Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so a 1000 yr reign on this earth is false

[Scott Downey]

LOL. You are describing yourself. You are a projectionist. I will ask the question you have no answer for and let the reader decide if you have hard Scripture.

Where in Scripture teaches that Abrahams bosom is paradise?

Where does it say Christ immediately after His crucifixion death entered into heaven?
You know Christ spoke of heaven many times, so why would he not tell the thief they would be in heaven that very day?

The answer is Paradise at the time was not in heaven, it was in the depths of the earth

Paradise and Heaven were not synonymous, not the same place, yet you reject it as your doctrine won't allow such an understanding.

 

[WPM]

Eden was Paradise before the fall, then paradise after the flood becomes the place of the righteous dead for OC believers, and then Christ brings it into heaven. And in the New earth, Christ brings paradise back down to earth. God planted these gardens, so they are His creations, and they served His purposes.

The tree of life was in Eden in the beginning, and the tree of life is in Paradise at the end. Both Eden and Paradise are gardens planted by the Lord. God said Eden went down into the depths of the earth, in other words the place of the dead, the place Christ said He would be for 3 days and nights in the heart of the earth.

Revelation 2:7
“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.” ’

Ezekiel 31, referring to Pharoah-Egypt this,
15 “Thus says the Lord God: ‘In the day when it went down to [e]hell, I caused mourning. I covered the deep because of it. I restrained its rivers, and the great waters were held back. I caused Lebanon to [f]mourn for it, and all the trees of the field wilted because of it. 16 I made the nations shake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to [g]hell together with those who descend into the Pit; and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the depths of the earth. 17 They also went down to hell with it, with those slain by the sword; and those who were its strong arm dwelt in its shadows among the nations.

18 ‘To which of the trees in Eden will you then be likened in glory and greatness? Yet you shall be brought down with the trees of Eden to the depths of the earth; you shall lie in the midst of the uncircumcised, with those slain by the sword. This is Pharaoh and all his multitude,’ says the Lord God.”

And this

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

********************************

Therefore, Christ when He said He would be in Paradise, went into the heart of the earth, where Paradise was, back then 2000 years ago.

Lol. You did not prove anything. Then you built your argument upon nothing. This is getting ridiculous.

It is clear you have nothing.

 

[WPM]

Where does it say Christ immediately after His crucifixion death entered into heaven?
You know Christ spoke of heaven many times, so why would he not tell the thief they would be in heaven that very day?

The answer is Paradise at the time was not in heaven, it was in the depths of the earth

Paradise and Heaven were not synonymous, not the same place, yet you reject it as your doctrine won't allow such an understanding.

You have nothing. The reader can see that. Your evidence is all in your head, not in God's Book.

You seem to think: if you keep stating an opinion that that suddenly makes it a fact. Well, that is not the way it works.

 

[Scott Downey]

Lol. You did not prove anything. Then you built your argument upon nothing. This is getting ridiculous.

It is clear you have nothing.

You are getting tedious, anytime someone resorts to LOL, shows they are very immature, because they actually feel threatened.

 

[Davidpt]

Yes, and He specifically told him that he would be with Him in paradise that day. You seem to ignore or overlook that for some reason. Why is that?

No He didn't, and what the thief asked Him proves it, the fact Jesus did not even remotely come into His kingdom upon death----remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Jesus then answered that in the next verse via this---Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Where that can simply mean, today your faith has sealed your fate, I will indeed remember you when I come into my kingdom, you will be with me in paradise. Then it's just a matter of using Scripture with Scripture to determine the when and the where the paradise Jesus was meaning. Except some apparently don't like the idea of interpreting Scripture with Scripture when it causes conflicts with their view. Now all of a sudden it is no longer a good idea to interpret Scripture with Scripture.

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

In the Luke 23 parable, the thief said kingdom, Jesus said paradise.


Are you going to argue that what I submitted above, that none of it involves Jesus coming into His kingdom, that His kingdom and paradise are not one and the same?

It must be nice to never be wrong about anything. And if someone is wrong, it is never you, it is always the other person disagreeing with you. Every single time, apparently.


