Born sinful.

reply to post by Seede


Well, the bible tells us not to do evil.

I know you know it is better not to do evil and not knowing where it came from, than to do evil and knowing where it came from.

oktopus
reply to post by Seede

 

Well, the bible tells us not to do evil.
I know you know it is better not to do evil and not knowing where it came from, than to do evil and knowing where it came from.

--------------------
No No No -- It is not better to not sin and be unaware than to sin and be aware. If that were possible then God would not have created evil and embraced His permissive will. Adam was unaware of sin and knew not sin but had no hope of eternal life. Eternal life came through knowledge and knowledge spawned love. Without love Adam could not live forever. Obedience is not love but through love comes obedience.

reply to post by Seede

Evil (sin) is a creation and not a happening. Isaiah 45:7 tells us that evil was created by God but it was created as a necessary teaching and not in malice. Evil is a product of knowledge and knowledge is a product of awareness. In order for God to show righteousness He must show unrighteousness. Otherwise we would not understand what either righteousness or unrighteousness is.

I don't know how you can get all of that out of that one verse.
I think that the context of that verse is an explanation of how, when Israel was supposed to be God's special dominion, that it was allowed to be destroyed by the Assyrians in the northern kingdom, and later, by Babylon, to the southern.
Rather than admitting something like God being powerless, or the invalidity of the concept of a holy nation, then they had to contrive this ordeal as a way of disciplining it.

oktopus
reply to post by Seede

 

Well, the bible tells us not to do evil.

I know you know it is better not to do evil and not knowing where it came from, than to do evil and knowing where it came from.

Good is not"perceived" as good nor evil is not perceived as evil until it is judged.... and when what is measured is good, evil cannot be known and vice versa.Judging is observation/measuring.When something is "observed" by measuring the uncertainty principle(faith) takes effect.The more you measure one aspect (the position) the less it can be "known" of it's velocity and vice versa.The observation/measurement "alters" what is being judged.In other words it is impossible to believe AND know good and evil

By "judging" good or evil you "know" less about the other which causes "belief"in one ..not knowing.In other words mankind does not have "knowledge"(know) of good and evil....because the observation/measurement of it causes belief and belief is the state of NOT knowing.That is the crux of the meaning of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Yahoshua clearly stated ..the kingdom of the creator God comes WITHOUT observation and is neither here nor there(in a place or a velocity of time) but it exists(or will exist) in your midst.In other words it is growing like a "good" seed sown in good soil which is the parable of the seed and soils the most significant parable that if you don't know you can't "know" ANY of Yahoshua's parables.

Sin is falling short and missing the mark of maturity.All of humankind were "sown" in corruption(immaturity).The seed is first sown on the wayside soil and washed away or ate by birds.Then in sandy soil that has no depth and the plant withers and dies then amongst thistles and thorns and is choked THEN on good fertile soil where it will grow and sprout and thrive above the "adamah/ dirt" of faith (.."your" religion you have faith in).

Above the soil(adamah/Adam/mankind) is the Kingdom of the creator God realm.Yahoshua said I am from above you are from below(a statement of fact/knowledge not judgement)The 3 types of soil are necessary to enter into the kingdom of the creator God through the narrow gate.They are the stages of the "conception" of mankind....unbelief,belief,faith......that is the wide road(of a multitude of paths which are everyones Belief System of religion..i.e. their LIFE)) that ALL lead to the gate of destruction of your "religion" that you have "faith" in.When faith of your religion is destroyed you enter the narrow path (birth canal) that leads to the narrow gate(knowing the fertile soil) and to the infinite green pasture.It's all a process and all 100% out of your control.

No one had ANYTHING to do with their own physical realm human conception.Your fathers spermatozoon( the son) impregnated an "egg" in your mother and the process started.You neither cause the conception or anything after it.It has ALL been given(caused then effect) to you.When the physical realm conception process was complete you were born/ "delivered"(the meaning of salvation).

Yahoshua's parables are all centered around this "process" of salvation(conception to birth).He is NOT teaching how to cause your conception to be "born anew"into the kingdom of the creator God ...he is proclaiming it.That's the good news.ALL of mankind are being "conceived (in one of the 4 soil stages) and are only IN the womb/matrix(the physical universe).EVERYONE WILL be born anew into the Kingdom of the creator God realm however NO ONE has been born into the kingdom of God realm yet...except Yahoshua.

