Abraham's Bosom

[Pico]

At a Bible study today the leader's wife was telling our table (much off topic too, dont' remeber who asked what to prompt her to say this) but she said when we die we don't go to heaven but to Abraham's Bosom in the earth. She said we'll be with the lord in the New Jerusalem.

I said, well the New Jerusalem is after the consumation, what happens if I die now?

She referenced the story in Luke where the poor guy dies and is with Abraham and sees the other guy in torment.

But I would have sworn that somewhere in the New Testament it (or soemoene) states that when we die we will be with the Lord. Jesus ascended into heaven with the Father, if we were to go down below we wouldn't be with Jesus. Also the NT says that God is now our Father and we his children. Everything he has is ours. Our Father lives in heaven, we would live in heaven, yes?

[Joedjr]

Hi Pico,

Originally Posted by Pico

At a Bible study today the leader's wife was telling our table (much off topic too, dont' remeber who asked what to prompt her to say this) but she said when we die we don't go to heaven but to Abraham's Bosom in the earth. She said we'll be with the lord in the New Jerusalem.

Sounds a little like what Mee has been saying.
Joe

[wil]

I believe it is a common misconception that Christians are headed to the lord immediately.

According to scripture we are all headed to the way station and will all be called up together. There are a lot of folks there waiting if this is so.

I can't remember the exact scripture, but about twenty years ago looked into this fully enough to sastify myself that is how it was written.

Tis times like this the literalists complain they've been sold a bill of goods, feel they got bait and switched at Sunday school and in service. Like with anything, gotta read the small print.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Joedjr

Hi Pico,



Sounds a little like what Mee has been saying.
Joe

when we die we go to dust ,and at a future time if we are in Jehovahs memory we will be resurrected. but it is as if we are asleep . because Gods memory is verrry goood and he can give us a new body .

most people will be resurrected on a paradise earth , only a little flock will go to heaven when they are resurrected, those ones will be resurrected with a spiritual body to live in heaven , but those who are resurrected to live on the earth will be resurrected with a fleshly body .

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Pico

But I would have sworn that somewhere in the New Testament it (or soemoene) states that when we die we will be with the Lord. Jesus ascended into heaven with the Father, if we were to go down below we wouldn't be with Jesus. Also the NT says that God is now our Father and we his children. Everything he has is ours. Our Father lives in heaven, we would live in heaven, yes?

I believe this is what you are looking for:

II Corinthians 5:1-9

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight)
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him."

[path_of_one]

I thought of this...

Luke 23:42-44 (New American Standard Bible)



42And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 43And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in (A)Paradise."

Now whether Jesus is in heaven or not, and where/what Paradise is... I do not know.

But the "today" part seems pretty clear.

[mee]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I thought of this...

Luke 23:42-44 (New American Standard Bible)



42And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 43And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in (A)Paradise."

Now whether Jesus is in heaven or not, and where/what Paradise is... I do not know.

But the "today" part seems pretty clear.

The

Problem of Punctuation

The grammatical aspects of the Greek text allow for placing a comma (or, colon) either before or after "today." But how did the writer Luke punctuate the sentence? The truth is, he did not! Professor Oscar Paret explains that the form of Greek script in which the "New Testament" was written "is composed solely of capital letters . . . loosely set next to one another without any punctuation to separate words and sentences. Greek literature used this script down to the 9th century C.E." Thus in translating Jesus’ statement W. G. Ballantine, a professor of Hebrew and Greek, did not insert punctuation: "I tell you truly to-day you will be with me in Paradise."—The Riverside New Testament.

Some have contended, however, that the expression "I tell you truly" or "Truly I tell you" does not allow for adding the word "today" to it. Is that true? Note what Dr. George Lamsa writes:
"According to the Aramaic manner of speech, the emphasis in this text is on the word ‘today’ and should read [as it does in the New World Translation], ‘Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.’ . . . This is a characteristic of Oriental speech implying that the promise was made on a certain day and would surely be kept."—Gospel Light from Aramaic on the Teachings of Jesus.

[path_of_one]

Well, of course as usual the JWs have their own translation that does not fit with others. NASB is largely regarded as one of the most accurate translations, and since I am not JW and do not have the Watchtower indicating to me which translation to read, I will stick with what has a good reputation among a lot of scholars.

