Christian

Greetings to you Willow99, We need to put this in context so we might shed the proper light on the verses in question. In this unfolding scene at Pentescost (Acts2:1-41), Peter courageously begins defending those who had just received the Holy Spirit and were speaking in tongues (every man there, no matter where they were from heard them speak in his own language). He confronts the skeptical onlookers who were mocking them and accusing them of being drunk, explaining that this was instead the proof of both the fulfilling of the scripture, and the fruit of Christ's resurrection and ascension. As these men, assumed to be the scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests of the local area, stand mocking them, Peter begins his recitations of Old Testament scripture pointing to this very moment. (It is important to note here that those whom he is confronting do not believe Christ was the Messiah, or that He has been resurrected and ascended). In Acts 2:17 Peter begins this by quoting Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And then he goes on to start referencing the Psalms of David, the very patriarch whom these men revere highly. His reasoning is to show them that David himself was speaking of Christ in these verses. In Acts 2:29 Peter establishes that indeed David has not risen (*see also note below) Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Nobody ever pretended that David had risen, and so therefore he could not be speaking of himself in Psalm 16:10, that he should not see corruption; because obviously he(David)did see corruption. Psalm 16:10, For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. All of Israel believed that the Messiah was to be the Son of David, that is, by David's "human" nature. But according to the Spirit and by his "divine" nature, he was in actuality to be David's Lord, not his son. God had sworn to David that the Messiah that was promised to his fathers, would be His "Son" and successor, which David kept in view always while penning his psalms. And so only by prophetic, Holy inspiration could David have written what he did, and so since he was not speaking of himself, he was speaking about Jesus. Thus, when Peter arrives at Acts 2:34 he has established this fact that it was indeed Jesus that was being prophecied and spoken about, by the fulfillment of the very Psalm verses he was quoting. 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, In conclusion, by what scripture tells us we have no verse "proof" that David is indeed in heaven. And the "Lord said unto my Lord" spoken of in this verse is God speaking to Jesus. Hope that helps, Blessings to you my dear sister in Christ, His faithful servant, Christian (*Side note from above: Paul used this same position in speaking to those in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia Acts 13:14-37, verses 35-37 making this same point for him) Acts 13:35-37 (35) Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (36) For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: (37) But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Greetings to you Brother Dennis, Interesting observation, and I think I agree with your reasoning. Had the word o-lawm', o-lawm' (H5769) been used it may have implied a more "eternal" punishment I guess? I'm not sure that I'd agree that "eternity has no time", I'd be more prone to saying that eternity would be an "endless time" or "endless period of time". But that is a physics conversation that we should not enter into because we can only theorize at best on it's truth. I'd disagree with you here too brother, but more on just the viewpoint of your wording. I believe there was "time" before sin as the Creation accounts in Genesis clearly give us "night and day" divisions, which we carry over to construe 24 hour periods. Without this structure our "6 day creation" is nullified. I'd be more comfortable saying "before sin there was an endless life laid before man, an eternity for him to live. So if we are not to assume that there is an "eternity" of suffering for the condemned how is it that verses such as Daniel 12:2 seem to utilize a better representation of the word (H5769) for "everlasting"? Daniel 12:2(2) And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. I am going to ponder the two questions you have posed, I do not want to answer in haste (if I even can). Thank you again dear brother for your responses and your company here within our discussion. May His blessings rest upon you, in Christ, Christian