BTW, the other poster, the one that has me on ignore, is not correct, either. No way is Abraham's bosom meaning Jesus coming into His kingdom. After all, that's what the thief was wanting Jesus to remember, meaning him, when Jesus comes into His kingdom.

For the life of me, I don't know why everyone is ignoring what the thief plainly said---Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. As if that makes sense if that's supposed to mean the same day they both die, that Jesus needs to remember the thief. Obviously, then, to begin with there is a gap that follows their deaths before Jesus can be coming in His kingdom. No matter how you look at it, Jesus certainly didn't come into his kingdom the same day He died. And that Jesus was equating paradise with his kingdom.

 

[Scott Downey]

The following proves scripturally Christ was in the place of the dead, otherwise called, hades-Abraham's Bosom-paradise for 3 days and 3 nights.

Death had dominion over Christ until God raised His from the dead.

Romans 6:9
knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.

God raised Christ on the third day from the dead, so until God did that, he was in the realm of the dead, under it's dominion.

***********************************************************

Christ experienced the pain of DEATH, what Peter wrote here is not the pain of crucifixion
Christ being the Lord of Life, of course it must have been a pain to be in submission to the place of the dead, under its dominion!
This was the will of God.
However, I imagine crucifixion was more painful.

Christ was only LOOSED from the pain of death on the third day.

Acts 2
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you [f]have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having [g]loosed the [h]pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because He had to be made just like His brethren, so as to fully identify with the people of God and be their Savior.
That is why Christ had to experience fully being human and experience all that it means.

Where is this taught in scripture? How far do we take this? Why didn't He live to at least the average human life span and experience what it's like to be an old person with all the issues that tends to bring if He had to "experience being fully human"? I'd say He experienced being human plenty enough, so I don't buy this argument.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No He didn't, and what the thief asked Him proves it, the fact Jesus did not even remotely come into His kingdom upon death----remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Jesus then answered that in the next verse via this---Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Where that can simply mean, today your faith has sealed your fate, I will indeed remember you when I come into my kingdom, you will be with me in paradise. Then it's just a matter of using Scripture with Scripture to determine the when and the where the paradise Jesus was meaning. Except some apparently don't like the idea of interpreting Scripture with Scripture when it causes conflicts with their view. Now all of a sudden it is no longer a good idea to interpret Scripture with Scripture.

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

In the Luke 23 parable, the thief said kingdom, Jesus said paradise.


Are you going to argue that what I submitted above, that none of it involves Jesus coming into His kingdom, that His kingdom and paradise are not one and the same?

It must be nice to never be wrong about anything. And if someone is wrong, it is never you, it is always the other person disagreeing with you. Every single time, apparently.

Who is the one who likes to claim that no one can reasonably argue with his claims? Not me. I never say that. But, you do fairly often. So, stop being a hypocrite.

I have changed my view on at least a couple things fairly recently, so you are wrong about me. I have studied scripture for a long time, so shouldn't we get to a point where we're not constantly changing our views at some point? I never claimed to have all the answers.

One view I changed not long ago was my understanding of Daniel 9:26. I had previously thought "the prince to come" was talking about Titus or some Roman leader, but I was convinced by covenantee's argument that it's referring to the same prince as the previous verse, which is Messiah the Prince.

Another view I changed not long ago was of who Revelation 10:1-3 is referring to. I thought it was some powerful angel before, but WPM convinced me that it's talking about Jesus.

So, don't tell me that I claim to never be wrong about anything. I have just studied these things for a long time and have settled on firm conclusions about a lot of these things we talk about. What is wrong with that? It doesn't mean I'm not open to correction if a convincing argument comes around. I don't find most of your arguments to be convincing. Why can't you just accept that instead of whining about it?

 

[WPM]

You are getting tedious, anytime someone resorts to LOL, shows they are very immature, because they actually feel threatened.

Lol. There is nothing that you're doing that makes me feel threatened. I'm just waiting for you to answer a simple question, which you are avoiding.

 

[WPM]

The following proves scripturally Christ was in the place of the dead, otherwise called, hades-Abraham's Bosom-paradise for 3 days and 3 nights.

