Re: [TruthTalk] (no subject)

[Dave]

DAVEH:  Sorry to take so long getting back to this, Perry.  Seems like there is always more pressing things with which to deal. Charles Perry Locke wrote: DaveH, do you think these two verses are referring to the same thing, or to different things? How does this affect your understanding of 1 Peter 4:5,6? DAVEH:  I'm certainly not very knowledgeable about word usage, but with a cursory look at the meaning of dead in my concordance..... Dead as used in Eph 2:1........nekros as used as an adjective     Which to me indicates those who have suffered a spiritual death are made alive (quickened) by the Lord (vs 5). Dead as used in 1Pet 4:5........nekros (no description by Young's)     To me, the comment quick and dead of vs 5 is saying  that both those who are alive (the quick) and those who are dead (physically dead) will be judged. Dead as used in 1Pet 4:6........nekros......meaning  he that is dead (used as a noun, which I understand to mean physically dead).       Peter continues on the same theme, speaking of those who are really (physically) dead.     So Perry, I don't connect the dead as used in Ephesians with the dead as used by Peter.  I've referenced to non-LDS commentaries (which I think you previously have disdained, if my memory serves correctly) that consider the dead in vss 5 & 6 to be physical deaths that are related to each other and ch 3:18.   You had before mentioned a commentary you highly esteem, so I'd be interested in knowing how it views dead in these passages.  Can you give me a short accounting of their comments, please? David, the reason I did not want to take the time to search out other references that support my understanding of the 1 Peter verses is that doing so always proves to be a waste of time with you. You never ever ever concede that the scriptures one presents demonstrate their interpretation to be accurate if it contradicts your admitted "LDS bias". DAVEH:  In each case I believe I've shown Biblical evidence to support my beliefs.  So....In those cases I do not feel compelled to agree with an opinion that contradicts what I see the Bible as teaching. Dave, I still get a very strong feeling that you are on TT for a little more than just learning what Protestants believe. DAVEH:  You are correct, Perry.  I've said it before, but you seem to fail to hear the message.  I'm here for 2 main reasons.  That is one of them.  The other is to find out why Protestants believe as they do.  To simply ask what you believe rarely satisfies the second question.  I've also previously stated that I will correct statements about my belief that I feel are in error. Sorry. I just sense it very strongly. DAVEH:  So you've said before, Perry. I am praying for you, Dave. And, praying that I am responding to the real reason you are here, not your stated reason. DAVEH:  Give me a break, Perry.  Look at my previous post below.  I asked you questions about your belief, and thanked you (below in blue) for sharing it.  I didn't tell you that you were wrong in your assessment.  Nor did I hound and badger you to respond.  All I did was ask you what you believed and why, though I did ask if others shared your perspective.  Yet in your reply to me above (highlighted in red above) you have requested that I rebut (or maybe concur with) that which you've stated as your understanding.  Yes, I do disagree with you, and have given my (LDS biased) reasons why I believe your perspective is clearly wrong.  Now....does that make me guilty of preaching LDS theology here?  I'm sure you will accuse me of such, though that was not my intention.  I don't know where this is going, but hopefully the Holy Spirit does. DAVEH:  Perhaps the HS wants you to learn a contrasting perspective of what's found in the Bible, Perry.  If I am guilty of that, ask yourself who twisted my arm to reveal what I believe the Bible teaches. This situation brings to mind John 3, when Nicodemus cracks a little small talk with Jesus by saying that He must be from God because of His miracles. Jesus bypasses all of the smalltalk and goes directly to the point that Nicodemus needs to hear...to enter the kingdom of heaven one must be born again. DAVEH:  Whew......that introduces an entirely new thread of what is meant by born of water, eh!  Perry From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Charles Perry Locke wrote: DavidH, read Ephesians 2:1. Reconcile it with 1 Peter 4:5. Are they referring to the same thing, or to different things? DAVEH:  Very good, Perry.  There is some evidence to support your beliefs......Thank you for sharing it! In Peter 4:6, I believe that the 'dead' are those who are physically alive, but spiritually dead, not those who are physically dead. DAVEH:  What I have brought to this discussion is from the Bible.  Though we read the same passages, we come to dramatically different conclusions.  My curiosity is why you read some passages (like 4:6) so much differently than I do.  Read vs 5....... /Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead./ ........Do you think Peter is speaking about the /spiritually dead/, when he mentioned the /quick and the dead/?  If Peter was referring the physically dead in vs 5, then does it not follow that the dead in vs 6 are also /physically dead/?  To me, it seems that inserting /spiritually dead/ is adding to Scripture.  I am not condemning you for that, Perry......but, I would be interested to know if other TTers agree with you on that understanding......? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.