Is death just another life?

[Gary K]

I have no idea what you're even talking about!

I would sooner discuss the flavor of cheese with the half full moon than to discuss dispensationalism with you. I didn't bring up dispensationalism, COVID19 vaccines, nor miracles. I don't know. Perhaps that was a different thread. You're so all over the place, I lose track of what tidbit of lunacy was said where and when. I know how to remedy that issue.

You asked a single coherent question about Solomon and the book of Ecclesiastes and I made the mistake of thinking you were actually interested in the answer. I won't be making such a mistake again.

Good bye.

OK. You have a good day Clete.

 

[Derf]

already raised , you know standing and still referred to as dead

How else would you refer to them? If a bunch of people had disembarked from a plane, what would you call them? Wouldn't it be "passengers"? But they, having already disembarked, are no longer passengers.

What did God call Adam while he was still alive? He called him "dust", even though he wasn't dust anymore.
"

for dust thou ​

art​

,​

"

It's common to refer to someone or to a group according to a previous characteristic.

what kind of dead are they ?
I only see spiritually dead as the only thing that fits and you seem to dislike that , why ?

Because that's not the only thing that fits, as I've pointed out multiple times. Just because you are unwilling to consider it doesn't make it any less likely.

(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

And I saw all the passengers as they picked up their luggage at the carousel.

 

[Clete]

How else would you refer to them? If a bunch of people had disembarked from a plane, what would you call them? Wouldn't it be "passengers"? But they, having already disembarked, are no longer passengers.

What did God call Adam while he was still alive? He called him "dust", even though he wasn't dust anymore.
"

for dust thou

art

,​

"

It's common to refer to someone or to a group according to a previous characteristic.


Because that's not the only thing that fits, as I've pointed out multiple times. Just because you are unwilling to consider it doesn't make it any less likely.

And I saw all the passengers as they picked up their luggage at the carousel.

I can't begin to image what possible difficulty anyone could be having understanding such an intuitively clear figure of speech but nothing surprises me on this website any longer.

I've only been reading your half of this conversation, and only portions of that, so forgive me if this is ground that has already been covered but isn't death just a separation? When you're spiritually separated from God then you're spiritually dead. When your spirit separates from your physical body then you're physically dead. In neither case do you ever cease to exist, but, if the later happens before the former is remedied, you've got really big problems.

Clete

 

[Derf]

I can't begin to image what possible difficulty anyone could be having understanding such an intuitively clear figure of speech but nothing surprises me on this website any longer.

Are you saying "death" is just a figure of speech? I'll come back to that later.

I've only been reading your half of this conversation, and only portions of that, so forgive me if this is ground that has already been covered but isn't death just a separation?

No apology needed, these threads are impossible to read in entirety, and although this ground has been covered, it's the primary topic of the thread, and needs to be reiterated. So I'll try to do that.

My question for you is: Why do we need to interpret "death" as a figure of speech? Or, if I misunderstood what you were referring to as a figure of speech, why, when God defines death for us, do we need to redefine it?

Here's where God explains what death is:
[Gen 2:7 KJV] And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

and
[Gen 3:19 KJV] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

You can see these verses complement each other. The first says that man was dust before he became a living soul (he probably even looked like a man after God formed him, but before he was given life), and the difference was the breath of life God breathed into him. How, then would man become dust again? If the breath of life leaves him. There's more. God expressly cuts off access to the tree of life so that man can't "live forever".

[Gen 3:22 KJV] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

That means that God considered man to be living (not "spiritually dead"), and the tree of life would have continued that existence, not removed a separation. (There may still be room for a christian term "spiritually dead", but it has become one of those terms of christian vocabulary that makes our speech incomprehensible to unbelievers, imo.)

Notice what it doesn't say, that when the breath of life leaves him, he becomes a living soul in another location. But isn't that what "separation" means in your context? That when man is separated (in another location) from his body, then he is dead?

Can you tell me why you think "death" = "separation", in spite of the scriptures I've given?

When you're spiritually separated from God then you're spiritually dead.

Yes, this is the traditional way of looking at it, but scripture doesn't use the phrase "spiritually dead", it just says "dead". That either means that "dead" means 2 different things (spiritual separation vs body/spirit separation) and we need great discernment to tell which is being intended, or it means that the idea of "spiritual separation" is not a biblical idea. I've been considering the second option for a couple years now, and I haven't found any conflicts with biblical usage anywhere.

When your spirit separates from your physical body then you're physically dead. In neither case do you ever cease to exist, but, if the later happens before the former is remedied, you've got really big problems.

Clete

Let's apply that to a tree, or to a dog. "When a tree physically dies, then its spirit separates from its body." Does that make sense to you? How about a dog? You might argue that those things are not tripartite, so it doesn't mean the same thing, but why are we comfortable using the same word?

Here's the kicker. What was Satan's lie to Eve to deceive her? "You shall not surely die." (Gen 3:4). Satan is saying that God's word is not to be trusted. When He said "die", He didn't really mean "die". It was just a figure of speech, perhaps, for something else.

What happens if we actually use "cease to exist" when the bible says "die"? What if, every time the bible says someone was dead, it actually meant that there was no life in him, spiritually, physically, or otherwise, that the person wasn't just moved to a different location? Isn't then the resurrection even more glorious? God's power to bring someone back from non-existence is not in question here, is it, since He brought Adam out of non-existence in the first place? And though Paul talks about us being in "earthen vessels" (similar to God calling Adam "dust"), the resurrected vessel will actually come out of the grave and be our eternal body, with appropriate changes to make it everlasting.