Death had dominion over Christ until God raised His from the dead.

Romans 6:9
knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.

God raised Christ on the third day from the dead, so until God did that, he was in the realm of the dead, under it's dominion.

***********************************************************

Christ experienced the pain of DEATH, what Peter wrote here is not the pain of crucifixion
Christ being the Lord of Life, of course it must have been a pain to be in submission to the place of the dead, under its dominion!
This was the will of God.
However, I imagine crucifixion was more painful.

Christ was only LOOSED from the pain of death on the third day.

Acts 2
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you [f]have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having [g]loosed the [h]pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

Where in Scripture teaches that Abrahams bosom is paradise?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The following proves scripturally Christ was in the place of the dead, otherwise called, hades-Abraham's Bosom-paradise for 3 days and 3 nights.

Death had dominion over Christ until God raised His from the dead.

Romans 6:9
knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.

God raised Christ on the third day from the dead, so until God did that, he was in the realm of the dead, under it's dominion.

***********************************************************

Christ experienced the pain of DEATH, what Peter wrote here is not the pain of crucifixion
Christ being the Lord of Life, of course it must have been a pain to be in submission to the place of the dead, under its dominion!
This was the will of God.
However, I imagine crucifixion was more painful.

Christ was only LOOSED from the pain of death on the third day.

Acts 2
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you [f]have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having [g]loosed the [h]pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

Was His spirit raised from the dead or His body? That's only talking about His body. I don't know why you don't want to differentiate between His body and His spirit.

 

[WPM]

Who is the one who likes to claim that no one can reasonably argue with his claims? Not me. I never say that. But, you do fairly often. So, stop being a hypocrite.

I have changed my view on at least a couple things fairly recently, so you are wrong about me. I have studied scripture for a long time, so shouldn't we get to a point where we're not constantly changing our views at some point? I never claimed to have all the answers.

One view I changed not long ago was my understanding of Daniel 9:26. I had previously thought "the prince to come" was talking about Titus or some Roman leader, but I was convinced by covanentee's argument that it's referring to the same prince as the previous verse, which is Messiah the Prince.

Another view I changed not long ago was of who Revelation 10:1-3 is referring to. I thought it was some powerful angel before, but WPM convinced me that it's talking about Jesus.

So, don't tell me that I claim to never be wrong about anything. I have just studied these things for a long time and have settled on firm conclusions about a lot of these things we talk about. What is wrong with that? It doesn't mean I'm not open to correction if a convincing argument comes around. I don't find most of your arguments to be convincing. Why can't you just accept that instead of whining about it?

All we need now is for you to abandon Arminianism. Lol.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

All we need now is for you to abandon Arminianism. Lol.

Keep dreaming. That will never happen. I am predestined to be an Arminian. LOL.

I don't entirely agree with Arminianism, but I guess it's the label that most closely fits what I believe.

 

[CadyandZoe]

He was quoting David back in his day.

Jesus explicitly says that he didn't ascend. That fact is our starting point.
David writes about his joy in light of his belief that God will not abandon his soul to Hades.
Peter asserts that David's message in Psalm 16 carries messianic significance.

What did David mean? The answer depends on what David meant by "soul." Many Christians mistakenly believe that the "soul" is the third part of a tripartite consisting of body, soul, and spirit. But the term "soul" refers not just to the inner self but also to the entire person, including emotions, desires, and occupation.

In Psalm 16, David uses the term "soul" to express his deep trust in God. He acknowledges that his physical and spiritual well—being depends entirely on God’s presence and protection. In verse 10, he says, "For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption." This reflects his confidence that God will not forsake him, even in death.

David’s use of "soul" here is not just about his inner self but also about his entire being—his emotions, desires, and destiny. He finds joy and security in God, knowing that his life is in divine hands. This psalm also carries messianic significance, as it is later referenced in the New Testament regarding Jesus’ resurrection.

He was showing that Christ was the first resurrection.

