Righteousness in Christ

Originally posted by DeepThought
I've read this miserable thread twice, I can find no scriptural basis quoted here for that assertion, so in what part of the Bible does it say that Abraham lives in God's memory?

As far as i am aware it does not use that exact wording, 'in gods memory', but that 'they are living to him', meaning of course that they will be resurrected at some point on the future. This is clear from the context where Christ is being questioned by the Sadducees on the matter of the resurrection, for which they did not profess a belief.

But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ?' He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” - Matthew 22

For the person of discernment it becomes rather clear that such an inference can be derived directly from scripture, after all if God is to resurrect anyone then surely he must be first of all able to recall who they were in every single detail down to the last molecule, don't you think? Otherwise you will need to explain how God will in fact reconstruct (resurrect) anyone if he fails to remember them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As far as i am aware it does not use that exact wording, 'in gods memory', but that 'they are living to him', meaning of course that they will be resurrected at some point on the future.

So why didn't you just admit that in the first place instead of trying to bullishly and dishonestly defend roigam's error by making out that "scriptural evidence has already been provided"?

Originally posted by divegeester
So why didn't you just admit that in the first place instead of trying to bullishly and dishonestly defend roigam's error by making out that "scriptural evidence has already been provided"?

uninterested in your petty disputes, uninterested in your dishonest and lying propaganda, infact you could say I am uninterested in almost anything you have to say. The scriptural references were there, that you infact failed to discern what they were is your affair, not mine. Perhaps if you knew your Bible better it would not be such a battle against ignorance.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I've read this miserable thread twice, I can find no scriptural basis quoted here for that assertion, so in what part of the Bible does it say that Abraham lives in God's memory?

There is a rather clear and unequivocal reference to the resurrection and being in Gods memory, so I am wrong that its merely inferred, it is in fact explicitly stated in scripture.

If only you would hide me in the grave
and conceal me till your anger has passed!
If only you would set me a time
and then remember me! - Job 14

A clear and explicit reference to the resurrection where Job beseeches God to remember him and to resurrect him at some point (unspecified) in the future. Difficult to do if Job was not 'in Gods memory.'

Originally posted by OdBod
I agree, and if it works for you fine. But I think the historical trend is in favor of probability when validating suppositions (it certainly is for me). This requires evidence, scientific data increases all the time, religious information does not.

I do not dispute that science and religious faith are different; however, that
said, when you buy into something you cannot prove, or make claims you
have proven (in your mind)something based upon evidence, you are putting
your faith into the data you have, and that those that have presented it
have done it while giving you truthful and honest information. If they got
anything wrong, if they look at the evidence and make claims that do not
reflect reality, you have put your faith in something that is well wrong.
That can happen while you are looking at "scientific data" the more it
"increases" the greater the odds are that errors could be in places you fail
to see. What you accept as true you do on faith in the scientific world you
choose to believe in.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
uninterested in your petty disputes, uninterested in your dishonest and lying propaganda, infact you could say I am uninterested in almost anything you have to say.

I, on the other hand, take high interest in what you and the other members of your cult say. You would be wise to stop allowing your emotions to constantly cloud your judgement.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The scriptural references were there, that you infact failed to discern what they were is your affair, not mine. Perhaps if you knew your Bible better it would not be such a battle against ignorance.

But you've already admitted that roigam's claim that Christians are "kept alive in Jehovah's memory" is not found in scripture; and yet you are repeatedly claiming that the scriptural evidences to support his claim are in this thread, when neither myself nor DeepThought have been able to find them.

did i mention that I was uninterested, yeah I think i did.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
did i mention that I was uninterested, yeah I think i did.

But it is you who are making the claims robbie, simply saying that suddenly you are uninterested when someone challenges you is poor forum etiquette.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is a rather clear and unequivocal reference to the resurrection and being in Gods memory, so I am wrong that its merely inferred, it is in fact explicitly stated in scripture.

If only you would hide me in the grave
and conceal me till your anger has passed!
If only you would set me a time
and then remember me! - Job 14

A clear and expl ...[text shortened]... him at some point (unspecified) in the future. Difficult to do if Job was not 'in Gods memory.'

There are two possible meanings the word "remember" could have in that. One is in the sense you are reading it. Remember all details about an individual so as to be able to perfectly reconstruct them, which would be entailed by omniscience. The other possible meaning is remember in the sense of "include in the list of people to be resurrected", which wouldn't stop Job's soul from existing, it would just mean he'd continue to be disembodied. So I don't think you can automatically infer statements about the nature of souls from it.

Originally posted by divegeester
But it is you who are making the claims robbie, simply saying that suddenly you are uninterested when someone challenges you is poor forum etiquette.

I am still uninterested in your petty disputes, claims of dishonesty or anything else you have to say. Someone else might be interested in what you have to say, I'm not.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There are two possible meanings the word "remember" could have in that. One is in the sense you are reading it. Remember all details about an individual so as to be able to perfectly reconstruct them, which would be entailed by omniscience. The other possible meaning is remember in the sense of "include in the list of people to be resurrected", which ...[text shortened]... ied. So I don't think you can automatically infer statements about the nature of souls from it.

there is no mention in the verse either of a soul. what is more what would be the point of resurrecting Job if he did not die, that some part of his being transcended death, it simply makes no logical sense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am still uninterested in your petty disputes, claims of dishonesty or anything else you have to say. Someone else might be interested in what you have to say, I'm not.

Robbie this is a debating forum and I am trying to debate you by disagreeing with you. Pouting into the corner is no way to defend your position.

Originally posted by divegeester
Robbie this is a debating forum and I am trying to debate you by disagreeing with you. Pouting into the corner is no way to defend your position.

then debate with someone that is interested in what you have to say, that would not be me, I am not interested in anything you have to say. Sorry, maybe someone else is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is no mention in the verse either of a soul. what is more what would be the point of resurrecting Job if he did not die, that some part of his being transcended death, it simply makes no logical sense.

He'd have a body.