.....and of course these are metaphors.The "reality" of the process can't be "known" in the physical realm.Our perception can't perceive those dimensions however that doesn't mean they aren't happening.The VERY VERY good news is the creator God is causing it ALL to happen(effect). There is NOTHING for mankind to "screw up" and there is also NOTHING anyone can do to "cause " ANY of it to happen.

The life of mankind(the spirit of man) is all like a very short dream.It is real because you are dreaming it however the dream is not the real world.It is faint shadows and much confusion like "mans" dreams.When you "wake" up it won't be in "this world".....sweet dreams.

reply to post by Rex282

Yahoshua's parables are all centered around this "process" of salvation . . .

I think that Jesus' parables were about how the remnant of the supposed kingdom of Israel missed their chance at salvation by rejecting him, written after the fact (destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD) but as a forewarning by him in the literature.

Text I don't know how you can get all of that out of that one verse.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You do not get everything from one thought. The thought in Isaiah 45;7 Is not the complete thought. It references a portion of God explaining to Jacob (Israel) who He is. The dialogue is descriptive and not conclusive in purpose. That is what literature is.

The rest of my rant is as follows. I said “It is not better to not sin and be unaware then to sin and be aware.” In plain English, Eve and Adam had to sin. It was purposed for them to sin and by this came the knowledge and understanding to them of why they sinned, It was ordained by God from the creation of man. If they had not sinned then the kingdom of heaven would not have been given to God's creation.

The reasoning is that If Adam had not sinned and was unaware of sin then he would have remained an unknowledgeable creation of useless flesh. Certainly he would have lived in a terrestrial environment for a time but he would have remained as a child with no perspective in understanding. You must have knowledge in order to understand opposites of creation and with out knowledge comes not understanding evil and good. Do you think the tree of knowledge to do good and evil was simply an accident? No it was not. It was necessary to give knowledge and usher in God’s permissive will. That is why God said that He creates evil. He did that when He introduced the tree of knowledge to Eve. If God would insist that His creation have His perfect will then all creation would never survive. So that is the reason I said that was better to sin and be aware of sin.

So what am I saying? It is better that Adam sinned and obtained knowledge of sin simply because Adam could not enter the heavens as a celestial creation without understanding love. You cannot understand love without understanding hate and love is the only portion of a creation that will enter the kingdom of heaven. That is knowledge.

You can whip any person into submission without love but you cannot love and whip that person into submission.

As you can now see, my rant was not simply Isaiah 45:7 but was originally an answer to the OP who had asked “What does sinful actually mean? Does it mean rebellious towards God? Unloyal towards God?” The OP also wanted bible verses to verify opinions. That is exactly what I opined. Isaiah 45:7 was simply the verse that explained that evil was a creation of God and not a creation of man.

Personally I don't think we are "born sinful". If you have kids, you know that when they are born they are completely innocent. Babies aren't "sinful" because they are incapable of comprehending the ideas of right and wrong, or much of anything at first. I think it is more accurate to say that we are born into a sinful world, and because we are only human, it rubs off on us as we grow older. So while "original sin" is a valid concept, it isn't something that just stamps you across the forehead the moment you exit the womb, but rather something that affects the world and those in it, and eventually you become a part of that world as you grow up in it and are influenced by it.

Our ability to be considered "sinful" or be held responsible for our "sinful nature" is directly proportionate to our comprehension of morality. It's impossible to say that someone has committed a wrong, if they can't comprehend that moral standard in the first place. This is why many people outside of catholic dogma believe that children who pass away go directly to heaven, since they haven't matured enough to understand moral principles and thus be held accountable to them. This is very much alluded to in Genesis by very virtue of the name of the tree from which Adam and Eve are said to have eaten: "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Neither Adam or Eve could be considered "sinful" prior to eating of the fruit, since they had no knowledge of good and evil. Many people (myself included) have speculated that this state of grace in Eden was a period of time when people were much closer to animals than modern humans. A primitive state we once lived in, in which our morals had not really developed as we were still very close to the animal kingdom and had not yet evolved to become civilization builders.