@way2go has disagreed with my position, saying that "death" is a figure of speech for "non-death", while I've been saying, with scriptural support, that death is often used as a foregone conclusion, even while talking about living people, or, according to his most recent reference in Rev 20:12, a reference to a recently past condition (the dead were "standing before God"), just like God called Adam "dust" when he wasn't any longer just dust, because he was recently made from dust. (See Gen 3:19 above)

 

[Clete]

Are you saying "death" is just a figure of speech? I'll come back to that later.

The figure I was referring to was one's referring to people who have died physically as "the dead" even if they're resurrected or in attendence at some event in Heaven. Just like how one might refer to people as passengers even if they've already disembarked from an airplane.

No apology needed, these threads are impossible to read in entirety, and although this ground has been covered, it's the primary topic of the thread, and needs to be reiterated. So I'll try to do that.

My question for you is: Why do we need to interpret "death" as a figure of speech? Or, if I misunderstood what you were referring to as a figure of speech, why, when God defines death for us, do we need to redefine it?

I was not referring to death itself as a figure of speech so that takes care of that point.

The bible is as explicit as is needed. I have little doubt that there are aspects of life and death that will remain a mystery to us so long as we remain in our mortal flesh.

Here's where God explains what death is:
[Gen 2:7 KJV] And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

and
[Gen 3:19 KJV] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
You can see these verses complement each other. The first says that man was dust before he became a living soul (he probably even looked like a man after God formed him, but before he was given life), and the difference was the breath of life God breathed into him. How, then would man become dust again? If the breath of life leaves him.

This is essentially where I get what I said about death being a separation. In Hebrew, the word for "breath" and the word for "spirit" is the same word, thus, when God put a spirit into Adam's physical body, he was "quickened", for want of a better word.

There's more. God expressly cuts off access to the tree of life so that man can't "live forever".

[Gen 3:22 KJV] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

That means that God considered man to be living (not "spiritually dead"), and the tree of life would have continued that existence, not removed a separation. (There may still be room for a christian term "spiritually dead", but it has become one of those terms of christian vocabulary that makes our speech incomprehensible to unbelievers, imo.)

No. You are speaking of physical and spiritual death as though they are the same thing.

Just as this spiritual separation idea is biblically consistent with physical death so also is spiritual separation from God consistent with the notion of spiritual death. If Adam and Eve where not spiritually separated from the Father, there would have been no motive for Him to expel them from the Garden in the first place and preventing them from eating of the Tree of Life was God preventing them from PHYSICAL immortality in a spiritually dead state.

Notice what it doesn't say, that when the breath of life leaves him, he becomes a living soul in another location. But isn't that what "separation" means in your context? That when man is separated (in another location) from his body, then he is dead?

Not exactly. It's more of the idea of a decoupling or disconnection rather than some sort of transportation to a different location, although the two are not mutually exclusive.

Can you tell me why you think "death" = "separation", in spite of the scriptures I've given?

No I cannot tell you why I think death is a separation, IN SPITE of the scriptures you've given. It is BECAUSE of the scriptures you've given that I say its a separation. A position I thought you agreed with, by the way. What else would it be?

Yes, this is the traditional way of looking at it, but scripture doesn't use the phrase "spiritually dead", it just says "dead".

Arguments from silence are fallacious for a reason, Derf.

That either means that "dead" means 2 different things (spiritual separation vs body/spirit separation) and we need great discernment to tell which is being intended, or it means that the idea of "spiritual separation" is not a biblical idea. I've been considering the second option for a couple years now, and I haven't found any conflicts with biblical usage anywhere.

Well, except for the ones you just quoted! A body with no spirit is a dead body. And believers, we are told by God the Son Himself, "will never taste death" (John 8:52). The Jews He said that in front of freaked out because they didn't get that Jesus was not talking about physical death. It doesn't take much discernment at all to figure out that there are, therefore, different kinds of death.

Let's apply that to a tree, or to a dog. "When a tree physically dies, then its spirit separates from its body." Does that make sense to you?

False equivalence. Plants are not spiritual beings. They are entirely and only biologically alive. When that biology stops functioning they cease to exist. That's a completely different topic because even if our biology stops, we do not ever cease to exist and therefore something more than mere biology is going on. One's biology breaking down is, however, one way for your spirit to end up separated from your physical body.

How about a dog? You might argue that those things are not tripartite, so it doesn't mean the same thing, but why are we comfortable using the same word?

Dog's do seem have a soul but not a spirit (or perhaps the other way around - depending on who you ask). Dog's and many other animals have personalities and are capable of forming relationships and have some ability to make independent decisions. If this is what it means to have a soul then dog's have that but there is no eternal part of a dog that survives the stoppage of their biological processes.

Here's the kicker. What was Satan's lie to Eve to deceive her? "You shall not surely die." (Gen 3:4). Satan is saying that God's word is not to be trusted. When He said "die", He didn't really mean "die". It was just a figure of speech, perhaps, for something else.

That is just another example of the text of scripture being consistent with the ideas I've expressed. Satan was conflating physical and spiritual death.

