Author Topic: Appointed once or twice to die  (Read 1667 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Appointed once or twice to die
« on: July 19, 2014, 04:49:09 AM »
The bible says it is "appointed" for men to die once and then receive judgement (Hebrews 9:27).  Are the zombies of Matthew 27:52, Lazarus of John 11, and other resurrected "saints" still walking the earth today or did they die twice which creates a contradiction?
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline rev45

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1213
  • Darwins +37/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Did your parents raise you to be an idiot?
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2014, 07:42:38 AM »
They were found by some Hollywood executives and that's why we have so many zombie movies and television shows now.  It doesn't pay well but hey, it's a living.   
Here read a book.  It's free.
http://www.literatureproject.com/

Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6601
  • Darwins +788/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2014, 09:10:02 AM »
Ah, silly you. That's from a part of the bible that they never read, so you're not likely to get a response from a religious person. Just like they don't talk about the part where god says he's afraid of iron chariots.

The question is great. The answerers? Not so much.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2014, 05:02:05 PM »
Hi Andy,

It's been a while since we've talked.  I hope all is well with you and your family. 
I don't see any problem with this verse simply because it's a declaration of a general truth.  If, God wants to raise someone from the dead as an exception in order to show people that it was His son who was crucified it would not be inconsistent with the general statement of truth.  Besides the verse if read in context is about something entirely different and He is using this statement to make the point that Christ was the one true sacrifice, once and for all time. 

23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Offline Airyaman

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4173
  • Darwins +17/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Alignment: True Neutral
    • Moving Beyond Faith
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2014, 08:06:02 PM »
"It is appointed for man to die once, unless God wants some to die twice".

No wait, that second part is not in there.
If you are following God why can I still see you?

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2014, 01:10:42 AM »
Besides the verse if read in context is about something entirely different and He is using this statement to make the point that Christ was the one true sacrifice, once and for all time. 


Patrick Henry, it is a pleasure to talk to you again as well.  I hope all is well with you. 

I thought I might have witnessed my first miracle when Parking Places said I probably wouldn't get a response from a "religious person".  I blame you Patrick Henry for interfering with my first opportunity to witness a miracle.  Oh well, talking again with you is well worth a missed opportunity to witness a miracle!

To start, if I had a penny for every time a Christian apologist said, "Besides the verse if read in context is about something entirely different..." I would have about 2 bucks right now.  So even though Hebrews 9:27 says, "inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgement", why is it not appointed for men to die once and why does the judgement not come after even though this verse clearly says it does? 

Patrick Henry, is it not true that men die once and then after this death comes judgement?  Follow-up question: If men only die once then are the zombies of Matt. 27 still walking the earth today or did they die twice?  I know that verse 27 of Hebrews 9 is in comparison to verse 28 but does that mean that one should not interpret verse 27 literally?  If so why?  Why would the inspired writer of Hebrews say that men die once even though some men might die more than once? 

Why wouldn't the inspired writer of Hebrews write "Inasmuch as it is appointed for SOME men to die once..."???  This would help give you a defense to this "exception" that you are talking about.  The problem I see is that this "exception" you are referring to is not in the text which makes it really hard for me to accept your interpretation.  Do you have a more convincing case?
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2014, 12:32:32 PM »
Besides the verse if read in context is about something entirely different and He is using this statement to make the point that Christ was the one true sacrifice, once and for all time. 


Patrick Henry, it is a pleasure to talk to you again as well.  I hope all is well with you. 

I thought I might have witnessed my first miracle when Parking Places said I probably wouldn't get a response from a "religious person".  I blame you Patrick Henry for interfering with my first opportunity to witness a miracle.  Oh well, talking again with you is well worth a missed opportunity to witness a miracle!

To start, if I had a penny for every time a Christian apologist said, "Besides the verse if read in context is about something entirely different..." I would have about 2 bucks right now.  So even though Hebrews 9:27 says, "inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgement", why is it not appointed for men to die once and why does the judgement not come after even though this verse clearly says it does? 

Patrick Henry, is it not true that men die once and then after this death comes judgement?  Follow-up question: If men only die once then are the zombies of Matt. 27 still walking the earth today or did they die twice?  I know that verse 27 of Hebrews 9 is in comparison to verse 28 but does that mean that one should not interpret verse 27 literally?  If so why?  Why would the inspired writer of Hebrews say that men die once even though some men might die more than once? 

Why wouldn't the inspired writer of Hebrews write "Inasmuch as it is appointed for SOME men to die once..."???  This would help give you a defense to this "exception" that you are talking about.  The problem I see is that this "exception" you are referring to is not in the text which makes it really hard for me to accept your interpretation.  Do you have a more convincing case?

Andy,

Isn't it a good thing when apologists point to the context of a verse?  Yes, we should interpret verse 27 literally.  But literal doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions.  I have no problem with this since I myself will tend to make general statements of truth.  But if a person wants to get knit picky and try to prove me wrong, he can often come up with an exception.  My wife will do this sometimes but it's annoying because to come up with an exception doesn't disprove the point of a general statement of truth.  Unless the statement is specific in such a way as to make an absolute declaration without exception.  Bottom line is that when the bible says that men die then face judgment, it's clear.  To find a few exceptions where men are raised from the dead doesn't invalidate the statement. If when I write, if I tried to include every contingency and every exception to statements made which are outside the context, then it would break up the paragraph so much it would make it difficult to read.    This answer doesn't even address the writing style and typical ways of communicating truth by people back in the day which this is written.  That would be an interesting topic too.

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1865
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2014, 02:16:54 PM »
Andy,

Isn't it a good thing when apologists point to the context of a verse?  Yes, we should interpret verse 27 literally.  But literal doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions.  I have no problem with this since I myself will tend to make general statements of truth.  But if a person wants to get knit picky and try to prove me wrong, he can often come up with an exception.  My wife will do this sometimes but it's annoying because to come up with an exception doesn't disprove the point of a general statement of truth.  Unless the statement is specific in such a way as to make an absolute declaration without exception.  Bottom line is that when the bible says that men die then face judgment, it's clear.  To find a few exceptions where men are raised from the dead doesn't invalidate the statement. If when I write, if I tried to include every contingency and every exception to statements made which are outside the context, then it would break up the paragraph so much it would make it difficult to read.    This answer doesn't even address the writing style and typical ways of communicating truth by people back in the day which this is written.  That would be an interesting topic too.

I realize that you re speaking directly to Andy S, but I have to ask.... how is this ^^^ any different in substance that responding with "it's literal truth, except when it isn't" and completely ignoring that what is or isn't to be taken as literal truth is the very source of the division between various sects of christianity, and a constantly moving target as a result of that division?

I mean, you certainly used more words than that, but when you strip it down to the point of your post, isn't "it's literal truth, except when it isn't" pretty much what you said?