Willow99, Greetings to you,and God Bless you for your honest pursuit of His truth. Your situation is not an unfamiliar one to me as I too had often found myself stuck between two (or more) very "rational" views when studying, presented by those who would claim to have the support of the Scriptures behind them. As is obvious in these situations, someone must be right and someone is wrong, if they oppose each other they cannot both be right. (This goes against what is called the "Law of Non-Contradiction" which states: It is not possible that something can be both true, and not true at the same time and in the same context.) Fortunately for us, we have the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures to guide us into all truth, apart from what "man's" opinions about their "translation" or "real meaning" might be. Quite often, things like denominational blindness, artistic license, or self proclaimed "prophet" or "instructor" status that drives these people to adamantly defend their views. Frustration with their inconsistencies is what began my quest for pure Biblical truth, and it started with pulling away from the "teachings" of others on the Bible. I then started examining of the actual words used (Strongs), their usage in context, and the background of the books in the Bible containing them. I continue to learn on a daily basis, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and maintain a non-denominational viewpoint for clarity. As you may have noticed here in our discussion format, my brothers (and sisters), and I insist on scripture backing up scripture, scripture interpreting scripture. We prefer to present scripture always,whenever possible, to illustrate our points, and just don't take the conversations off into varied speculations and theories based on conjecture. These do no one any good and usually end up causing more strife than is tolerable. So pull up a chair and open your Bible and get comfortable...it's great to have you here with us. Now regarding your statement above... As I have already told you our reasoning on Moses, and the reasons why the Scriptures seem to imply him being there (heaven). There are only two other concrete examples of someone else being there that I am aware of, and they would be Enoch, and Elijah. Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God 2 Kings 2:11 (11) And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. So judging by those scriptures I think we can safely, and correctly say that there are at least two men other than Jesus we know to be there. What do you think? Blessings to you sister, His faithful servant, Christian

Some of us here touched on that topic in another thread titled "Absent from the body". There usually seems to be a dogmatic/denominational split on the subject which leads most away from solid, unquestionable, Scriptural examples of the event, and they end up using "speculation" as doctrine instead. What my brother Dennis and I agreed upon was that two Scriptural verse connections might corroborate the viewpoint, for some being taken, not all...we can't say unequivocally. First; Matthew 27:52-53 (52) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, (53) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. (*Notice it say's "many" bodies of the saints, not "all" here.) And...... Since Jesus was seen talking with Moses in; Luke 9:30-32 (30) And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: (31) Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. (32) But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. Matthew 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Mark 9:4And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus We were only truly comfortable saying for certain that we believe Moses was taken with Christ in this first resurrection. We have just been arriving at that very point in this thread. You might read through Pilgrim7 and my past few posts to catch up to where we are on this. God Bless Willow99, His faithful servant, Christan

Greetings Brother Dennis, Blessings to you and thank you for your kind words. I too enjoy our discussions immensely, and hope you know that I think we are more in agreement about our discussions than you realize. My responses, questioning or not, are usually more a method of burning away the overgrowth of weeds(opinions) created by years of other's conjecture, allowing the neglected Truth beneath them to be exposed. My hope and purpose being twofold in that others who read on may finally see these revealed truth's, so simple and beautiful, as they were meant to be; and also that in the process, as you have said, that if my understanding of something is wrong, that the revealed scriptural truth may correct me. I have had clarity given to me on a few things so far in our interactions, I could only hope the same could happen for others. You and I stand firm on scripture explaining scripture brother, and our eagerness to share with each other, and humble stance in doing so is a true blessing I am so very thankful for. Though I can see the desire to equate Gehenna with the Lake of Fire, I do not believe this to be the case. Clearly the Lake of Fire we are speaking of in Revelation is derived not from Strongs 1067, but from Strongs 3041 and 4442... G3041 Thayer Definition: 1) a lake Part of Speech: noun feminine G4442 Thayer Definition: 1) fire Part of Speech: noun neuter If all these references were to "harmonize", as you are fond of saying, I see no point why the same 1067 "Gehenna" reference would not have been used in places like; Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:14-15 (14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (15) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Though I do understand your intention with Luke 16 and Matthew 10:28, neither of these clearly speak of a "lake" of fire, and only one of the two (Matthew 10:28) implies the"gehenna" of fire. Besides this, in reference to the rich man in Luke 16:23, the usage of "hell" utilizes Strongs #86 G86 Thayer Definition: 1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions 2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead 3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell Part of Speech: noun proper locative Though it does state in that verse that the rich man is in "torments" (G931), this also does not clearly state this to be a "Lake of Fire". Then how do we explain this? Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. May His blessings rest upon you dear Brother, Peace to you, Your brother in Christ, Christian