What happens if we actually use "cease to exist" when the bible says "die"?

We would be guilty of heresy.

What if, every time the bible says someone was dead, it actually meant that there was no life in him, spiritually, physically, or otherwise, that the person wasn't just moved to a different location? Isn't then the resurrection even more glorious?

Certainly not!

Wow! You really need to slow it down here and back up. You are inches away from denying the deity of Christ and any need for His physical resurrection and probably half a dozen other doctrines that define the Christian faith. I know of NO ONE - not even one single theologian, anywhere, that believes people cease to exist at death who does not also deny the deity of Christ, His spiritual separation from the Father while on the cross as well as His physical bodily resurrection.

There's good reason there is such a tight correlation between those doctrines!

What is the profit of believing such a thing anyway? What problem does it solve to accept the idea that we cease to exist when we die?

God's power to bring someone back from non-existence is not in question here, is it, since He brought Adam out of non-existence in the first place? And though Paul talks about us being in "earthen vessels" (similar to God calling Adam "dust"), the resurrected vessel will actually come out of the grave and be our eternal body, with appropriate changes to make it everlasting.

It isn't about what God is capable of, it's about what makes sense and is consistent with scripture and with the principles of justice, righteousness and love.

Where would the need for Christ's death come into it if God simply recreates us from scratch after we die our own death? Why would Christ need to be raised from the dead if God was going to simply recreate everyone after they died their own death? Do you believe that Christ ceased to exist for three days after which time God recreated His Son from nothing? Surely not!

@way2go has disagreed with my position, saying that "death" is a figure of speech for "non-death", while I've been saying, with scriptural support, that death is often used as a foregone conclusion, even while talking about living people, or, according to his most recent reference in Rev 20:12, a reference to a recently past condition (the dead were "standing before God"), just like God called Adam "dust" when he wasn't any longer just dust, because he was recently made from dust. (See Gen 3:19 above)

Seems like a lot of unnecessary hoop jumping. It really isn't that hard to figure out whether the bible is speaking of physical vs. spiritual death.

Lazarus died a few days before Jesus arrived. He was obviously a follower and even a friend of Christ. Jesus was talking to someone when He commanded, "Lazarus, come forth!" (John 11:43) and so it seems clear that Lazarus was physically dead but still existed somewhere. That "somewhere" being "Abraham's bosom", by the way, which is very definitely a biblical term that seems wholly incompatible with the notion that we cease to exist when we die.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

The figure I was referring to was one's referring to people who have died physically as "the dead" even if they're resurrected or in attendence at some event in Heaven. Just like how one might refer to people as passengers even if they've already disembarked from an airplane.


I was not referring to death itself as a figure of speech so that takes care of that point.

The bible is as explicit as is needed. I have little doubt that there are aspects of life and death that will remain a mystery to us so long as we remain in our mortal flesh.


This is essentially where I get what I said about death being a separation. In Hebrew, the word for "breath" and the word for "spirit" is the same word, thus, when God put a spirit into Adam's physical body, he was "quickened", for want of a better word.


No. You are speaking of physical and spiritual death as though they are the same thing.

Just as this spiritual separation idea is biblically consistent with physical death so also is spiritual separation from God consistent with the notion of spiritual death. If Adam and Eve where not spiritually separated from the Father, there would have been no motive for Him to expel them from the Garden in the first place and preventing them from eating of the Tree of Life was God preventing them from PHYSICAL immortality in a spiritually dead state.


Not exactly. It's more of the idea of a decoupling or disconnection rather than some sort of transportation to a different location, although the two are not mutually exclusive.


No I cannot tell you why I think death is a separation, IN SPITE of the scriptures you've given. It is BECAUSE of the scriptures you've given that I say its a separation. A position I thought you agreed with, by the way. What else would it be?


Arguments from silence are fallacious for a reason, Derf.


Well, except for the ones you just quoted! A body with no spirit is a dead body. And believers, we are told by God the Son Himself, "will never taste death" (John 8:52). The Jews He said that in front of freaked out because they didn't get that Jesus was not talking about physical death. It doesn't take much discernment at all to figure out that there are, therefore, different kinds of death.


False equivalence. Plants are not spiritual beings. They are entirely and only biologically alive. When that biology stops functioning they cease to exist. That's a completely different topic because even if our biology stops, we do not ever cease to exist and therefore something more than mere biology is going on. One's biology breaking down is, however, one way for your spirit to end up separated from your physical body.


Dog's do seem have a soul but not a spirit (or perhaps the other way around - depending on who you ask). Dog's and many other animals have personalities and are capable of forming relationships and have some ability to make independent decisions. If this is what it means to have a soul then dog's have that but there is no eternal part of a dog that survives the stoppage of their biological processes.


That is just another example of the text of scripture being consistent with the ideas I've expressed. Satan was conflating physical and spiritual death.


We would be guilty of heresy.


Certainly not!

Wow! You really need to slow it down here and back up. You are inches away from denying the deity of Christ and any need for His physical resurrection and probably half a dozen other doctrines that define the Christian faith. I know of NO ONE - not even one single theologian, anywhere, that believes people cease to exist at death who does not also deny the deity of Christ, His spiritual separation from the Father while on the cross as well as His physical bodily resurrection.

There's good reason there is such a tight correlation between those doctrines!