General statements of truth - can you give a few examples that are related to this topic? Because to be honest, I think "general statements of truth" tend to be so ambiguous or vague, or "general" if you prefer, as to be almost useless, on par with platitudes. If you cite a few examples, I may see the value from your perspective a bit better.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Airyaman

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4173
  • Darwins +17/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Alignment: True Neutral
    • Moving Beyond Faith
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2014, 03:50:16 PM »
Well, since the bible did not say "It is appointed man once to die, unless he becomes a zombie" then there could be another exception that states "It is appointed man once to die, unless the only thing that convinces them I am real is a collection of stories and that just isn't enough". Since the zombie thing doesn't get coverage, then there might be many more loopholes.
If you are following God why can I still see you?

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2014, 10:30:13 PM »

 Unless the statement is specific in such a way as to make an absolute declaration without exception.  Bottom line is that when the bible says that men die then face judgment, it's clear.

I think I understand what you are saying.  For instance if you come across a verse such as Rev. 20:6 that says, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power..." I see that an "absoulte declaration without exception" is presented to me.  "First resurrection" and "second death" are pretty clear to me.  IF THIS "ABSOLUTE DECLARATION" IS TRUE THEN ARE THE ZOMBIES OF MATT. 27 STILL ROAMING THE EARTH TODAY OR DOES THIS VERSE CONTRADICT WITH HEB. 9:27?

Patrick H., I think you have eyes that don't see, ears that don't hear, and/or fingers that exclude words because you left out an important word in your above sentence.  The word is "ONCE".  Men die "ONCE" and then face judgement (Heb. 9:27).  This verse is "specific in such a way as to make an absolute declaration without exception" but you just ripped out the word "once".  You are, as most christian apologists would say, "twisting this scripture".

Actually, you are taking away a word from god's word.  If we were discussing a verse in Revelation then your god would take away your part from "the tree of life and from the holy city" (Rev. 22:19).  You lucked out that we are in the book of Hebrews and not Revelation!

Patrick Henry's challenge: Using only the bible can you clearly explain to me why the zombies of Matt. 27 are not roaming the earth today?

To find a few exceptions where men are raised from the dead doesn't invalidate the statement. If when I write, if I tried to include every contingency and every exception to statements made which are outside the context, then it would break up the paragraph so much it would make it difficult to read.   

I disagree!!!  If you "tried to include every contingency and every exception" I don't think it would be "difficult to read".  If heaven and hell are in the balances I would want to know every "contingency" and "exception" to every verse. 

Patrick Henry's Challenge:  Can you give me an example or a verse that every "contingency" and "exception" is in that is "difficult to read"?
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2014, 07:19:11 AM »
General rant on the after-life and the resurrection.

[rant]I have no idea if it is an area of theological study that is well covered but there seems to be four distinct stages in the evolution of the sect of Yahweh.

1 The OT has nobody going to heaven and the nature of existence after death is summed up by Ecclesiastes[1]:

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.

Then there were Pharisees and Sadducees, who spent a lot of time at daggers drawn.

2 The Sadducees were the hereditary theological ruling class of Judea: Herod The Great would have been a Sadduccee, and it was against the ideas of these people that Jesus spoke. The Sadducees resembled the Independent Southern Baptists with their inerrant Torah that required no additions: “Yahweh said it; I believe it; case closed.” Unlike the ISBs, they were heavily ritualised, so much so that they were weighed down with this formality.

3. The Pharisees were drawn from all levels of society and became what we would recognise as today’s believers in Judaism. In broader terms, they resemble the Catholics: they accepted the Torah but believed that the Torah was not the end of Yahweh’s teaching and that inspired rabbis continued to explain and expand upon His Word.

Thus whereas the Torah does not mention anyone going to heaven, Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead.

Pharisees should not be seen as a group of priests, but more seen as a group with a general outlook on life that coincided with "Pharisee thinking" in the sense of “They were all Republicans/Democrats, some of them were voters, helpers, and others held office.” Obviously there were also those who were “floating voters” or simply not bothered and all shades in between[2]

4 Jesus, the Disciples, and Paul all held to the basis of the Pharisees’ philosophy[3]: none of them denied the Torah (OT), in fact they supported it, but all thought that the Sadducees had failed to move with the times, relying solely on the word and not the practical meaning and that the Pharisees were simply going the same way and were just not progressing.

However, they were not simply in the Pharisees’ camp: they went beyond even the most liberal Pharisee’s understanding; they were a break-away third party who upset the established order. So, on the basis of the dictum, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, the Pharisees and Sadducees banded together to oppose the Christians, whom they must have seen as a more direct threat than the other minority groupings.

Although it may seem clear from the first books of the NT that Christ was drawing people away from the Pharisees and Sadducees[4], this was not the main objection: the main objection was that Christ was preaching heresy. Mindlessly, the Pharisees and Sadducees, in the manner of the Taliban, opposed this leadership to apostasy as a crime worthy of death.

So we now had three philosophies on the after-life and resurrection:
1.   Sadducees: There is no afterlife with God nor is there a resurrection[5].
2.   Pharisees: There is an after-life that is spent sleeping and it is overlooked by Abraham; bodily resurrection will take place on Judgement Day.
3.   Christian: There is an after-life prior to Christ’s very temporary death sleeping with Abraham[6] and after Jesus’s very temporary death with God in Heaven.
3a    Bodily resurrection will take place on Judgement Day.
3b   Christianity then goes a little further: those who died before Christ died have to wait for the resurrection[7];  those who died after Him get to go to heaven instantly, but all later are resurrected on earth[8] in their own refurbished bodies.

This should put us into a position to work out what happened when the dead walked the earth[9]:

Matt 27:50-54 “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 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; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Now, there are obviously a few things missing here:

"Why did this happen?”

The writer of Matthew must believe that, upon the very temporary death of Christ, Armageddon had arrived and that these “saints[10]” were the precursors to the general resurrection.

“Who are they?”

The only explanation I can think of is that they were Pharisee rabbis whose teachings were sympathetic to those of Christ, but even then, this cannot be any great number, given that Christ's ministry lasted only a few years. Perhaps they included some whose teaching had preceded that of Christ?

“Why have we not heard of them before?"

Mainly because they did not exist as such. Religions have a tendency to claim heroes for themselves from people who said something similar to what they are saying but did it well before their sect was formed. A case in point is the JWs who claim Charles Taze RussellWiki who was never a JW and never claimed any connection with them,  and whose family fought the JWs for long enough to prevent them from “claiming him.”

It seems that the writer is saying, “Yeah, there were plenty of really important people who thought Jesus was right, but they are dead. There are so many that we can’t be expected to say anything about all of them, so just use your imagination because it seems reasonable, doesn’t it?”

Finally, we should look at Jesus’s magic in bringing the dead back to life. This magic only occurs before His very temporary death because, if it happened after death, He would have been bringing people back from Heaven to Earth, and Earth is a shit place by comparison[11].