My 2 cents, at any rate.

reply to post by oktopus


Great thread.
Jesus says,
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."


This passage means a lot to me personally. It was the first passage that made me realize exactly how low I have fallen. I am only thankful for my Father's grace. After reading this passage, and the understanding of the world that came after I feel very alienated. I feel as though I am the only one that sees the Evil engulfing us all. Jesus could see this, and what he means is that one must see the nature of man for what it is in its raw form. The reason this is a necessity for becoming one of his disciples is because its understanding shows that one understands the worlds need for a savior. My Father's Grace is a blessing, but I am still always conflicted of my two natures. I am broken. The world is broken. Only through Christ can it be healed.

Romans 7
14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold [a]into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God [c]in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in [d]the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner [e]of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [f]the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

DeadSeraph
Personally I don't think we are "born sinful". If you have kids, you know that when they are born they are completely innocent. Babies aren't "sinful" because they are incapable of comprehending the ideas of right and wrong, or much of anything at first. I think it is more accurate to say that we are born into a sinful world, and because we are only human, it rubs off on us as we grow older. So while "original sin" is a valid concept, it isn't something that just stamps you across the forehead the moment you exit the womb, but rather something that affects the world and those in it, and eventually you become a part of that world as you grow up in it and are influenced by it.

Our ability to be considered "sinful" or be held responsible for our "sinful nature" is directly proportionate to our comprehension of morality. It's impossible to say that someone has committed a wrong, if they can't comprehend that moral standard in the first place. This is why many people outside of catholic dogma believe that children who pass away go directly to heaven, since they haven't matured enough to understand moral principles and thus be held accountable to them. This is very much alluded to in Genesis by very virtue of the name of the tree from which Adam and Eve are said to have eaten: "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Neither Adam or Eve could be considered "sinful" prior to eating of the fruit, since they had no knowledge of good and evil. Many people (myself included) have speculated that this state of grace in Eden was a period of time when people were much closer to animals than modern humans. A primitive state we once lived in, in which our morals had not really developed as we were still very close to the animal kingdom and had not yet evolved to become civilization builders.

My 2 cents, at any rate.

Just a question. I see that you don't think we are born sinful. However, I have a question. Does a child need to be taught to lie?

reply to post by Seede

You must have knowledge in order to understand opposites of creation and with out knowledge comes not understanding evil and good.

You seem to be making the case of the serpent.
If the serpent was right, then why did YHWH curse it?
And this is all just conjecture on your part anyway and not Bible based.

He did that when He introduced the tree of knowledge to Eve.

YHWH warned them, He didn't "introduce" them to the tree, as if He put it there on purpose.
Genesis says that at a certain place, YHWH planted a garden and in the midst of the garden there was the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
There is a way of interpreting it that YHWH planted in the midst of the garden, these two trees, but it does not say that expressly.

It is better that Adam sinned and obtained knowledge of sin simply because Adam could not enter the heavens as a celestial creation without understanding love.

You seem to be making the point that if Adam didn't sin, then we would all be stuck here on earth forever, as if that is a bad thing.
Really?
And where in the Bible does it say that we are going to live in Heaven forever as spirit beings?
I'll help you out on that one.
It doesn't.
Why did God go to the trouble creating the universe just to have us leave it as if it was inferior?
That's a rhetorical question so don't have to answer it.

Isaiah 45:7 was simply the verse that explained that evil was a creation of God and not a creation of man.

It doesn't say that, and it also does not say that evil would not exist if not for the type that YHWH creates.

ServantOfTheLamb

DeadSeraph
Personally I don't think we are "born sinful". If you have kids, you know that when they are born they are completely innocent. Babies aren't "sinful" because they are incapable of comprehending the ideas of right and wrong, or much of anything at first. I think it is more accurate to say that we are born into a sinful world, and because we are only human, it rubs off on us as we grow older. So while "original sin" is a valid concept, it isn't something that just stamps you across the forehead the moment you exit the womb, but rather something that affects the world and those in it, and eventually you become a part of that world as you grow up in it and are influenced by it.

