Re: Whatever happened to conviction of sins?

In article <RVVIj.20935$Ps1.6639@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, DKleinecke says...

>On Apr 1, 6:09 pm, rtdav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>> This is why Jesus talked more about hell than heaven....

>Did he indeed?

Yes, He did.

>Aside from the dubious hadith about Dives and Lazarus where does he
>speak about either of them?

It is not 'hadith'. The word is 'midrash'. And you have no evidence
that it is only midrash, either.

>Aside from mere references like th ones about drinking wine in
>paradise.
	
>We do not even know from the gospels that the living Jesus (before his
>own death) believed in resurrection.

This is not only false, it is outrageous that you would even suggest
it. Of _course_ we know this from the Gospels. John 2:19-21 is only
one of the more obvious examples:

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to
build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he
spoke of the temple of his body.  (Joh 2:19-21 RSVA)

Clearly "rasing up the temple of his body" refers to resurrection.

>However we are reasonably sure that some of the Jews (those of them
>called Pharisees as opposed to those called Sadducees) did believe in
>resurrection. But this kind of resurrection was the resurrection on
>Judgment Day.

And it is only _because_ of the Resurrection of Christ that we have
the Resurrection on Judgment Day. That is why He is called "first born
of all creation" (Col 1:15).

>We must not confused the symbolic Christ of Revelation with the living
>Jesus.

You are out of line calling this 'confusion'. Such a blatant attempt
to bias the reader into accepting your disastrous conclusion
uncritically will not work here. It is NOT 'confusion'. It is correct
to identify them.

>There is no evidence that Jesus taught what Revelation says (in
>fact, indications are that revelation was new to John).

Sure, there is evidence. We have the witness of the author of
Revelation himself. If you won't take his word for it, why should any
of us take _your_ word that they did not teach the same thing?

>Jesus is re****ted as describing the final days in terms similar to
>those in Revelation - but not identical. But Jesus' stops before the
>story reaches Paradise.

True. But that is no grounds for supposing that the two descriptions
might differ.

>What do people here think Jesus said about either of these subjects? I
>mean the living Jesus and not Paul or any other follower and not the
>Church.

You are biasing the evidence before anyone can answer you. It _is_
bias to exclude all these other sources of evidence, since we rely on
them all to _get_ the words of "the living Jesus".

>If you want to quote the Gospel of Thomas feel free. I don't
>think it adds much.

True. It does not. It is an obvious Gnostic forgery.


-- 
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)