So, after all that, we can say that the Saints got up and walked about as the time after the Crucifixion was one of great emotion and confusion reigned as God reformatted the hard drive to install a new Operating System and did a few magic tricks to celebrate Jesus being temporarily dead.

After the saints had been resurrected, they did not die but slowly faded away, just as the writer of Matthew must have wished that the Christian memory of that particular verses would simply fade away and not cause any real trouble about him saying that the end of the world had come, when it hadn’t.

If you have read this far, thank you but you will be wondering why I have not mentioned the reality of the situation. OK, here it is:

If dead saints walked about, why are there no records of this most remarkable of happenings? I note that even Josephus, whose work is often attacked and forged by Christians, never mentions dead saints walking about.

Resurrection? Garbage, isn’t it?[/rant]
 1. Whoever the writer of Ecclesiastes was, I have a lot of time for him, he sounds like a man who was pissed off with idiots.
 2. There were other off-shoots of Yahwism too: Essenes, Zealots, Seleucids, etc.
 3. Note how all accepted the Resurrection of the dead, and Christ was described as “Rabbi.”
 4. and we know that Christ was getting donations from people who otherwise might have given to the Pharisees and Saduccees.
 5. see Ecclesiastes above
 6. see the transition from Lazarus the poor man who, during Christ’s life, is “in the Bosom of Abraham” and Jesus saying to the thief on the cross, “today you will be with me in Heaven.”
 7. but see “The Harrowing of Hell” for exceptions
 8. that will be very similar to the earth that Adam and Eve knew
 9. i.e. apart from the obvious conclusion that the scribe was out of his head with enthusiasm and just made it up
 10. The word used is "hagios" from the Greek "hagos"= an awesome thing; that which or he who is sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated) thus giving us: (most) holy (one, thing), saint.
 11. This shows the blasphemy of those simpletons who claim that during some operation, they died and went to Heaven but were told by their great aunt, “It is not your time.” A delusion that involves God making a mistake.”
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2014, 05:07:24 PM »

Thus whereas the Torah does not mention anyone going to heaven, Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead.


Jesus apparently refutes this notion of afterlife in Luke chapter 20 when the Sadducees questioned Him.  Jesus responded by saying, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him.”

I love it how Luke writes that this was some kind of knock down argument for the resurrection.  Luke says the Sadducees "did not have courage to question Him any longer" (v. 40). 

If I was a Sadducee hearing what Jesus was spewing out of his mouth I would be sooo pissed.  I would say, "What the hel...I mean sheol are you talking about.  Are you blind Jesus?  I have heard that you have these super powers and can heal the blind but can you spit on your hands and rub them on your own eyes so that your own blindness might be cured.  Open your bible and look at the passage about the burning bush.  Nowhere does it say that Abraham, Isaac or Jacob are 'living' still!  Like Balaam's donkey, you are talking out of your ass Jesus.  We can all tell you are talking out of your ass because you said that people will 'become like angels'.  Where in the sheol does it say that people will become like angels in the old testament.  You are perverting and twisting this scripture in Exodus 3 to your own destruction.  You are adding to god's holy word and preaching doctrines of demons!!!"     


Finally, we should look at Jesus’s magic in bringing the dead back to life. This magic only occurs before His very temporary death because, if it happened after death, He would have been bringing people back from Heaven to Earth, and Earth is a shit place by comparison[1].

So, after all that, we can say that the Saints got up and walked about as the time after the Crucifixion was one of great emotion and confusion reigned as God reformatted the hard drive to install a new Operating System and did a few magic tricks to celebrate Jesus being temporarily dead.
 1. This shows the blasphemy of those simpletons who claim that during some operation, they died and went to Heaven but were told by their great aunt, “It is not your time.” A delusion that involves God making a mistake.”

This was a great post GB but one thing I wanted to point out is that this "magic" did not happen "BEFORE his very temporary death".  Matt. 27:53 says these saints came out of there tombs "after his resurrection".  Since there is no evidence that these people ever died again I can only conclude that these people are still roaming the earth today. 

Well, maybe that's not my only conclusion...maybe this story isn't actual history.  Yeah, that seems more probable but what do I know.


If dead saints walked about, why are there no records of this most remarkable of happenings? I note that even Josephus, whose work is often attacked and forged by Christians, never mentions dead saints walking about.

Resurrection? Garbage, isn’t it?[/rant]

One thing that makes this zombie apocalypse seem unlikely to be an actual historical event is that none of the other new testament authors noticed this event.  My conclusion even as a former christian was that this event was not true history.  I then had a hard time believing anything I read in Matthew because if he can lie about one thing then what else could he have lied about.   

I have noticed that the christian's who actually know of this passage in Matt. 27 don't like to bring it up or even talk about it because of cognitive dissonance.  My former pastor who preached chapter by chapter and verse by verse skipped right over this section in his series on Matthew.  I felt so let down as I was really looking forward to what he thought of this zombie apocalypse.

 
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +75/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2014, 07:14:25 PM »
"It is appointed for man to die once, unless God wants some to die twice".

No wait, that second part is not in there.
Nor is this second part:

"Is is appointed for man to die once, and this applies to each and every human who ever exists with absolutely no possible exception ever."

There's no contradiction in the appointed single death being the natural order of things, with supernatural intervention being capable of circumventing this rule.  And this is most likely what the author intended, the audience understood, and pretty much everyone who reads it infers as the author and his audience would certainly have been familiar with exceptions such as Elijah and Lazarus.

The wording of Matthew 27 suggests it was a one-time event, though it does not specify how long the appearances lasted.  It does not seem like they were given a full second Earthly life, though the text really doesn't say for sure one way or the other.  Lazarus presumably was restored to his prior mortal life, in which case he would be subject to natural death.  Though, again, the Bible doesn't say.

I'm occasionally tempted to speculate about what clutching at straws to make a dubious charge of contradiction says about the claimant's confidence in their own position.  But as I try not to make assumptions about people, I usually resist this temptation.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1541
  • Darwins +104/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2014, 09:17:22 PM »
The bible says it is "appointed" for men to die once and then receive judgement (Hebrews 9:27).  Are the zombies of Matthew 27:52, Lazarus of John 11, and other resurrected "saints" still walking the earth today or did they die twice which creates a contradiction?

Who do you think the author of John claimed to be with its false eyewitness testimony?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Airyaman

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4173
  • Darwins +17/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Alignment: True Neutral
    • Moving Beyond Faith
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2014, 06:44:50 AM »
"It is appointed for man to die once, unless God wants some to die twice".

No wait, that second part is not in there.
Nor is this second part:

"Is is appointed for man to die once, and this applies to each and every human who ever exists with absolutely no possible exception ever."