Our ability to be considered "sinful" or be held responsible for our "sinful nature" is directly proportionate to our comprehension of morality. It's impossible to say that someone has committed a wrong, if they can't comprehend that moral standard in the first place. This is why many people outside of catholic dogma believe that children who pass away go directly to heaven, since they haven't matured enough to understand moral principles and thus be held accountable to them. This is very much alluded to in Genesis by very virtue of the name of the tree from which Adam and Eve are said to have eaten: "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Neither Adam or Eve could be considered "sinful" prior to eating of the fruit, since they had no knowledge of good and evil. Many people (myself included) have speculated that this state of grace in Eden was a period of time when people were much closer to animals than modern humans. A primitive state we once lived in, in which our morals had not really developed as we were still very close to the animal kingdom and had not yet evolved to become civilization builders.

My 2 cents, at any rate.

Just a question. I see that you don't think we are born sinful. However, I have a question. Does a child need to be taught to lie?

Since you can see that I don't think we are born sinful, can a baby lie? Further, you seem to consider yourself covered by the blood of Christ. Can YOU lie? What about being disingenuous? You clearly consider yourself inspired by the holy spirit, so why would you lay a snare for me after I made my position perfectly clear?

Can a newborn baby lie? Yes or no?

reply to post by DeadSeraph

So while "original sin" is a valid concept, it isn't something that just stamps you across the forehead the moment you exit the womb, but rather something that affects the world and those in it, and eventually you become a part of that world as you grow up in it and are influenced by it.

It helps if your mother and father were Mary and Joseph who of course are now recognized as saints.
I think that was why Christ came when and where he did, because here was the place to grow up to be the best a human being could.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."

There is also the quote if you try to find your life, you will loose it.

I think these were the terms of initiation into the cult of the Roman legions, something that would have been well know at the time when Jesus borrowed those terms which had already become motto's.
The second one, that I referred to, is definitely almost a word for word transcript of the legionnaire saying.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I do not believe that Jesus Christ was purely human. I believe he is the risen Son of God, and our Lord and Savior, who gave his life on the cross that we might know freedom through not only his love and selfless sacrifice on the cross, but through his examples while he was with us here. Through every act of mercy and every act of humility. Through the washing of others feet he quietly proclaimed himself King of Kings and Lord of Lords, prophesied from ages past. Written about by Isaiah, sung about by David, foreseen by Daniel, and proclaimed by his witnesses. The lamb of ages once, and the Lion of Judah to come. More importantly, I believe in his grace and his power, which I have personally seen at work in my own life and others. I have seen His name do things that no mortal man's name could. Hell trembles at His command.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Hell trembles at His command.

Huh?
I would not hold my breath, if you think something like that is going to happen right now.

Text If the serpent was right, then why did YHWH curse it?

reply to post by jmdewey60


I believe you have misunderstood my post when you ask “If the serpent was right, then why did YHWH curse it?”

I had never said that the beast (serpent) which tempted Eve was right. The beast embraced the created spirit of disobedience the same as Day Star (Lucifer) and his minions had embraced the same spirit. The spirit of evil was created in the celestial realm first and was brought to this earth as Day Star and his cohorts were cast down to this earth. Just because God created evil does not make evil His perfect will.
But God knew that without knowledge that His creation could not be meaningful. He must have a loving creation in order to please Him.
The Serpent of Gan Eden had embraced evil before Eve and Adam and deliberately tempted man with this knowledge. Teaching evil was the reason the Serpent was punished and not the initial embracing the spirit of disobedience. Being evil is a sin but knowingly teaching that evil compounds that sin. Now this is not to say if the serpent was not involved that Eve would not have taken the fruit of the tree of knowledge. We cannot say “if” but must accept the happening. Yes it is all conjecture because we are discussing Theology and not provable fact.

By embracing evil does not mean that one will practice that evil. Eve and Adam repented for embracing this evil and God, through His permissive will, accepted their regret. But nevertheless they now had exposed knowledge to do good and evil to their minds. That is far from continuing what they had learned. If they had continued in this sinful knowledge then God’s permissive will stops right there. That is exactly what the Serpent of the garden had done. He continued in sin without repenting and taught that sin to others.

