH Time: 03:23pm \/To: CHERYL PANION (Read 0 times) Subj: new here with question:) -> if Jesus said on his dying day to the theif on the cross beside him.. -> you will be with me now (not in them words) but in the bible it says -> when Jesus comes back to get us he will raise the dead first.. -> -> my question is.. if were to be in heaven when we die.. (spirits) then -> why would he come and raise us from our death? That is a good question Cheryl. When we die in the Lord, we are absented from our bodies, which go back to dust. see II Cor. 5:1-8 However the promise to us is not to live in heaven as angels but to be reunited with our bodies at the resurrection, and to have our bodies fashioned after Christ's glorious body. So in spirit the thief was with Christ in paradise that day. However, there will be a first resurrection of the saved and a second resurrection of the damned.. Rev. 20. Don't worry if you don't get it all right away. I have been in the Lord for over 35 years and i am still learning about my Lord. Will await your comments.. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: Messianic Jewish Computer Net #1 (1:138/323.14)