Now, without punctuation, that means there is no indication either way. Not for the JW interpretation or the NASB/NIV/etc. interpretations.

"I tell you truly today you will be with Me in Paradise."

Well, then let the interpretation begin. I happen to think if the emphasis is on today, then the English equivalent would put the "today" in the second clause. Think about how you read it (aloud).

I tell you truly today, YOU will be with Me in Paradise. (makes grammatical sense)

I tell you truly TODAY, you will be with Me in Paradise. (not so much, why emphasize today in this way)

I tell you truly, TODAY you will be with Me in Paradise. (also makes grammatical sense)

Whatever Lamsa says (and I do respect him, and have read his version, which is the Eastern Orthodox one), it just doesn't make sense to emphasize today. What other day would it be? Of course, if Jesus is making the promise hanging on a cross to another guy hanging on a cross, today is about the only day that the promise can be made. Even under less dire circumstances, it would not make sense. That is like me saying...

"I tell you truly today I am going grocery-shopping."

And then arguing that what the statement really means is that I will be going grocery-shopping on a different day, after certain other events have come to pass, but what was important about the statement was that I promised the shopping trip on this very day. That makes no sense. Any English speaker would, if given this sentence, put the comma before "today" for it to make sense.

What is important about the Bible passage is the second part- we will be with Him in Paradise. It is not the date on which he promised the guy.

Of course, this will all be thrown out by mee to be "human teachings," whereas the Watchtower is somehow teachings straight from God. But, whatever.

It may interest you to know, mee, that Dr. Lamsa's translation is contested and was not for the JWs. His scholarship has been questioned. Also, he has some other interesting (and non-conventional) interpretations that you may not agree with.

As an example of his most debated translation (and the biggest difference with other translations):

From Wiki:

A notable difference between Lamsa's translation and other versions of the New Testament occurs in the fourth of the Words of Jesus on the cross – Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. These are regarded by virtually all scholars[attribution needed] as a quotation in Aramaic of the opening of Psalm 22, which in English is "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" While this is similar to how the psalm appears in the Aramaic Pe****ta Old Testament, it also appears in earlier Aramaic Targums. Lamsa believed that the text of the Gospels was corrupt, and that it is not a quotation but should read /Eli, Eli, lemana shabaqthani, which he translates as: "My God, my God, for this I was spared!" An accompanying footnote in Lamsa's English version of the Bible explains Jesus's meaning as "This was my destiny."
Aramaic grammars and dictionaries,[6] however, contend with Lamsa's assertion about Jesus' last words, as the word שבקתני [shvaqtani] in Aramaic is the perfect 2nd person singular form of the verb שבק [shvaq] which means "to leave, to leave s.t. left over, to abandon," or "to permit"[7] with the 1st person singular pronoun affixed. This would, in turn, cause the phrase to translate as "why have you left me?" "why have you let me be?" "why have you abandoned me?" or "why have you permitted me?"

Now, hey, what do you know? Now that the JWs don't agree with Lamsa, they go with a totally different interpretation than his (the conventional one, in this case.)

From the NWT:
About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: “E´li, E´li, la´ma sa·bach·tha´ni?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Hmmm....

It seems like JW is cutting and pasting various types of scholarship from various sources, willy-nilly, when it suits their cause.

[bananabrain]

it occurs to me that it could in fact be a corruption of "lama ShaKhaHThaNI" from psalm *42*, where the "kh" has been misread as a "b" - the two letters are very similar. in ps. 22 it's "LaMaH 'AZaBhThaNI" in the original. with 42 there's no such need to resort to aramaic. in fact, in 42, there's no "ELI, ELI" preceding it, so it could indeed be a conflation of two similar verses.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[greymare]

Originally Posted by mee

when we die we go to dust ,and at a future time if we are in Jehovahs memory we will be resurrected. but it is as if we are asleep . because Gods memory is verrry goood and he can give us a new body .

most people will be resurrected on a paradise earth , only a little flock will go to heaven when they are resurrected, those ones will be resurrected with a spiritual body to live in heaven , but those who are resurrected to live on the earth will be resurrected with a fleshly body .

I want a fleshy body, but not toooooo much flesh, ok? got enough of that now and its a bit of a job to keep it in tow. lol.