You stated - “You seem to be making the point that if Adam didn't sin, then we would all be stuck here on earth forever, as if that is a bad thing. Really?”

No that was not my intention. I never left the impression that Adam could never sin. It was ordained that Adam sin. He had to sin. Yes it would not only be a bad thing but an impossible thing that he could never sin. The universe was not designed to last forever and if it was designed to last forever then sin would overtake the world and last forever. That is impossible and God did not design that to be the case.

You asked – “Why did God go to the trouble creating the universe just to have us leave it as if it was inferior?”
“And where in the Bible does it say that we are going to live in Heaven forever as spirit beings? I'll help you out on that one. It doesn't.”

God created this creation so that His creation could have knowledge and still love Him. Love is the key element in knowledge. Through love all things exist and without love all things will perish. God loved His creation so much that He actually gave His only begotten Son so that we would not have to perish. This terrestrial creation is a school to teach knowledge and through knowledge embrace love.

There was a man who was crucified beside Jesus and Jesus told this man that this man would be with Him (Jesus) in paradise this very day that they both would die.

Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

According to the apostle Paul, paradise is in the third heaven which is above this universe. Our world has two heavens. The first of these is the atmosphere of this world while the second is the universe above our atmosphere.

2Cointhians 12:2-4
(2) I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
(3) And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth (4) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

John tells me that within this paradise is the tree of life.

Revelation 2:7
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

John also tells me that the tree of life is located in New Jerusalem

Revelation 22:2
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

I would suggest to read all of the 21st and 22nd chapters of Revelation to better understand New Jerusalem -- So this (to me) explains that the man who died with Jesus, as His companion, entered New Jerusalem to live forever and be sustained with the trees and water of life. This also explains to me what the kingdom of heaven is that Jesus preached. Jesus did not reveal His kingdom while alive and only revealed it to John some years after His death. Naturally the requirement to enter His New Jerusalem was to repent and have forgiveness. This is that permissive will of God which we discussed.

Text I do not believe that Jesus Christ was purely human.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Yes DeadSeraph, I totally agree with you and am called agnostic for saying it.

Jesus was conceived by the Spirit God Himself and had life within Him. No other creation had those credentials. All terrestrial elements as well as celestial elements must return to their source. That is the law of all that we understand today. I believe that is the reason that we are so bewildered by the shroud of Turin. We cannot understand where that body of Jesus was or is. I believe that being conceived of God that the source (Jesus) returned in like manner. That is why I have come to believe that He was divine by nature and His essence is not our understanding. I think you are dead on target.

reply to post by Seede

There was a man who was crucified beside Jesus and Jesus told this man that this man would be with Him (Jesus) in paradise this very day that they both would die.

That's not Heaven.

3. that part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of the pious until the resurrection: Luke 23:43,
biblehub.com...

According to the apostle Paul, paradise is in the third heaven which is above this universe. Our world has two heavens. The first of these is the atmosphere of this world while the second is the universe above our atmosphere.

The Old Testament thought that there were three heavens, the atmosphere, where the stars were, and where God was.
Paul was operating in a Greek seven heaven cosmology where the "third heaven" would be midway between earth and God.
Anyway, Paul never talks about living there.

John tells me that within this paradise is the tree of life.

It doesn't say where it is.
Most likely a reference to Eden, in a metaphorical way.

John also tells me that the tree of life is located in New Jerusalem

Sounds very earth like.

This also explains to me what the kingdom of heaven is that Jesus preached.

Jesus saying "kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God" are interchangeable.
It does not mean the kingdom is in Heaven, but the heavenly kingdom ruled by God.

Text That's not Heaven.

reply to post by jmdewey60




I stated “There was a man who was crucified beside Jesus and Jesus told this man that this man would be with Him (Jesus) in paradise this very day that they both would die.”

You exclaimed – “That's not Heaven.”

You are correct and yet you are mistaken. You are correct in that paradise was in Sheol before the death of Christ Jesus but the paradise that was in Sheol is no longer in Sheol after Jesus died. Also at one time there existed a paradise which was the Gan Eden on this earth. Both the Garden paradise and the paradise in Sheol have been removed at the death and new covenant of Jesus. As Jesus was alive He stated the following.