Greeting Brother Dennis, Was away yesterday, just catching up now... I have this same understanding, and as I've said before, that nothing that I have read ever leads me to believe that we in "glorified" form would be living side by side with corrupt, corporeal mankind here on earth. I was only using "translated" as a term of description since we are never exactly told what form these "resurrected" individuals would be in. Since the dust of the graves will not be rising in a cloud, I can only assume that they will be rising "translated"... of course not "glorified", but translated in some way post death, since I don't believe the flesh and blood life will be coming back to them. Two things here brother 1) There is no reference to the Lake of Fire you speak of in Luke 16. 2) It seems strange to me that this place of eternal torment would be here on the "new earth with the new heaven", but I guess we are not told of the exact location/proximity of this place in relation to the New Jerusalem? In other words, I don't get the impression that the Lake of Fire is "a place that the saved will be able to go hang out and watch the lost burn on nights they have nothing better to do". (mild sarcasm intended ) Look forward to your thoughts brother, Hope you are well, Have a blessed day, Your brother in Christ, Christian

Greeting Brother Dennis, First of all let me tell you that you have not failed in any way regarding our study, as you stated you felt you had in your previous post. To the contrary, your humble nature, lack of ego, precise statements, and adherence to Holy Scripture makes your input as honest as one could ask for. I appreciate you not taking offense to my request for brevity, but it does really help keep my thoughts on point. As difficult as some of the subject matter we discuss is, it's good to digest small morsels at a time so they can be savored slowly, and concentrated upon. Lengthy posts only serve to scatter the thinking sometimes, as it tends to introduce peripheral information that the mind is also very eager to address. I do believe the Holy Spirit to be the primary instructor, but also believe that the Lord may use other sincere brothers and sisters at times to speak to us through, because they can convey things to us in a certain way...that's just my humble opinion. Yes! No one left on earth to reign over. I tend to gravitate towards this outlook also for two reasons. 1)I could never wrap my head around the concept of Jesus, and us in our glorified bodies, living side by side with a filthy, corrupt corporeal mankind. 2) Every account I know of in scripture speaking of His return tells of what seems like the utter destruction of the earth and it's inhabitants that comes with it. Yes! Jesus takes His bride to the feast to present her to His Father, and carry her into the Bridal chamber He has prepared. This again for me squares more with scripture as I am not an adherent of the "secret" or "pre-tribulation" rapture cults. It makes no sense to me to have this feast without all of those who looked to Christ for salvation and accepted Him as Lord and Savior... all the way through till the end of the age (post tribulation). How could anyone think that those saved during the horrors of the tribulation would have any less value or less of a place next to Christ at the Wedding. Yes! Luke 17, states on the same day. I have posed this question previously in this thread in regard to "who would be left to reign over" if all scriptures referring to His return seem to imply the earth being laid bare. But it went unaddressed. For the record though, I do agree with you They would be all those who are raised, all the lost, in the 2nd Resurrection.... In the four quarters of the earth I believe means all those who dwell in the earth, who are buried in the earth. They are raised for Judgment and think that they can still fight God. One thing that intrigues me about this moment we speak of here is the next verse Revelation 20:9 (9) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city:..... If indeed we are have been at the Wedding, and are currently "residing" in the mansions of our Father at this time, the "camp of the saints" and the "beloved city" would be in heaven. Those "encompassing" it would have to have the ability to "approach/attack" it (Satan, fallen angels, the translated dead not in Christ?), unless it is just being spoken of figuratively. This remnant of "anti-christians" could certainly give some credence to a vast number of unsaved souls being here to be "gathered" for battle, particularly when the "nations" spoken of are merely to reflect a "non-Jewish, pagan people". Well I should heed my own request for brevity as my inclusion of previous quotes has made this appear a bit lengthy I realize. May His peace rest upon you dear brother, and thank you for your continued presence here His faithful servant, Christian