There's no contradiction in the appointed single death being the natural order of things, with supernatural intervention being capable of circumventing this rule.  And this is most likely what the author intended, the audience understood, and pretty much everyone who reads it infers as the author and his audience would certainly have been familiar with exceptions such as Elijah and Lazarus.

The wording of Matthew 27 suggests it was a one-time event, though it does not specify how long the appearances lasted.  It does not seem like they were given a full second Earthly life, though the text really doesn't say for sure one way or the other.  Lazarus presumably was restored to his prior mortal life, in which case he would be subject to natural death.  Though, again, the Bible doesn't say.

I'm occasionally tempted to speculate about what clutching at straws to make a dubious charge of contradiction says about the claimant's confidence in their own position.  But as I try not to make assumptions about people, I usually resist this temptation.

Who said it was a contradiction? Not I, just looking for the rules that apply to the exceptions, and would like to know what became of the dead saints who arose.
If you are following God why can I still see you?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1541
  • Darwins +104/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2014, 01:02:54 PM »
Here is the answer the author of John's Gospel (Lazarus) gives about himself.

John 21:21-24 Peter asked what will happen to him?...Jesus did not say that he would not die, he only said, "If I want him to wait until I return, what is it to you?".....It is this same disciple who attests what has been written here, in fact it is he who wrote it.

The author is hedging his bets about when the end of the world will happen. Whatever delusions the author wanted to write about himself, the reality was that he had to make a least some excuse why he might not live much longer.

Imagine the vanity of the author writing himself into the narrative and claiming to be raised from the dead before Jesus! But his gospel was symbolic, he could say, if he was caught out.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2014, 07:35:26 PM »
^^^Good conspiracy theory!  I would not go so far as to say it is a "fact" that Lazarus wrote the gospel of John but you make a very convincing argument.  It does say in John 11:5 that Jesus "loved" Lazarus. 

From that we can look at John 13:23 which says, "There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, WHOM JESUS LOVED". 

And then we can go to John 21:20 which says, "Peter, turning around, saw the disciple WHOM JESUS LOVED following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper".

And then we only have  to go to John 21:24 to find out that this disciple WHOM JESUS LOVED "is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things..."

Good eye Foxy Freedom!!!  An interesting note is that John never admitted to writing this gospel and one would have to go to church tradition to discover that the disciple John wrote this gospel.  And I think we all know that church tradition is not very reliable.

This theory would also give a really late date to this gospel because this "false eye witness" (Lazarus) also said that he took Jesus' mother "into his own household" (John 19:27).  It would take major balls to say something like this when any of the true eye witnesses were still alive as they could probably easily put an end to the lies that Lazarus was writing.

I'll never read this gospel again with any positive presupposition that John wrote this gospel.  Good Argument Foxy Freedom!   
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1541
  • Darwins +104/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2014, 08:55:36 PM »
I would not say it was a fact that Lazarus wrote the book either because there was probably no such person. The other gospels never heard of this resurrection and they would have if it was a standard story since he claimed to be the brother of Mary.

It was just some megalomaniac pretending to be an eyewitness and who could not help making allusions to himself as a special resurrected disciple. It is possible that the last chapter of John is a later addition by someone who knew the author, but it does not have to be. Someone who could write such a good fake, could easily add a note about himself just before he died, to cover all angles. It is possible that the faker was called John but it is not as important as understanding that it is a fake. Christians have a lot of difficulty explaining the authorship of John, but knowing it is a fake makes it easy.

The reasons for knowing it is a fabricated eyewitness account are for example, the concept of Jesus himself is too much based on later Christian ideas, and the character of Pontius Pilate is wrong. That is without even having to consider the supernatural elements.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2014, 05:42:35 PM »
Finally, we should look at Jesus’s magic in bringing the dead back to life. This magic only occurs before His very temporary death because, if it happened after death, He would have been bringing people back from Heaven to Earth, and Earth is a s**t place by comparison[1].

So, after all that, we can say that the Saints got up and walked about as the time after the Crucifixion was one of great emotion and confusion reigned as God reformatted the hard drive to install a new Operating System and did a few magic tricks to celebrate Jesus being temporarily dead.
 1. This shows the blasphemy of those simpletons who claim that during some operation, they died and went to Heaven but were told by their great aunt, “It is not your time.” A delusion that involves God making a mistake.”

This was a great post GB but one thing I wanted to point out is that this "magic" did not happen "BEFORE his very temporary death".  Matt. 27:53 says these saints came out of there tombs "after his resurrection".  Since there is no evidence that these people ever died again I can only conclude that these people are still roaming the earth today. 
Ah, the saints that died and were buried have to be assumed to be those saints who had died before Jesus was born. They would be Pharisee Saints who would be quietly waiting for the Day of Resurrection. I can only assume that they thought it had happened what with the earthquakes and the veil ripping, etc.

You are, of course right that then they would have to die twice (or still be around auditioning for the Horror Channel.) Perhaps they realised their mistake and went back to sleep in the grave.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2014, 12:01:55 AM »

 

I think I understand what you are saying.  For instance if you come across a verse such as Rev. 20:6 that says, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power..." I see that an "absoulte declaration without exception" is presented to me.  "First resurrection" and "second death" are pretty clear to me.  IF THIS "ABSOLUTE DECLARATION" IS TRUE THEN ARE THE ZOMBIES OF MATT. 27 STILL ROAMING THE EARTH TODAY OR DOES THIS VERSE CONTRADICT WITH HEB. 9:27?

Patrick H., I think you have eyes that don't see, ears that don't hear, and/or fingers that exclude words because you left out an important word in your above sentence.  The word is "ONCE".  Men die "ONCE" and then face judgement (Heb. 9:27).  This verse is "specific in such a way as to make an absolute declaration without exception" but you just ripped out the word "once".  You are, as most christian apologists would say, "twisting this scripture".

Actually, you are taking away a word from god's word.  If we were discussing a verse in Revelation then your god would take away your part from "the tree of life and from the holy city" (Rev. 22:19).  You lucked out that we are in the book of Hebrews and not Revelation!

Patrick Henry's challenge: Using only the bible can you clearly explain to me why the zombies of Matt. 27 are not roaming the earth today?

To find a few exceptions where men are raised from the dead doesn't invalidate the statement. If when I write, if I tried to include every contingency and every exception to statements made which are outside the context, then it would break up the paragraph so much it would make it difficult to read.   

I disagree!!!  If you "tried to include every contingency and every exception" I don't think it would be "difficult to read".  If heaven and hell are in the balances I would want to know every "contingency" and "exception" to every verse. 

Patrick Henry's Challenge:  Can you give me an example or a verse that every "contingency" and "exception" is in that is "difficult to read"?