What is the profit of believing such a thing anyway? What problem does it solve to accept the idea that we cease to exist when we die?


It isn't about what God is capable of, it's about what makes sense and is consistent with scripture and with the principles of justice, righteousness and love.

Where would the need for Christ's death come into it if God simply recreates us from scratch after we die our own death? Why would Christ need to be raised from the dead if God was going to simply recreate everyone after they died their own death? Do you believe that Christ ceased to exist for three days after which time God recreated His Son from nothing? Surely not!


Seems like a lot of unnecessary hoop jumping. It really isn't that hard to figure out whether the bible is speaking of physical vs. spiritual death.

Lazarus died a few days before Jesus arrived. He was obviously a follower and even a friend of Christ. Jesus was talking to someone when He commanded, "Lazarus, come forth!" (John 11:43) and so it seems clear that Lazarus was physically dead but still existed somewhere. That "somewhere" being "Abraham's bosom", by the way, which is very definitely a biblical term that seems wholly incompatible with the notion that we cease to exist when we die.

Clete

Premium post @Clete

 

[Derf]

The figure I was referring to was one's referring to people who have died physically as "the dead" even if they're resurrected or in attendence at some event in Heaven. Just like how one might refer to people as passengers even if they've already disembarked from an airplane.


I was not referring to death itself as a figure of speech so that takes care of that point.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

The bible is as explicit as is needed. I have little doubt that there are aspects of life and death that will remain a mystery to us so long as we remain in our mortal flesh.


This is essentially where I get what I said about death being a separation. In Hebrew, the word for "breath" and the word for "spirit" is the same word, thus, when God put a spirit into Adam's physical body, he was "quickened", for want of a better word.

It actually says He put the spirit/breath into man (Adam), not "into his body". In other words, the spirit/breath of life was added to man to make man a living soul.

[Gen 2:7 KJV] And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It wasn't the "spirit/breath of Adam" that was put into the lifeless body, but breath of life was put into a lifeless Adam. Can you see the difference? So after Adam died, he returned to dust, i.e., what Adam was before the spirit of life made him (not his body) alive. And what happened to the spirit of life?
Ecclesiastes says it returns to God:
[Ecc 12:7 KJV] Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

If the spirit in Gen 2 is really Adam's spirit, then everybody that dies is reunited with God, in which case the rest of the Hades/Bosom of Abraham argument falls apart.

Ecclesiastes seems to be talking about some kind of life force that quickens the inert material that was Adam before Adam was alive.

No. You are speaking of physical and spiritual death as though they are the same thing.

Yes, why aren't you? Why add a different component when scripture doesn't require it.

Just as this spiritual separation idea is biblically consistent with physical death so also is spiritual separation from God consistent with the notion of spiritual death.

Is it consistent? I'm arguing that it isn't. To call what God told Adam would happen to him if he ate the fruit "separation of spirit from his body", and "separation of spirit from God" that happens in 2 parts seems to be saying more than what Gen 1-3 says.

If Adam and Eve where not spiritually separated from the Father, there would have been no motive for Him to expel them from the Garden in the first place and preventing them from eating of the Tree of Life was God preventing them from PHYSICAL immortality in a spiritually dead state.

You're assuming this "spiritual separation" when it isn't necessary. The problem wasn't "spiritual separation", but "sin" that brings death. And if they were staying alive in sin forever, 1. God must have been lying about what would have happened (that they would die), and 2. They would be dealing with the effects of sin (corruption and not loving one another or God) all of eternity. God was preventing them from immortality in a sinful state, where they would likely be constantly going against God's commands and making life miserable for themselves and everyone else.

Not exactly. It's more of the idea of a decoupling or disconnection rather than some sort of transportation to a different location, although the two are not mutually exclusive.

But you would agree that the spirit actually goes somewhere, right? Not that it hangs around haunting others?

No I cannot tell you why I think death is a separation, IN SPITE of the scriptures you've given. It is BECAUSE of the scriptures you've given that I say its a separation. A position I thought you agreed with, by the way. What else would it be?

You've already participated in this thread, so it's interesting that you thought I agreed with you in this regard. And what else? What I've been proposing, that when you're dead, there's nothing alive left of you. You don't have a live spirit and a live soul that have to be stored somewhere. The life-giving spirit has left, and all that remains is a rotting corpse.

Arguments from silence are fallacious for a reason, Derf.

Arguments from silence along with complementary arguments for the adverse are golden, however.

Well, except for the ones you just quoted! A body with no spirit is a dead body.

I agree. But also, a man with no spirit is a dead man, not a dead body with a live soul somewhere else.

And believers, we are told by God the Son Himself, "will never taste death" (John 8:52). The Jews He said that in front of freaked out because they didn't get that Jesus was not talking about physical death. It doesn't take much discernment at all to figure out that there are, therefore, different kinds of death.

It is true there are different kinds of death. Genesis (first book of the bible) describes one type, returning to dust. Revelation (last book of the bible) describes another, the lake of fire. What is the one thing everybody needs to happen to them before they are thrown into the lake of fire?
Resurrection. In other words, both types of death affect the body, and neither type affects only the spirit or soul.

False equivalence. Plants are not spiritual beings. They are entirely and only biologically alive. When that biology stops functioning they cease to exist. That's a completely different topic because even if our biology stops, we do not ever cease to exist and therefore something more than mere biology is going on. One's biology breaking down is, however, one way for your spirit to end up separated from your physical body.