I will answer your question about strict adherance to the Muslim faith. I do believe that Muslims would let one of their own be deceitful in pretending to be Christian in order to be elected President of the United States. These people blow themselves up for their false god, along with innocent people. If they can do that, why not pretend to have a conversion to gain power? As to being sworn in on the Koran, if that is true, it speaks volumes. No Christian would do that. When it comes to him being a Christian brother, no Christian would support partial birth abortion. If I as a Christian were to take the position it is ok to stick a needle in the head of a new born baby and suck it's brains out, and even vote for it, wouldn't that kind of make it obvious I was a Christian in name only? Barak Hussein Obama voted to allow that to be done to a child one day before it would be born, so likewise, it says a lot about his so-called Christianity.

Butero and forrestkc, A few questions and thoughts for you... 1) If Barak Hussein Obama were a Catholic, who then converted to Islam in a Wahabi school, would he not be killed by those very radical Muslims who insist that none should profess Christ as Lord, for his professing Christ now in his "Church of Christ" attendance. It may be a facade, but it's still a public declaration that the radical Muslims would be infuriated over. 2) Or do you assume that he can be some sort of "hybrid" that is opportunistic in the sense that his advantageous positioning in government outweighs the strict adherence to Islam required by their "religion"? And that radicals would overlook this contradiction given that fact? Seems like this would create a double standard which I'm not sure they are known for? 3) I find Snopes no better or worse than any news media source. Though I would agree that a chain email might not be the best source of info, I don't find a Snopes article to be any more enlightening given a writers slant. Facts are facts, they can be found out, they don't need to be rumored. 4) Judgement of Barak Hussein Obama's Christian "worth" is not our place. The fact that he was sworn in on a Koran should say something to those who are curious though. Given the erasing of God from all angles and directions in the U.S. these days, my concern would be more over the possible ease with which he, as President, might finish that job of eliminating the remnant of God in Christ from all public contact and exposure. For the record, I will never vote a Muslim into the office of the Presidency, merely because I think a man of God (the real One) needs to be in that position. Barak Hussein Obama's positions on the issues should also guide a Christian in his reasoning on selecting him or not. But then again when have religion and "politics" ever made sense together? Blessings to you both, Christian

Greetings Brother Dennis, Your responses raise a few questions for me. As you've already supplied the scriptures in your post relevant to my curiousity, I've asked for just "yes" or "no" answers merely so that I can keep the query concise, and on point. Of course there is wiggle room if you should like to elaborate briefly on your response/reason. Question#1(YES or NO) Do you believe the moment you are speaking of above to be that which is spoken of in 1Thessalonians 4:16-17? (16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (17) Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Question#2(YES or NO) Do you consider this to be the same moment spoken of in Matthew 24:30-31 (30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Question#3(YES or NO) If this is the moment being spoken of in 1Thessalonians 4:16-17, you believe that we return to heaven with Christ, and not that He returns to earth here to begin His 1000 year reign? Question#4(YES or NO) You believe this assembly in heaven that occurs right after 1Thessalonians 4:16-17, to be the Wedding Feast that Christ spoke of? Question#5(YES or NO) You're saying that all those in Christ (alive and dead) are taken to heaven, and the remaining civilization/mankind of Earth is wiped out completely? Question#6 If your answer to #5 is yes, than who is spoken of as being gathered in Revelation 20:8? (8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. (If your answer to #6 was no, than there is no need to elaborate) Blessings and much agape love to you my brother, His faithful servant, Christian