How about a short story instead of a verse to make the point.
(9 year old little girl)  "Daddy, can you tell me that story about your favorite horse?"  (Father)  Yes, honey, it's my favorite true story. 
All horses have 4 legs that help them to run fast, but Secretariat had legs that could make him fly!  No horse could beat him when he was at his best........................

Compared to  -  no fun anal retentive Dad telling a story...............(Father) "All horses have 4 legs, well uh, except for horses that are born with fewer legs than 4 and horses that need their legs amputated for one reason or another, you know disease, accidents, etc". (Girl) "Daddy! Get to the story!"  (Father) "Ok, well anyway as I was saying, all horses have 4 legs with a few exceptions, but Secretariat had legs that could make him fly!  Well not literally fly, but you know, uh, what I mean".  (Girl) "Yes Daddy, I know what you mean!"   (Father) "Ok, good. Anyway, yes Secretariat was so fast......."

Now, I would not have a problem saying that all horses have 4 legs, to preface a larger point, but it seems you would say that I'm overlooking 3 legged horses and that makes me a liar.  I would say that first of all the story is about Secretariat, not about whether all horses have 4 legs or not.  Then you would say "I wish I had a nickel for every time someone wants to divert the conversation away from all of your inconsistencies by pointing the 'context' of what you're saying". 
Look Andy, this is pretty simple.  The author of Hebrews is making an obvious and I'll say TRUE statement in order to set up his point.  It's really that simple.  Everyone dies once is a true statement.  I understand the exceptions.  But did the author need to list all the exceptions and get off topic talking about how God raised people from the dead, or Elijah not dying at all, or all the future Christians who will be raptured without dying, or state it in some other way just for all the knit pickers who are looking for reasons not to believe?
In my fictional story, the little girl trusts her Father and is listening for the story of Secretariat.  She's not looking to tear apart her Father's words.  Even if she had previously read a story about a 3 legged horse, she wouldn't stop trusting her Dad just because he made a generally true statement instead of a technically accurate statement.  If she stumbled over that then she would miss the ENTIRE POINT of the story about a "Great horse".   

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2014, 01:27:18 AM »

How about a short story instead of a verse to make the point.
(9 year old little girl)  "Daddy, can you tell me that story about your favorite horse?"  (Father)  Yes, honey, it's my favorite true story. 
All horses have 4 legs that help them to run fast, but Secretariat had legs that could make him fly!  No horse could beat him when he was at his best........................

If the 9 year old was a smart little skeptical girl she would interrupt her dad right here and say, "Daddy, please don't start this story with a sentence that is specific in such a way as to make an absolute declaration without exception?  It would be much better to start the story off by saying, 'Most all horses have 4 legs that help them to run fast' or you could just eliminate the number four and say, 'Most all horses have legs that help them to run fast'.  This sentence is just as long as the sentence you started with and it eliminates any exceptions.  I know you might be tired Daddy but will you please try to be a better communicator".

Compared to  -  no fun anal retentive Dad telling a story...............(Father) "All horses have 4 legs, well uh, except for horses that are born with fewer legs than 4 and horses that need their legs amputated for one reason or another, you know disease, accidents, etc". (Girl) "Daddy! Get to the story!"  (Father) "Ok, well anyway as I was saying, all horses have 4 legs with a few exceptions, but Secretariat had legs that could make him fly!  Well not literally fly, but you know, uh, what I mean".  (Girl) "Yes Daddy, I know what you mean!"   (Father) "Ok, good. Anyway, yes Secretariat was so fast......."

Really Patrick...all of this?  You couldn't think that the simple word "most" eliminates any exceptions?  All this crappy communicator that you call god had to say is, "as it is appointed for MOST men to die once...".  Then you wouldn't find this verse contradicting with other verses in the bible and therefore, I would have no argument.  The fact that your god is a crappy communicator allows for many opposing verses to pop up in the biblical contradiction section.

Look Andy, this is pretty simple.  The author of Hebrews is making an obvious and I'll say TRUE statement in order to set up his point.  It's really that simple.  Everyone dies once is a true statement.  I understand the exceptions.  But did the author need to list all the exceptions and get off topic talking about how God raised people from the dead, or Elijah not dying at all, or all the future Christians who will be raptured without dying, or state it in some other way just for all the knit pickers who are looking for reasons not to believe?

One thing I can say about you is that you and the god of the bible are like-minded in that you both love to communicate contradictions.  Patrick, the bold contradicts with the underlined. ;D

By the way, do you know why you couldn't answer my challenge and give me a verse that every contingency and exception is in that is "difficult to read" as you say?  IT'S BECAUSE THE "TECHNICALLY ACCURATE" VERSES ARE NOT DIFFICULT TO READ!  The reason why there are not more "technically accurate" verses in the bible is because your god is a crappy communicator who likes to contradict himself....err....themselves.  I forgot you are a Trinitarian who likes to worship a squared circle.
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2014, 08:28:53 PM »

Really Patrick...all of this?  You couldn't think that the simple word "most" eliminates any exceptions?  All this crappy communicator that you call god had to say is, "as it is appointed for MOST men to die once...".  Then you wouldn't find this verse contradicting with other verses in the bible and therefore, I would have no argument.  The fact that your god is a crappy communicator allows for many opposing verses to pop up in the biblical contradiction section.

By the way, do you know why you couldn't answer my challenge and give me a verse that every contingency and exception is in that is "difficult to read" as you say?  IT'S BECAUSE THE "TECHNICALLY ACCURATE" VERSES ARE NOT DIFFICULT TO READ!  The reason why there are not more "technically accurate" verses in the bible is because your god is a crappy communicator who likes to contradict himself....err....themselves.  I forgot you are a Trinitarian who likes to worship a squared circle.

Andy, there's nothing difficult or inaccurate about the verse in Hebrews as it's written.  "It's appointed to men to die once......"  When God intervenes and makes an exception then it's just that......an EXCEPTION.   Of all the possible contradictions, this isn't one.  Besides, if we get technical then does it say that ALL men die once?  I don't believe it does.  Do you?   Again, the statement is a lead in to the idea that Jesus was the sacrifice ONCE and for all.   Not about ALL men dying once. 

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1865
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2014, 09:51:09 AM »
Patrick Henry, I'm still waiting for a reply to my questions in post #7 please. It's been almost a week and you were here as recently as two days ago.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2014, 10:58:50 AM »
Patrick Henry, I'm still waiting for a reply to my questions in post #7 please. It's been almost a week and you were here as recently as two days ago.

Jag,

If you read my replies to Andy then you should find your answers.  I've answered the question of literal truth and general truth by example and by pointing to context of the verse and.....challenging that if we must get technical, then the verse does not say "all" men die once.  This is not about speaking in platitudes and I don't currently have time to discuss all the different sects of "christianity".