Dog's do seem have a soul but not a spirit (or perhaps the other way around - depending on who you ask). Dog's and many other animals have personalities and are capable of forming relationships and have some ability to make independent decisions. If this is what it means to have a soul then dog's have that but there is no eternal part of a dog that survives the stoppage of their biological processes.

As I said, there are differences, but we don't think of the death of those creatures as "separation", so it makes sense that the definition of death shouldn't change so drastically when we talk about humans. The reason for the change in definition, if I may be so bold, is that you consider some part of man to be eternal--it will never die. Even in the lake of fire, most Christians will say the soul or spirit lives on. Isn't that what Satan said? "You won't really die."

That is just another example of the text of scripture being consistent with the ideas I've expressed. Satan was conflating physical and spiritual death.

Maybe you are, too.

We would be guilty of heresy.

But you wouldn't let that stop you, as an open theist, anyway.

Certainly not!

Wow! You really need to slow it down here and back up.

Maybe so. God created Adam out of clay, and He could create another man out of clay, but you're right that He couldn't create the same man twice. That's why a resurrection is needed.

You are inches away from denying the deity of Christ

Please explain. Jesus is certainly an exception to some of the things that apply to man (He existed prior to his body, for instance). And I don't have a good answer as to whether Jesus was in some other location while His man-self was dead. The bible is silent, except that He was in the grave for 3 days. (I know that will spark some more conversation, but it will have to be had sooner or later.)

and any need for His physical resurrection

See if my clarification helps, above.

and probably half a dozen other doctrines that define the Christian faith.

If you can think of these, I'm interested to hear it.

I know of NO ONE - not even one single theologian, anywhere, that believes people cease to exist at death who does not also deny the deity of Christ, His spiritual separation from the Father while on the cross as well as His physical bodily resurrection.

I'm definitely not denying Jesus' physical bodily resurrection. I'm not sure about "spiritual separation from the Father while on the cross". It depends on what you mean by it. Was He spiritually dead while on the cross, followed by physically dead afterward? What else is left? Soul-ly dead? Is anyone, in your view, ever dead in all three ways? If not, why not?

There's good reason there is such a tight correlation between those doctrines!

What is the profit of believing such a thing anyway? What problem does it solve to accept the idea that we cease to exist when we die?

For one, it helps us not follow after the teaching of Satan that we will never really die, when God said we would die.

It isn't about what God is capable of, it's about what makes sense and is consistent with scripture and with the principles of justice, righteousness and love.

I don't get this. Why are justice, righteousness and love impacted? (The rest will be ignore, since it's merely begging the question.)

Where would the need for Christ's death come into it if God simply recreates us from scratch after we die our own death?

Clarified above. He resurrects us, it's not from scratch.

Why would Christ need to be raised from the dead if God was going to simply recreate everyone after they died their own death? Do you believe that Christ ceased to exist for three days after which time God recreated His Son from nothing? Surely not!

I struggle a bit with the "ceased to exist" terminology. I don't think it's quite accurate, because of the need for a resurrection.

Seems like a lot of unnecessary hoop jumping. It really isn't that hard to figure out whether the bible is speaking of physical vs. spiritual death.

Assuming spiritual death is a thing. If you don't, then this is where it leads. And I don't like assuming theological truths. I'd rather read then in scripture.

Lazarus died a few days before Jesus arrived. He was obviously a follower and even a friend of Christ. Jesus was talking to someone when He commanded, "Lazarus, come forth!" (John 11:43) and so it seems clear that Lazarus was physically dead but still existed somewhere. That "somewhere" being "Abraham's bosom", by the way, which is very definitely a biblical term that seems wholly incompatible with the notion that we cease to exist when we die.

Clete

Why is it harder to believe Jesus could call Lazarus back from a full and complete death (not functioning anywhere, anyhow--like a tree, perhaps) than it is to believe that God could call Adam from non-life to life? By the way, the difference between us and a tree, I think, is that a tree has no personality, or person-ness, perhaps. And that goes back to the difference between a resurrection and a creating of a new man with no attachment to the previous person.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It wasn't the "spirit/breath of Adam" that was put into the lifeless body, but breath of life was put into a lifeless Adam.

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't take into consideration that sometimes, even in the Bible, some things are called by the name they are given before they are given it.

The city of New York comes to mind. The city was founded in 1624, but wasn't named "New York City" until 1664, 40 years after its founding.

Likewise, the naming of the City of Ramses (to give a Biblical example) with the date of its first construction.

Thus: Man wasn't "man" UNTIL God breathed into the lump of flesh that became a living soul, but there's nothing wrong with referring to that lump of flesh as "man."

The problem wasn't "spiritual separation", but "sin" that brings death.

Does not sin separate us from God?

But you would agree that the spirit actually goes somewhere, right? Not that it hangs around haunting others?

Currently, a person goes either to heaven (2 Corinthians 5:6-8), if one has placed their trust in God (Romans 10:9-10), OR hell, if not, to await final judgement (Matthew 10:28; Revelation 20:12-15)

For one, it helps us not follow after the teaching of Satan that we will never really die, when God said we would die.

Good thing we don't teach that, then!