John 3:13 “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

The above verses are only shown to show you that before the death of Christ no one had as yet ascended from Sheol to heaven.

Then It was prophesied -
Mat_12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

But now that Jesus has died and the righteous are taken from Sheol into the celestial realm, we read that Paul reveals that paradise is in the third heaven just as I have shown. When did this happen?

Ephesians_4:8-10 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (9) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (10) He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

By this it has been shown that paradise was in Sheol and removed from this earth into the third heaven.

This entails a lot of scripture which we do not have the time or space to present so the above is a start for you to study. That is if you wish to look into it. The scriptures are loaded with evidence of the kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven but not before the death of Jesus.

You also state the following -
“Paul was operating in a Greek seven heaven cosmology where the "third heaven" would be midway between earth and God.”

In the very first Christian church in Jerusalem the liturgy was entirely Aramaic and Hebrew. Not Greek. The Greek speaking Jews were allowed into the Hebrew congregation at a much later time. The seven heaven theology was prominent mostly in rabbinic Judaism and not the Christian Jewish theology such as were the apostles and disciples of Christ Jesus. Paul was believed to have been a member of the rabbinic seventy one Sanhedrin Council and admired as a learned rabbi with a surname of Saul of Tarsus. So you may very well be correct to assume that he believed in seven heavens. But that does not take away the fact that Paul also describes paradise in the celestial realm of the third heaven. Paradise exists in the new Jerusalem as I have posted (according to John the revelator) and if all the righteous were removed from Abraham’s Bosom and resurrected to the New Jerusalem then they are to this day alive and sustained by the food and water of life.

As paradise (Abraham's Bosom ) was moved from the earth to the celestial, the crucified companion of Jesus moved with paradise. There are no two or three paradises. There is only one paradise and both Paul and John describe this In a very clear and precise way. Try not to be confused with rabbinic Judaism and the doctrine of Christ Jesus. Both are intermingled in the new testament scriptures. Why should this be? Because the new testament is a transition of knowledge to the apostles and disciples from rabbinic teachings to the revelation of Jesus' doctrine. In other words some of the teachings of the rabbis do not agree with Jesus' teachings.

Gotta go and get some shut eye. Have a good day and love ye all.

reply to post by Seede

. . . the paradise that was in Sheol is no longer in Sheol after Jesus died.

According to what?
Maybe your own version of logic informs you of that, but it doesn't make it so in the real world.

. . . there existed a paradise which was the Gan Eden on this earth.

So "paradise" just means something nice.

Both the Garden paradise and the paradise in Sheol have been removed at the death and new covenant of Jesus.

The Garden would have been destroyed in the flood.
As long as people are still dying, there would be a Sheol.

But now that Jesus has died and the righteous are taken from Sheol into the celestial realm . . .

It never says what happened to the people who came out of tombs at the time when Jesus died.

. . . we read that Paul reveals that paradise is in the third heaven just as I have shown. When did this happen?

He doesn't specify that it is a particular paradise, ans as I already pointed out, it was in the current cosmology of Paul's time, middle heaven.
And he says himself that he does not know how it happened or if it was only a vision or something.

Ephesians_4:8-10 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (9) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (10) He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

So Jesus could go about anywhere.
That doesn't say anything about where people go.

This entails a lot of scripture which we do not have the time or space to present so the above is a start for you to study.

So far you haven't made any substantial argument that there is any biblical support for your theory.

That is if you wish to look into it.

I have looked into it and that is why I am objecting to your theory.

The scriptures are loaded with evidence of the kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven but not before the death of Jesus.

You haven't brought one up yet.

In the very first Christian church in Jerusalem the liturgy was entirely Aramaic and Hebrew. Not Greek. The Greek speaking Jews were allowed into the Hebrew congregation at a much later time.

There was a very large synagogue in Jerusalem for Greek speaking Jews at the time of Christ.
The Galileans were in gentile territory where Greek was the common language.

Paul was believed to have been a member of the rabbinic seventy one Sanhedrin Council . . .

You are being sucked into a lot of nonsense.

But that does not take away the fact that Paul also describes paradise in the celestial realm of the third heaven.

A paradise, not your supposed the paradise.