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1865
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #24 on: July 26, 2014, 05:44:53 PM »
^^^That wasn't even remotely worth waiting for.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2014, 10:49:16 PM »

Andy, there's nothing difficult or inaccurate about the verse in Hebrews as it's written.  "It's appointed to men to die once......"  When God intervenes and makes an exception then it's just that......an EXCEPTION. 


Hey Patrick, I hope you are having a good weekend.  I'm sorry my response is so delayed but I have been super busy.

Once again you are truly showing that you are like-minded with this crappy communicator that you call your god.  The bold contradicts with the underlined.  If a verse like Heb. 9:27 doesn't give any exceptions to the word "once" then you cannot call the verse "accurate". 

Now if the verse read, "It is appointed that MOST men die once..." then it would be "accurate" according to the bible because there is evidence in the bible that some men just don't die once.  All your god had to do is add the word "Most" and this contradiction would go away.

This reasoning of yours is silly.  So a verse is not "inaccurate" when "god intervenes and makes an exception"???  Really Patrick???

Soooo......your god makes an "accurate" statement and has himself crucified on the day before the Passover meal (Jn 19:14) and this event is still "accurate" even though he "intervened" and had himself crucified after the Passover meal (Mk. 14:12)?  (So much for eye witness testimony!!!)

Or.....your god inspires an author to make an "accurate" statement that Jesus' paternal grandfather is Jacob (Mt. 1:16) and this statement is still "accurate" even though he made and "exception" and made Jesus' paternal grandfather Heli (Lk. 3:23)?

This was a good attempt of yours but if you critically think about your reasoning for a second then you will see that it's silly.   

Of all the possible contradictions, this isn't one.


You really do communicate like your god.  Your god left out a word in Heb. 9:27 that makes the verse unclear and you are now adding a word that makes your statement unclear.

I think you should of said, "Of all the contradictions, this isn't one".  By adding the word "possible" you made your statement unclear.  Now I don't know what your view is concerning the contradictions in the bible.

Now I have to guess and I can think of two possibilities why you felt obligated to add the word "possible".

1.  There are no contradictions in the bible and only "possible" contradictions if wrongly interpreted.

2.  There are two categories of contradictions in the bible:  Undisputed contradictions and "possible" contradictions.

I hope by saying "possible" in your statement you are referring to #2 because I do not want to make you look foolish and show you many irreconcilable contradictions in the bible.  I know how this game is played and if your view is #1 then I will show you just one irreconcilable contradiction and you are going to say, "The bible is inerrant in it's original manuscripts".  Unfortunately, this would just make you look foolish as you not only "move the goal posts" but you would be making an argument from ignorance because we don't have the original manuscripts to any books of the bible.

Why did you make this statement VAGUE by adding the word "possible"?  Is it because you are trying to be as like-minded as your god as possible? 

Besides, if we get technical then does it say that ALL men die once?  I don't believe it does.  Do you?   Again, the statement is a lead in to the idea that Jesus was the sacrifice ONCE and for all.   Not about ALL men dying once.

I would like to first point out that if the reader knows that there are exceptions to the word "once" in the first part of Heb. 9:27, then why wouldn't it logically follow that there are exceptions to the word "once" in the second part of the Heb. 9:27 and there might be exceptions to Jesus being the sacrifice "once" and for all?

I told you how your god could have cleared this all up by just using the word "most".  However, in his omniscience he could have predicted that this would one day be seen as a contradiction.  If he could foresee this coming then why wouldn't he inspire the author of Hebrews to write more "accurately"?  For instance, all he had to do was say, "Inasmuch as the man Adam died once, Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many."

If the sentence was written this way then I, as a "nit picker", would be unable to point out a contradiction. 

And yes, this verse implies that it is appointed that "all" men die once.  If your god wanted to clear up any vague reference to any word then he should have used what is called a "determiner".  You, like your god, might want to write as vaguely as possible but I incourage you to look at this simple website:

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/adjectives-determiners.htm

There are many verses that use a "zero article" to point out the full inclusion of a group.  For instance, Rom. 2:16 says, "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."  You see, it is implied in the bible that god will judge the secrets of "ALL" men.  There are many verses in the bible like this with a "zero article" before noun phrases that imply "all".  If you want to argue exceptions to this verse then I will hear out your argument but I have a feeling that it will be as weak as your first argument.  But I'm open minded!

Let me give you an example of a clear verse that uses what is called a "determiner".  The "determiner" word is "some": 

Jesus says in Mark 9:1, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are SOME standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

You see, now this is an unusual case that your god is actually inspiring an author to write something clear.  It is clear that "SOME" people who were standing there would not die until they saw the "kingdom of God come with power".  That means that not "ALL" of the people standing there would die before seeing the "kingdom of God come with power".

Oh wait....I'm sorry.....this was a bad example....because......you know.....Uhhhh......the kingdom of God did not come with power in the lifetime of his followers. 

Well....maybe like the zombies of Matt. 27, these followers that Jesus were referring to in Mk. 9:1 are still roaming the earth today awaiting the kingdom of your god. ;D



If you ever want to take on any of the other "possible" contradictions I have listed in this post then I would be happy to discuss any one of them with you.  My favorite sport as a spectator is mental gymnastics!
 



 

 
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 11:09:24 PM by Andy S. »
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2014, 07:33:38 PM »

 ...........could have cleared this all up by just using the word "most".  However, in his omniscience he could have predicted that this would one day be seen as a contradiction.  If he could foresee this coming then why wouldn't he inspire the author of Hebrews to write more "accurately"? 
If the sentence was written this way then I, as a "nit picker", would be unable to point out a contradiction. 

If you ever want to take on any of the other "possible" contradictions I have listed in this post then I would be happy to discuss any one of them with you.  My favorite sport as a spectator is mental gymnastics!

Andy,

There is nothing for God to "clear up."  Your references to determiners and zero articles still do not address my point.   I say (again in different words) that the author speaks here of the ordinary lot of men who die once, in order to make the larger point of Christ being the sacrifice ONCE and for all.  With exceptions not mentioned it actually helps, so that confusion wouldn't play into the larger point of Christ being the ONE final sacrifice, with no exception.  We know this is the intent of the verse and it's plainly understood.   I'm sure you understand the verse even though you don't believe it.   
To address your statement of God's omniscience........Yes, He IS able to predict that this would be seen as a contradiction by those who do not believe.  You are in a state of unbelief and are looking for contradictions BECAUSE of your unbelief.

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2014, 09:41:41 PM »

There is nothing for God to "clear up."  Your references to determiners and zero articles still do not address my point.   I say (again in different words) that the author speaks here of the ordinary lot of men who die once, in order to make the larger point of Christ being the sacrifice ONCE and for all.  With exceptions not mentioned it actually helps, so that confusion wouldn't play into the larger point of Christ being the ONE final sacrifice, with no exception.  We know this is the intent of the verse and it's plainly understood.   I'm sure you understand the verse even though you don't believe it.