Life is God, and the property which He imparted to entities within creation that makes them either beings or organisms. The effects of this property may be further described, but its nature, being tied up in the very nature of the essence of the Godhead, cannot otherwise be defined. (At least, not that we know of a way to do so.)

With that in mind, when someone is cast into the lake of fire, they do not cease to exist, nor are they, as you put it, "not functioning anywhere, anyhow." They are still aware of themselves, but they ARE well and truly dead, because they are separated from Life Himself.

Why is it harder to believe Jesus could call Lazarus back from a full and complete death (not functioning anywhere, anyhow--like a tree, perhaps) than it is to believe that God could call Adam from non-life to life?

I call your attention to the fact that Jesus spoke of (likely a different) Lazarus's time being dead.

The passage in question indicates that Lazarus was indeed "somewhere," and that he was not "full[y] and complete[ly] dea[d]," and that he was, in fact, functioning somewhere, somehow, namely, within Abraham's Bosom.

The passage in question, of course, is this:

“There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 16:19-31 - New King James Version

The Rich Man and Lazarus - “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table...

www.biblegateway.com

I find it interesting, while it's probable that the Lazarus Jesus raised is not the Lazarus in the story Jesus told, that Jesus made a connection between the two men.

This might be purely conjecture on my part, but I would think that there has to be some sort of parallel being drawn in scripture between the two, Jesus tells the story of a beggar man who died, while His friend also died, and while the men in the story were not raised, one even being denied his wish that his still living sons would be warned of Hell, while those who were righteous would not be subjected to it, it gives a very clear picture of what it's like being in the grave, and the stories even tie into each other. Where one says that men would not believe if a man were raised from the dead, Jesus went and did it anyways.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that Jesus seemed to think that Hell was the place the dead went to, and that Hell is synonymous with "the grave," at least in certain contexts, that the two terms are interchangable, and can be used figuratively to refer to the other. Thus, when the Bible refers to someone being "in the grave," it also means that the person is in Hell, and vice versa, when the Bible refers to a person "in Hell/Hades," it mean's their body is in the grave.

See https://kgov.com/node/3839 and https://kgov.com/hell

 

[Derf]

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't take into consideration that sometimes, even in the Bible, some things are called by the name they are given before they are given it.

The city of New York comes to mind. The city was founded in 1624, but wasn't named "New York City" until 1664, 40 years after its founding.

Likewise, the naming of the City of Ramses (to give a Biblical example) with the date of its first construction.

Thus: Man wasn't "man" UNTIL God breathed into the lump of flesh that became a living soul, but there's nothing wrong with referring to that lump of flesh as "man."

Seems like your examples are backwards, with New York being called New York before it existed.

Does not sin separate us from God?

Does sin make us stupid (as Bob liked to tell us)? Yet we don't call death "stupidity". Just because sin separates us from someone doesn't mean we're dead. Sin separates us emotionally from our spouses, but we're not suddenly emotionally dead, where we can't have feelings for them anymore, or they for us.

Currently, a person goes either to heaven (2 Corinthians 5:6-8), if one has placed their trust in God (Romans 10:9-10), OR hell, if not, to await final judgement (Matthew 10:28; Revelation 20:12-15)

Do they? I notice you've given good references for a person being judged (after resurrection), but the 2 Cor 5:6-8 passage has lots of context to consider before we can state it's talking about heaven. Even if it is talking about heaven, what you've described is a pre-judgment that comes before the judgment, which is, in effect, just as final. How can this be? Is God so unjust that He punishes before the judgment?

Good thing we don't teach that, then!

Life is God, and the property which He imparted to entities within creation that makes them either beings or organisms. The effects of this property may be further described, but its nature, being tied up in the very nature of the essence of the Godhead, cannot otherwise be defined. (At least, not that we know of a way to do so.)

With that in mind, when someone is cast into the lake of fire, they do not cease to exist, nor are they, as you put it, "not functioning anywhere, anyhow." They are still aware of themselves, but they ARE well and truly dead, because they are separated from Life Himself.

They are alive for eternity in a dead state. Would you call this physically, spiritually, or some other kind of dead?

I call your attention to the fact that Jesus spoke of (likely a different) Lazarus's time being dead.

The passage in question indicates that Lazarus was indeed "somewhere," and that he was not "full[y] and complete[ly] dea[d]," and that he was, in fact, functioning somewhere, somehow, namely, within Abraham's Bosom.

There are two reasons I can think of for this singular passage to be used to define Abraham's Bosom as a compartment within Hades. 1. Tradition of the Jews, or 2. Trying to fit all the pieces together. It's a similar problem with calling it "Paradise", when it doesn't seem to fit the normal meaning of a paradise. Both were referred to in that way only a single time in scripture each. (Interesting that both were in the gospel of Luke, and both were spoken by Jesus, which makes one wonder why the same name wasn't used if the same place were in mind.)

The passage in question, of course, is this:

“There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 16:19-31 - New King James Version

The Rich Man and Lazarus - “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table...

www.biblegateway.com

I find it interesting, while it's probable that the Lazarus Jesus raised is not the Lazarus in the story Jesus told, that Jesus made a connection between the two men.