mathqueen, please accept my apologies as I am only now coming back on (11:10 p.m West Coast time), and seeing your question. I had to run and cook din-din, and after a long night of domestics I'm only now sitting back down. In answer to your question, I would vote for a Judeo/Christian candidate over anyone else running that wasn't. I believe that many, if not most of the problems in this country point back to the departure from God and Christ being the forefront of our thinking... not "mammon". Thinking that "we" can get it done without "Him" is not only absurd but borders on blasphemous. I have "faith" that if the candidate were a true Christian, even if he were a boob, that God would be looking over His shoulder enough to keep things right. Christian or not, I think we know that it's not the President alone who would be sinking this country, so I'd rather take my chances with a man of God at the helm. Our nation was founded on Christian values and concepts, and was blessed by God for it, but that is far from the case these days and the repercussions are becoming more and more obvious the farther the people of this country distance themselves from Him. Please do not get me wrong, I am a very proud, patriotic American, and I LOVE my country, but I grow weary of special interests and the ACLU that's running it. It has been a long time since I have seen any candidate with "great" leadership skills, and even longer since I have seen a campaign that's not a marketing and sales seminar. Republican and Democratic Party lines have become blurred and in turn, created the new "Business Party", of which, for enough money all candidiates will sway their "heartfelt" positions "just enough" to convince the gullible that they are sincere. I'm tired of being lied to, I'm tired of campaign slogans and plans without solid solutions (I agree nebula ) , and I'm tired of the carniverous back-biting of people attacking any President who takes office now, even when they have voted for him. It is sad that it has come to the "who discourages me the least" mentality that so many feel now when we arrive at presidential elections. That being the case, yes, I will vote for a man of God first, and pray that he will have God's blessing upon Him to run this country. Blessings to you, His faithful servant, Christian

As a Christian I cannot vote for anyone who adheres to the views that Mormons hold regarding Jesus. Talk about "denying Christ", man, just do the homework if you're not aware of the breakdown of their "religion". One of these being that they do not believe that Christ's death upon the cross provided full atonement for all sin. This is one of the many abominations they defend. I'm sorry, but I cant in good concience vote for someone who holds this view simply because he has a good fiscal plan, or better immigration outlook.

Yes I could. How about someone who was pro-abortion?

It is a difficult process, and painful to be dragged through all the "problems" each time a Presidential election rolls around. It truly seems to the common person that the issues that affect us most directly are never resolved, regardless of what they promise to implement. There is always someone else for them to blame for not following through on their campaign promises, and in the end, all the same things still lay heavily upon us. Having spent a few decades in the music and entertainment industry I know the act of "selling" a package, and they are all up to their necks in this process. These candidates have become astute businessmen, with vasillating priorities, and nothing we do will really change the direction of this process. All we can do is vote our concience, and endure the results of big money workin' it. Out of curiousity, could you vote for a Mormon, regardless of his stances, knowing the truth about the Mormon "faith"?

Learn the issues, as a Christian voting it is imperative to know their positions Link: Candidates positions simplified

As long as their "legal" and pay taxes I don't care what language they speak

*bump* for Pilgrim7

The earliest reference to any "book", other than the mention of "the book of the generations of Adam" mentioned in Genesis 5:1, begins with the "Book of the Covenenant" written of in Exodus 24:4-7. But... The first reference to a book which God possesses seems to be in Exodus 32:32-33 Here Moses is pleading to Jehovah on behalf of the Jews (notice the bolds below) Exodus 32:32-33 (32) Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin - ; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. (33) And Jehovah said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. I'm not sure if we are made privy to the actual "description" of the other books, other than the "Book of Life"? in Christ, Christian

Hello my Dear Sister !!!

I believe that I got this thread off in the wrong direction by adding to this original question. So I will re-start it, and bump it, so that the Massorites question at hand may be addressed... in Christ, Christian