My reference to "determiners" was to show you that by using the word "most" in the first part of Heb. 9:27 would make this contradiction go away.  But your god is so linguistically challenged he had no idea how to use a "determiner" to 'clear up' this verse.

I think you are distancing yourself from your god by actually clearing up this verse for him.  If the verse read, "It is appointed for the ordinary lot of men to die once and after this comes judgement...." then I would say that I would have no argument for a contradiction.  I think my way of clearing up this verse by just using the word "most" would flow more smoothly but to each his own.  You are at least distancing yourself from your linguistically challenged god.

You wrote in reply #6, "If I tried to include every contingency and every exception to statements made which are outside the context, then it would break up the paragraph so much it would make it difficult to read."  But ask yourself Patrick... does saying "it is appointed for the ordinary lot of men to die once" really break up the paragraph and make it difficult to read?  You really didn't have to "include every contingency and every exception" to make this statement easy to read.

For the sake of argument let's just pretend that your argument wins and it is appointed for men to die once except "when God intervenes and makes an exception then it's just that......an EXCEPTION" as you say.  Let's just pretend that the readers are supposed to know of all the exceptions.  My follow-up question is:

IF THE READERS KNOW THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO "ONCE" IN THE FIRST PART OF HEB. 9:27 THEN WHY WOULDN'T IT LOGICALLY FOLLOW THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO "ONCE" IN THE SECOND PART OF HEB. 9:27?

In other words, could there be exceptions to Jesus being the sacrifice "once" and for all?  Could I make a case that there are exceptions to Jesus being the sacrifice "once" and for all?

Open your bible to Ezekiel chapters 40 to 46.  Here we see that Ezekiel has a vision of a Temple.  I don't think the characterization of the prophecy as a vision detracts from its LITERAL reality any more than Ezekiel's visions of Jerusalem's sins, idolatry, and destruction (1:1-3:27, 8-11; and 37:1-14).  This temple hasn't been built yet judging by it's dimensions.  That must mean this temple is going to be built in the future. 

We find in these chapters that a sin offering is going to be offered in this temple.  (Ezek. 40:39)  WHAT!!!  I THOUGHT JESUS WAS THE SACRIFICE ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!  WHY WILL A YOUNG BULL BE SACRIFICED IN THE FUTURE FOR A SIN OFFERING (Ezek. 43:19)?  ISN'T JESUS SUPPOSED TO BE THE SACRIFICE "ONCE" AND FOR ALL?  Now this all makes sense because if there are exceptions to the word "once" in the first part of Heb. 9:27 there it would logically follow that there are exceptions to the word "once" in the second part of this verse.

What do you think of all this Patrick Henry?  You have a few options:

1.  There are exceptions to Jesus being the sacrifice "once" and for all

2.  You have to figuratively interpret Ezekiel 40-46 which will make you sound like a Trinitarian trying to justify the "fact" that Jesus IS NOT a created being while interpreting Rev. 3:14.  (This choice will have the most follow-up questions)

3.  The author of Ezekiel is full of crap.

4.  The author of Hebrews is full of crap.

5.  The author of Ezekiel and Hebrews is full of crap.

I tend to lean towards #5 but what do you say about all of this Patrick Henry. 

Challenge for Patrick Henry:  Try to harmonize this problem without saying something dumb like, "This animal sacrifice in the future is MEMORIAL in nature to the sacrifice we have in Jesus".  This is just adding to your god's bible as the word "memorial" is not in these chapters in Ezekiel.

Furthermore, isn't it funny that god doesn't even desire sacrifice (Heb. 10:5) but there is no reference to Ezekiel 40-46 being fulfilled.  That means your god desires the sacrifice of a "young bull" in the future even though he doesn't "take pleasure" in sacrifices for sin (Heb. 10:6).  Now that's funny!   

     
To address your statement of God's omniscience........Yes, He IS able to predict that this would be seen as a contradiction by those who do not believe.  You are in a state of unbelief and are looking for contradictions BECAUSE of your unbelief.

I keep forgetting that I am talking to a Trinitarian.  I just want to let you know that Jesus is not portrayed as omniscient in the bible.  Jesus can be portrayed as partially knowing the future but you can't say that he is all-knowing (omniscient).  Jesus didn't know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32).  You might think Jesus knows all things sitting at the right hand of the Father now but you would have to ask yourself why Jesus needed to be given the Revelation (Rev. 1:1) if he knows all things.  Isn't it funny that god the father knew that I would be educating you on the attributes of his son but Jesus probably didn't see this coming.  How you deal with this problem is beyond me and that is why I say you worship a squared circle.

Patrick, you have it backwards.  I am an unbeliever BECAUSE of all the contradictions in the bible.  Call me crazy but I have a hard time believing your god inspired authors to write that he died and atoned for my sins when he can't even inspire authors to get the day of his death right.   

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2014, 01:53:39 PM »


I think you are distancing yourself from your god by actually clearing up this verse for him.  If the verse read, "It is appointed for the ordinary lot of men to die once and after this comes judgement...." then I would say that I would have no argument for a contradiction.  I think my way of clearing up this verse by just using the word "most" would flow more smoothly but to each his own.  You are at least distancing yourself from your linguistically challenged god.

IF THE READERS KNOW THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO "ONCE" IN THE FIRST PART OF HEB. 9:27 THEN WHY WOULDN'T IT LOGICALLY FOLLOW THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO "ONCE" IN THE SECOND PART OF HEB. 9:27?

In other words, could there be exceptions to Jesus being the sacrifice "once" and for all?  Could I make a case that there are exceptions to Jesus being the sacrifice "once" and for all?

Open your bible to Ezekiel chapters 40 to 46.  Here we see that Ezekiel has a vision of a Temple.  I don't think the characterization of the prophecy as a vision detracts from its LITERAL reality any more than Ezekiel's visions of Jerusalem's sins, idolatry, and destruction (1:1-3:27, 8-11; and 37:1-14).  This temple hasn't been built yet judging by it's dimensions.  That must mean this temple is going to be built in the future. 

We find in these chapters that a sin offering is going to be offered in this temple.  (Ezek. 40:39)  WHAT!!!  I THOUGHT JESUS WAS THE SACRIFICE ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!  WHY WILL A YOUNG BULL BE SACRIFICED IN THE FUTURE FOR A SIN OFFERING (Ezek. 43:19)?  ISN'T JESUS SUPPOSED TO BE THE SACRIFICE "ONCE" AND FOR ALL?  Now this all makes sense because if there are exceptions to the word "once" in the first part of Heb. 9:27 there it would logically follow that there are exceptions to the word "once" in the second part of this verse.