I agree with this idea. What most don't notice is that to maintain consistency of thought, the rich man's burial should be compared with Lazarus' being taken to Abraham. "The rich man died and was buried." vs "the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom." If the rich man's body only is in mind, then it should be the beggar's body carried by the angels. We have such an event mentioned here:
1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV - 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:
1 Thessalonians 4:17 KJV - 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.

Then the rich man find himself in torment in Hades. If this is the same as Sheol in the Old Testament, this is the only place where it mentions any torment in Hades. We know that Hades will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20), and if Lazarus is indeed already with the righteous and with Abraham, then it is likely to be talking about after the resurrection, not before.

One more thing. Abraham's bosom (notice the lower case) is not a place name. It's talking about actually being in Abraham's arms, or leaning on his breast, like John was at the last supper, not a compartment. You can check this with other translations, where they call it "by Abraham's side" or "in Abraham's arms". Using it as a place name confuses the message.

This might be purely conjecture on my part, but I would think that there has to be some sort of parallel being drawn in scripture between the two, Jesus tells the story of a beggar man who died, while His friend also died, and while the men in the story were not raised, one even being denied his wish that his still living sons would be warned of Hell, while those who were righteous would not be subjected to it, it gives a very clear picture of what it's like being in the grave, and the stories even tie into each other. Where one says that men would not believe if a man were raised from the dead, Jesus went and did it anyways.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that Jesus seemed to think that Hell was the place the dead went to, and that Hell is synonymous with "the grave," at least in certain contexts, that the two terms are interchangable, and can be used figuratively to refer to the other. Thus, when the Bible refers to someone being "in the grave," it also means that the person is in Hell, and vice versa, when the Bible refers to a person "in Hell/Hades," it mean's their body is in the grave.

See https://kgov.com/node/3839 and https://kgov.com/hell

Then you think David is in Hell?
Acts 2:29 KJV - 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. (David is in the grave.)
Acts 2:30 KJV - Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Acts 2:31 KJV - He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. (David's soul was left in hell, because he was speaking of Christ, not himself.)
Acts 2:34 KJV - For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, (David has not even ascended into heaven after captivity has been taken captive, as most would associate this with the raising of Abraham's Bosom and Paradise up into heaven.)

 

[Idolater]

@Derf On the off chance that it hasn't been broached yet (which it probably has, I definitely probably missed it, rather than it wasn't covered already ---- it's just a long thread and it's not easy to search all its pages simply):

In what way are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob "the living?" To you, under your theory, you'd say that it's only looking ahead to when they would all be risen from the dead? Rather than that in some way, in some sense, they are living still? Like rn.

This is just for clarity, this is why I'm asking.

 

[Idolater]

... We just believe Catechism Text 1257 "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments."

There's a lot of latitude there @Derf . And it definitely means "Faith Alone," that's definitely what Catechism of the Catholic Church Text 1257 means, it means, "Faith alone." That's Catholic. "Faith Alone" is Catholic. The Protestants like Luther and Calvin, like Botcoin mining, found "Faith Alone" within Catholicism, before the bishops did. It was right there all along, of course; it's right in the Bible. There's no excuse that generations of bishops didn't teach this, but it was more widespread than that, the Church never published anything approaching a universal curriculum of their teachings. Until after the Reformation! Like, the Reformation actually prompted the Church to finally assemble and record her catalog of doctrines, and she did it in the Roman Catechism, first published in the late 1500's (Reformation happened in the early 1500's ---- the bishops during the Reformation era, basically literally died out, and basically their successors are the ones in the later 1500's who convened the Tridentine council (Trent) and published the Roman Catechism, in measured response to the Protestant Reformation).

 

[Derf]

There's a lot of latitude there @Derf . And it definitely means "Faith Alone," that's definitely what Catechism of the Catholic Church Text 1257 means, it means, "Faith alone." That's Catholic. "Faith Alone" is Catholic. The Protestants like Luther and Calvin, like Botcoin mining, found "Faith Alone" within Catholicism, before the bishops did. It was right there all along, of course; it's right in the Bible. There's no excuse that generations of bishops didn't teach this, but it was more widespread than that, the Church never published anything approaching a universal curriculum of their teachings. Until after the Reformation! Like, the Reformation actually prompted the Church to finally assemble and record her catalog of doctrines, and she did it in the Roman Catechism, first published in the late 1500's (Reformation happened in the early 1500's ---- the bishops during the Reformation era, basically literally died out, and basically their successors are the ones in the later 1500's who convened the Tridentine council (Trent) and published the Roman Catechism, in measured response to the Protestant Reformation).

I guess that's like the Calvinists inventing TULIP in response to the Remonstrants at Dort.

 

[Derf]

@Derf On the off chance that it hasn't been broached yet (which it probably has, I definitely probably missed it, rather than it wasn't covered already ---- it's just a long thread and it's not easy to search all its pages simply):

In what way are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob "the living?" To you, under your theory, you'd say that it's only looking ahead to when they would all be risen from the dead? Rather than that in some way, in some sense, they are living still? Like rn.

This is just for clarity, this is why I'm asking.

Here's how I responded previously

You remember the context, right? That Jesus was talking to people who didn't believe in the resurrection at all? So He used the example of the Patriarchs as an illustration of "resurrection", not that they were still living. You can't resurrect someone who is alive. So He's talking about an assured state of life for those that were currently dead, just as David was dead, not alive, when Peter spoke about him.