Greetings Brother Dennis, Always a pleasure to find a response from you. It brings that same sense of joy to me that the apostles must have felt when they finally received their letters from their beloved brothers in Christ, the openings of which we are all too familiar with from our New Testament (of which I believe 2 Timothy 1:1-2 is still my favorite). The days of flowing prose are behind us I guess, but how grand it must have been to open letters with statements like "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;". Well I do hope that should we exhaust this topic that we will continue in our discourse together on others. I appreciate your approach, views, and demeanor more than you will know brother, and I've got lot's of further discussion ideas. Moving onward... I believe exactly what Jesus taught in John 11. Lazarus was dead, he was in the tomb and he was raised from the tomb. yet He referred to it as sleep for He could raise him from it. I believe that is called 'soul sleep' but it is what Jesus is clearly teaching here. There is not greater authority that Jesus. I believe that you answered one part of the question but I'm curious to know if you have a view on the other? Others in this thread have espoused scriptural support of both views, one being the "dirt nap", and the other being the temporary "communal gathering place" of souls in Christ, known by many as Paradise. I'm not asking you to "theorize" dear brother, merely if you hold to a certain position given your understanding of the scriptures. I myself believe that there are certain clues left behind in the scriptures, more than anything, merely assuring us that we are not to fear death or what is beyond it, for those in Christ will be in His care. Knowing our nature, and our propensity for tangible safety, I think He gave us just enough to keep us from worry. The rest is probably more than we can possibly fathom in our current plane of existence, and it is at those moments that I stand with you on your statement about not "speculating" on scriptures in any way. Very well put Here again I don't like to speculate on the meaning of Scripture, for my wisdom is foolishness with God, and so I don't take a position on who buried him.Nor do I necessarily, but the assignment of authority given to the "He" in this verse through capitalization is something that can make some go "Hmmmmmmmmmmmm" As is mine brother. Apologetics is not my strength, but I do feel the need to swim into the raging current of mis-instruction when necessary, to pull people back to the reality of scripture and away from man made doctrines. This is why my approach is what it is... scripture, scripture, scripture for instruction. Anything else is "opinion", and that is a reality that must be understood better by our brothers and sisters. God's blessings be with you and upon you brother, His faithful servant, Christian

Thank you EricH, I'm sorry for the oversight on my part. Christian

Greetings Brother Dennis, So your position then, if I understand you correctly, is that in death we all "sleep" the sleep of death. Only a select few (as you believe Moses) have already been resurrected, more likely than not at the event described in Matthew 27:52-53? Matthew 27:52-53 (52) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, (53) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Question: Then are you advocating what is called "soul sleep", or do you believe in a "holding place" or "garden" considered "Paradise", where concious souls await the Resurrection? My study of this verse and the origins of the word used for "awake"(G1235) reveal the same thing to me. I have heard some try to explain this encounter as a "dream", thereby rationalizing other positions they held. But this verse is clear in it's message, and cannot be misinterpreted without some use of "artistic license". So we are in agreement that they were "wide awake" during this event. I would never want to stimulate discussion that misleads anyone who might read it, just for the sake of having something to talk about. My purpose is to flush out "theories" some hold, and expose them to the light of truth via the Scriptures. In all fairness your view on the controversy over Moses' body being over his "resurrection", also has very little scriptural support. Other than the coincidence of his appearing at the meeting on the Mount we are told nowhere else, clearly, that this is what happened to Moses. It would be just as reasonable to accept that God in His infinite capability, somehow, that our finite minds cannot understand, was able to have him present there with Jesus and Elijah. It stands to reason that some ask "why only some were resurrected in Luke 9:32, and not all?", it smacks of favoritism which a just God would not promote I don't feel. So we can't say definitively that Moses was one of those spoken of in Matthew 27:52-53. To clarify: It was not that Satan wanted to build a temple, but that he wanted the body and burial place to be known by the Jews, so that given their historic tendancy to be easily led astray, they might begin some sort of "Moses worship" there eventually. This would amount to another Jewish slap in the face to God, which Satan is so fond of propagating. Also, why would he contend with Michael only over Moses, and not all the Old Testament saints, still covered in sin, being resurrected? The reason I asked was twofold: 1), in some translations the "He" is capitalized in Deuteronomy 34:6, which to me would only denote God (or Jesus). And 2), if that is the case then why else would He have handled this burial "personally", unlike any other person who ever existed before? God's blessings to you my brother, His faithful servant, Christian

For me, that statement rubs too close to what animism, and an animist might embrace. in Christ, Christian