What do you think of all this Patrick Henry?  You have a few options:

1.  There are exceptions to Jesus being the sacrifice "once" and for all

2.  You have to figuratively interpret Ezekiel 40-46 which will make you sound like a Trinitarian trying to justify the "fact" that Jesus IS NOT a created being while interpreting Rev. 3:14.  (This choice will have the most follow-up questions)

3.  The author of Ezekiel is full of crap.

4.  The author of Hebrews is full of crap.

5.  The author of Ezekiel and Hebrews is full of crap.

I tend to lean towards #5 but what do you say about all of this Patrick Henry. 

Challenge for Patrick Henry:  Try to harmonize this problem without saying something dumb like, "This animal sacrifice in the future is MEMORIAL in nature to the sacrifice we have in Jesus".  This is just adding to your god's bible as the word "memorial" is not in these chapters in Ezekiel.

Furthermore, isn't it funny that god doesn't even desire sacrifice (Heb. 10:5) but there is no reference to Ezekiel 40-46 being fulfilled.  That means your god desires the sacrifice of a "young bull" in the future even though he doesn't "take pleasure" in sacrifices for sin (Heb. 10:6).  Now that's funny!   

I keep forgetting that I am talking to a Trinitarian.  I just want to let you know that Jesus is not portrayed as omniscient in the bible.  Jesus can be portrayed as partially knowing the future but you can't say that he is all-knowing (omniscient).  Jesus didn't know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32).  You might think Jesus knows all things sitting at the right hand of the Father now but you would have to ask yourself why Jesus needed to be given the Revelation (Rev. 1:1) if he knows all things.  Isn't it funny that god the father knew that I would be educating you on the attributes of his son but Jesus probably didn't see this coming.  How you deal with this problem is beyond me and that is why I say you worship a squared circle.

Patrick, you have it backwards.  I am an unbeliever BECAUSE of all the contradictions in the bible.  Call me crazy but I have a hard time believing your god inspired authors to write that he died and atoned for my sins when he can't even inspire authors to get the day of his death right.   

Andy,

Sorry for that very late response.  I've been very much pre-occupied with other things like summer, family, work and such.  Also, I'm not well versed in prophecy, so when you bring up Ezekiel I wanted to take some time and read it. 
So my view of prophecy is that it is cloaked in mystery for a purpose.  There will be things that surprise people in the end, and I believe that is God's intention.  So I haven't gone too far with it since I was a kid when it greatly interested me.  There are people who believe the sacrifices in Ezekiel will be in the millennium but I have a hard time with that because that would mean they are memorial in nature, yet it appears they are for a "sin offering".  Could it still be memorial in nature?  I suppose that it could.  But I don't know for sure and I'm ok with that.  Just like I'm ok with not understanding figurative language that other prophets used.  I will someday spend more time in prophecy and no doubt have a clearer point of view, but in the mean time I have to go with other respected theologians.  Unfortunately the millennial sacrifice view comes from some whom I generally agree with on most other theological issues.  But again that is ok because this is not a deal breaker when it comes to salvation.  It is not a deal breaker when it comes to viewing the bible as accurate or literal either.  Now this will drive you crazy, but I've always believed (on my own) that figurative speech in the bible can have literal meaning.  In other words, the temple could be figurative pointing to a literal establishment of atonement through Christ.  I don't believe that is the answer in this case, but it helps explain my view regarding figurative language that describes a literal event.  This goes back to my belief that some things are cloaked in mystery for a purpose. 
But to give you a possible explanation, here is one:

This is not a new temple but the one which had already been constructed by Solomon and was subsequently destroyed by the Chaldeans. In his commentary, Adam Clarke wrote,
"The temple here described by Ezekiel is, in all probability, the same which he saw before his captivity, and which had been burned by the Chaldeans fourteen years before this vision. On comparing the Books of Kings and Chronicles with this prophet, we shall find the same dimensions in the parts described by both; for instance, the temple, or place which comprehended the sanctuary, the holy place, and the vestibule or porch before the temple, is found to measure equally the same both in Ezekiel and the Kings. Compare 1 Kings 6:3-16, with Ezekiel 41:2, etc. The inside ornaments of the temple are entirely the same; in both we see two courts; an inner one for the priests, and an outer one for the people. Compare 1Kings 6:29-36; 2 Chronicles 4:9; and Ezekiel 41:16, Ezekiel 41:17, and Ezekiel 48:7-10. So that there is room to suppose that, in all the rest, the temple of Ezekiel resembled the old one; and that God's design in retracing these ideas in the prophet's memory was to preserve the remembrance of the plan, the dimensions, the ornaments, and whole structure of this Divine edifice; and that at the return from captivity the people might more easily repair it, agreeably to this model."

Strongly related to the above point, this is the temple which the Jews who returned from the Persian captivity could have indeed built if they had not spent many years squabbling over the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls and having various other in-house arguments!

Now, you've said a lot in your last response to me.   First of all, I never distanced myself from God by "clearing things up for Him".  The thread subject verse is as clear as day.  Only an atheist who wants to argue against God would bring this up.  This is a non-issue!
Secondly you asked me "IF THE READERS KNOW THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO "ONCE" IN THE FIRST PART OF HEB. 9:27 THEN WHY WOULDN'T IT LOGICALLY FOLLOW THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO "ONCE" IN THE SECOND PART OF HEB. 9:27?"
Again, the readers know that he is talking about Christ being the one sacrifice.  There are no exceptions.  I don't know anyone who is seriously arguing the meaning of this except people who just like to argue.  If your point is that the bible can't be from God because it isn't written clearly enough to YOUR specifications, then I would say that is exactly your problem!  You are trying to fit God into your view of what He should be saying and how things should work in YOUR mind.  This is the main problem with intelligent atheists and others who think through things but still do not commit to Christ.  We can only come to God by humility, repentance, and faith.  Atheists who are full of themselves and yet show irritation at Christians because they are "stupid" don't understand this.  Christianity is not checking your brain in at the door.  It's first being convicted of sin and then seeking salvation in Christ Jesus.  So........I don't think you disbelieve because only because you've found all these contradictions and are getting stuck on literary construct.  It may be that you view your own thoughts so highly that God can no longer be the author of the bible because of too high of a view of yourself.   If we have a bible that was translated from manuscripts from an ancient language to a modern language I would expect some difficulty.    But I think we've worked out enough to know how to be saved..............and then some  :)
BTW.....I still don't think that you had to leave Christianity so bitter because of the treatment you received from people due to your conclusion that Jesus was a created being.  I think that we will discover a lot of answers to the mysteries that surround Christianity and the bible when God reveals it.  Do I think that Jesus was a created being?  NO.  But I do think that a person with a certain attitude of coming to God in humility and repentance desiring to earnestly attain salvation believing that Jesus is the sacrifice for his sin, is saved.  I have reason to believe that God judges us based on our accountability and knowledge and our ability to understand.  That is why children will be saved and I think others who cannot understand much.  But those who willfully blaspheme God all the way to the grave will not be saved.  That is for certain.