Peter’s comments regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ do not provide any specific references to the order or timing of this event in relation to other occurrences of resurrection mentioned in scripture. In contrast, the Apostle Paul presents a more structured perspective on the resurrection of Jesus. He describes it as the "firstfruits" of those who have died in faith, implying that Jesus' resurrection is a precursor and a promise of what is to come. This analogy of "firstfruits" indicates that just as the initial harvest signals the rest to follow, so too does Christ’s resurrection herald the future resurrection of all who belong to him. Paul emphasizes that those who are Christ's will be raised to life at his second coming, reinforcing the hope of eternal life for believers. This distinction highlights not only the significance of Jesus’ resurrection but also foreshadows the resurrection that awaits all members of the faithful community.

In 1 Corinthians 15:20-26, Paul emphasizes the resurrection of Christ as the foundation of Christian hope. He declares that Jesus is the firstfruits of those who have died, meaning His resurrection guarantees the future resurrection of believers. Paul contrasts Adam, through whom death entered the world, with Christ, through whom life is restored.

He explains that Christ will reign until He has defeated all opposing forces, including death itself, which is the final enemy to be destroyed. Ultimately, Jesus will hand over the kingdom to God the Father, completing His mission of redemption.

You do not even believe that. You believe the first resurrection is yet future. That is how absurd Premillennialism is.

Revelation 20:4-6 describes the millennial reign of Christ and the resurrection of the faithful. John sees thrones, and those seated on them are given authority to judge. He also sees the souls of martyrs—those who were beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for refusing to worship the beast. These individuals are resurrected and reign with Christ for a thousand years.

This passage introduces the first resurrection, which is for the righteous. Those who partake in it are blessed and holy, and the second death (eternal separation from God) has no power over them. Instead, they serve as priests of God and Christ, reigning alongside Him.

This vision highlights the victory of the faithful and the justice of God, ensuring that those who remained steadfast in their faith will share in Christ’s reign.

Paul and John use different terms—"firstfruits" and "first resurrection"—to highlight distinct aspects of resurrection in God's redemptive plan.

• Paul's "firstfruits" (1 Corinthians 15:20-23): Paul describes Jesus' resurrection as the firstfruits because it is the first and foundational resurrection that guarantees the future resurrection of believers. The term "firstfruits" comes from Old Testament agricultural imagery, where the first portion of a harvest was offered to God as a sign of the full harvest to come. In the same way, Jesus' resurrection is the initial proof that all who belong to Him will also be raised.

• John's "first resurrection" (Revelation 20:4-6): John refers to the first resurrection as the resurrection of the faithful—those who reign with Christ during the millennial kingdom. This resurrection is distinct from the second resurrection, which involves judgment for the unbelieving. The "first resurrection" is a reward for the righteous, ensuring they will not face the "second death" (eternal separation from God).

In essence, Paul focuses on Christ as the beginning of resurrection for all believers, while John emphasizes the resurrection of the faithful as a distinct event in the end-times sequence. Both perspectives affirm the certainty of resurrection but highlight different stages in God's plan.

Paul taught: absent from the body, present with the Lord. Don't try and twist his words. The physical body does not arise until the second coming.

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that the soul exists apart from the physical body.

Paul’s comparison in 2 Corinthians 5:6-10 has two distinct aspects:

1. The quality of the body – Paul contrasts the earthly body, which is temporary and subject to weakness, with the glorified body believers will receive. He describes the earthly body as a tent, emphasizing its fragile and transient nature, while the future body is a building from God, eternal and secure.

2. The location with the Lord – Paul also speaks of being "at home in the body" versus being "away from the Lord." This suggests that while believers live in their earthly bodies, they are not yet in the full presence of God. However, when they leave their earthly bodies, they will be present with the Lord, experiencing a deeper communion with Him.

Paul’s dual comparison in 2 Corinthians 5:6-10—between the quality of the body and location with the Lord—raises an interesting theological question when considered alongside the idea that the transformation of the faithful occurs at the Lord’s return.

Paul speaks of being "away from the body and at home with the Lord," which might seem to imply an immediate presence with God upon death. However, in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, he describes the transformation of believers as occurring at the second coming of Christ, when the perishable body is clothed with the imperishable. This suggests that the full bodily transformation happens at the resurrection, not at the moment of death.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Exactly. I'll never understand why some people do not differentiate between the body and the soul (and spirit).