[mee]

Originally Posted by greymare

I want a fleshy body, but not toooooo much flesh, ok? got enough of that now and its a bit of a job to keep it in tow. lol.

i think we will be just right ............... we wont need comfort food we will be comforted . but i hope we have choccy bars yum yum ... i must work on my self discipline i must not eat ALL OF THE BAR

[mee]

in his footnote on Luke 23:43, German Bible translator L. Reinhardt says: "The punctuation presently used [by most Bibles] in this verse is undoubtedly false and contradictory to the entire way of thinking of Christ and the evildoer. . . . [Jesus] certainly did not understand paradise to be a subdivision of the realm of the dead, but rather the restoration of a paradise on earth."


Yes, all those years ago, when Jesus made that promise to the evildoer, the time for establishing the Messianic kingdom over the earth had not yet arrived. (Rev. 11:15; Acts 1:6, 7)

But historic events of our time in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicate that the time for Christ to act as an installed king to eliminate wickedness from the earth is right before us. (Matt. 24:3-22)

Then this earth will be transformed into a paradise, fulfilling Messianic prophecies that the Jewish evildoer may well have known about.

By means of the miracle of resurrection many persons, including that evildoer, will come back to life in the earthly realm of the Kingdom. In this way Jesus will fulfill his words spoken so long ago: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise."





Note that Jesus did not ascend to heaven the day he died or even the day he was resurrected. Shortly after his resurrection he told Mary: "I have not yet ascended to the Father." This also has a bearing on the question as to when what Jesus said to the evildoer applies.—John 20:17.

[Pico]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I believe this is what you are looking for:

II Corinthians 5:1-9

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. "

That's it. I'd say this quote from Paul settles the whole issue. "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," is the way many other translations put it.

The Lord ascended to the Father in Heaven. If we are to be with him when we leave our body we will be in Heaven. Doesn't leave much leeway room.

[mee]

What

is the Paradise that Jesus promised to the evildoer who died alongside him?

Luke’s account shows that an evildoer, being executed alongside Jesus Christ, spoke words in Jesus’ defense and requested that Jesus remember him when he ‘got into his kingdom.’ Jesus’ reply was: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." (Lu 23:39-43)

The punctuation shown in the rendering of these words must, of course, depend on the translator’s understanding of the sense of Jesus’ words, since no punctuation was used in the original Greek text.

Punctuation in the modern style did not become common until about the ninth century C.E.
Whereas many translations place a comma before the word "today" and thereby give the impression that the evildoer entered Paradise that same day, there is nothing in the rest of the Scriptures to support this.

Jesus himself was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the resurrection. (Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:20; Col 1:18) He ascended to heaven 40 days later.—Joh 20:17; Ac 1:1-3, 9.



The evidence is, therefore, that Jesus’ use of the word "today" was not to give the time of the evildoer’s being in Paradise but, rather, to call attention to the time in which the promise was being made and during which the evildoer had shown a measure of faith in Jesus.

It was a day when Jesus had been rejected and condemned by the highest-ranking religious leaders of his own people and was thereafter sentenced to die by Roman authority. He had become an object of scorn and ridicule.

So the wrongdoer alongside him had shown a notable quality and commendable heart attitude in not going along with the crowd but, rather, speaking out in Jesus’ behalf and expressing belief in his coming Kingship.


Recognizing that the emphasis is correctly placed on the time of the promise’s being made rather than on the time of its fulfillment, other translations, such as those in English by Rotherham and Lamsa, those in German by Reinhardt and W. Michaelis, as well as the Curetonian Syriac of the fifth century C.E., rendered the text in a form similar to the reading of the New World Translation

"Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth. matthew5;5

[path_of_one]

Mee, you never responded to the issue of Lamsa's contestability, nor to the fact that the JW themselves do not accept his translation in some cases, but do in others (and thus show inconsistency).

Restating the same thing in a new format is not the same as responding to my point. Perhaps explain how the JW make their own decision about the appropriateness of one translation over another- that is, why they agree with Lamsa on one point and not on another, if they are so insistent that the appropriate translation is the one from Aramaic?

As the others bring up (from Paul), there are more indications than just this one I posted that we leave our bodies to go somewhere else.

To be honest, any particular belief in the afterlife is not that important to my own faith, but I was just putting out there what the Bible says (in generally accepted and non-contested translations).