Jesus didn't make the distinction.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus didn't make the distinction.

Yes, He did.

Luke 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hello! Physically!

From an exegetical standpoint, John 20:17 presents Jesus telling Mary Magdalene, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father." The Greek word for "ascended" (ἀναβαίνω, anabainō) is used elsewhere in Scripture to describe physical movement upward, including Jesus' later ascension in Acts 1:9. The immediate context does not explicitly distinguish between a spiritual and bodily ascension, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was referring to his final, visible ascension rather than a spiritual return to the Father.

If Jesus was referring to his ascension in Acts 1:9 when he spoke to Mary Magdalene in John 20:17, her response becomes significant in understanding the transition between his resurrection and ascension.

Mary’s immediate reaction was one of joy and attachment—she clung to Jesus, possibly out of relief and love, wanting to hold onto him now that he was alive again. However, Jesus told her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.” This suggests that his mission was still ongoing, and his physical presence was temporary. Instead of holding onto him, Jesus instructed Mary to **go and tell** his disciples about his resurrection, making her the first messenger of this news.

If we connect this to Acts 1:9, where Jesus ascends visibly in front of his disciples, it reinforces the idea that his resurrection was not the final stage of his mission. His ascension marked the completion of his earthly presence and the beginning of his reign at the right hand of the Father. Mary’s response—her desire to cling to Jesus—could symbolize the human tendency to hold onto the familiar, while Jesus was preparing his followers for a new way of relating to him through the Holy Spirit.

 

[amigo de christo]

You can imagine what it would be like, can't you? God tells the nation of Israel that they will be taken captive into other nations. Can you imagine what it would mean if an uncle, aunt, grandparent, best friend, or favorite teacher was lost among the captives. Would they ever be seen again?

The grain represents the citizens of Israel living at the time when the exile takes place.

Imagine how harsh it was for those who under the old covenant
were put to the sword , to famine , to destruction .
Imagine how rough it would have seemed
to have to by the law with two or more witnesses put even a family member to death .
THEN KNOW THIS .
HOW MUCH SORER a punishment awaits THOSE WHO TROD JESUS Under foot .
IF we think SODOM had it bad , IF we think even the jews had it bad when they rebelled .
GOOD HEAVENS what is gonna happen to the soul who denies JESUS is the CHRIST .
LETS KEEP that in mind the next time satans men try and convince us all other religions are okay
and do serve GOD , lets just all lovey do and be one.
BECAUSE its bad enough to DENY JESUS IS THE CHRIST . OH dear that is horrible .
BUT greatest damnation awaits all WHO USED HIS NAME to PROMOTE anti christ false love lie .
Hows that for a friendly reminder that intefaith is of anti christ and LIGHT has no business trying to find common ground
WITH darkness . HOPE that helps put it into perspective . cause many even within Christendom
now are co helpers to that which is of anti christ . AND that is a double woe wail to them , for they used his name
to PROMOTE THE LIE that DENIED HIM .

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, He did.

Luke 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

I wasn't saying that Jesus never distinguished between body, soul, and spirit—he did. I was saying that Jesus did not raise the distinction during his encounter with Mary.

But you raised an interesting point in your comparison between Luke 23:46 and Matthew 10:28. Both verses affirm a distinction between the body and a person's non-physical aspect (spirit/soul), showing that physical death is not the final reality.

Would you like to say why Jesus used "spirit" instead of "soul"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I wasn't saying that Jesus never distinguished between body, soul, and spirit—he did. I was saying that Jesus did not raise the distinction during his encounter with Mary.

What relevance does that have to the discussion?

But you raised an interesting point in your comparison between Luke 23:46 and Matthew 10:28. Both verses affirm a distinction between the body and a person's non-physical aspect (spirit/soul), showing that physical death is not the final reality.

You were not already aware of this?

Would you like to say why Jesus used "spirit" instead of "soul"?

We can only speculate on that, of course.

The following verse suggests that the soul and spirit are separate parts, but joined together and practically inseparable.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

So, maybe in His mind, it went without saying that by committing His spirit to the Father He was also committing His soul.