[Act 2:29 KJV] 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.
[Act 2:34 KJV] For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

As an aside, this second verse seems to indicate that David is not in heaven, right? even though Jesus had already led captivity captive by this point in time.

 

[Idolater]

I guess that's like the Calvinists inventing TULIP in response to the Remonstrants at Dort.

Yes.

 

[Clete]

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

It actually says He put the spirit/breath into man (Adam), not "into his body". In other words, the spirit/breath of life was added to man to make man a living soul.

[Gen 2:7 KJV] And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It wasn't the "spirit/breath of Adam" that was put into the lifeless body, but breath of life was put into a lifeless Adam. Can you see the difference? So after Adam died, he returned to dust, i.e., what Adam was before the spirit of life made him (not his body) alive. And what happened to the spirit of life?
Ecclesiastes says it returns to God:
[Ecc 12:7 KJV] Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

If the spirit in Gen 2 is really Adam's spirit, then everybody that dies is reunited with God, in which case the rest of the Hades/Bosom of Abraham argument falls apart.

Ecclesiastes seems to be talking about some kind of life force that quickens the inert material that was Adam before Adam was alive.

I don't even understand how you could be saying this. It seems one single point pancakes the whole thing, a point that you yourself quote verbatim. I literally cannot understand how such a contradiction is even possible for anyone who paying the least bit of attention to what they themselves are saying.

[Gen 2:7 KJV] And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

How can that not be talking about Adam's physical body? God formed his body of the dust of the ground and breathed into HIS NOSTRILS the breath of life. Is there some part of us other than our physical body that is formed of the dust of the ground? Are nostril not part of our physical body?

Yes, why aren't you? Why add a different component when scripture doesn't require it.

Non-sequitor. The scripture does require it as you yourself have quoted! This conversation isn't making any sense!

Is it consistent? I'm arguing that it isn't.

You're claiming it isn't. Not the same thing. The verses you yourself quote are entirely consistent with it by just a simple cursory reading of the text. If you want to make an argument, then you've have to show that the verses do not mean what they plainly state.

To call what God told Adam would happen to him if he ate the fruit "separation of spirit from his body", and "separation of spirit from God" that happens in 2 parts seems to be saying more than what Gen 1-3 says.

Because you say so?

God said that IN THE DAY you eat of the Tree you shall die. That's what God specifically and explicitly stated.

You're assuming this "spiritual separation" when it isn't necessary.

No, I'm not and yes it is necessary for the reasons I gave in my previous post.

The problem wasn't "spiritual separation", but "sin" that brings death.

Spiritual separation doesn't bring death, it is death. Sin brings spiritual separation.

And if they were staying alive in sin forever, 1. God must have been lying about what would have happened (that they would die), and

Question begging. You are presuming the truth of your position in order to make this argument. There was no lie if Adam and Eve died spiritually (i.e. their relationship was spiritually severed) when they sinned, which is clearly the case, or else, as I said in the previous post, there would have been no motive to remove them from Eden.

2. They would be dealing with the effects of sin (corruption and not loving one another or God) all of eternity. God was preventing them from immortality in a sinful state, where they would likely be constantly going against God's commands and making life miserable for themselves and everyone else.

Exactly, it would have meant that the Earth would be, in effect, Hell.

But you would agree that the spirit actually goes somewhere, right? Not that it hangs around haunting others?

II Corinthians 5:6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.​

You've already participated in this thread, so it's interesting that you thought I agreed with you in this regard. And what else? What I've been proposing, that when you're dead, there's nothing alive left of you. You don't have a live spirit and a live soul that have to be stored somewhere. The life-giving spirit has left, and all that remains is a rotting corpse.

Heresy.

(I stopped trying to keep track of who has said what on this forum a long time ago. I don't doubt that you've said it here in the past but I don't actually recall it one way or the other.)

Arguments from silence along with complementary arguments for the adverse are golden, however.

Nope. Arguments from silence, in the form you performed it, are fallacious - ALWAYS! You can literally make up whatever nonsensical stupidity you want and call it doctrine by means of arguing from what the bible DOES NOT say.

I agree. But also, a man with no spirit is a dead man, not a dead body with a live soul somewhere else.

Not according to the bible and to long established Christian doctrine. Again, you are conflating (intentionally) physical and spiritual death.

Just how is it that you think it's possible to be absent from your body and present with the Lord if nothing survives your death?

Just what do you think it means when Paul says, "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. (romans 7:9)" and, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins," (Eph. 2:1), and "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses," (Col. 2:13)

There is practically no end to the passages that are completely at odds with everything you're saying here.

It is true there are different kinds of death. Genesis (first book of the bible) describes one type, returning to dust. Revelation (last book of the bible) describes another, the lake of fire. What is the one thing everybody needs to happen to them before they are thrown into the lake of fire?
Resurrection. In other words, both types of death affect the body, and neither type affects only the spirit or soul.

I could quote so many verses from Paul that PROVE that there is spiritual death that it would feel like I had quoted everything he wrote. His entire ministry is about life from death and the contrast between the flesh (law) and the Spirit (faith).

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.​

As I said, there are differences, but we don't think of the death of those creatures as "separation", so it makes sense that the definition of death shouldn't change so drastically when we talk about humans.

It makes complete sense because we are not mere animals.

The reason for the change in definition, if I may be so bold, is that you consider some part of man to be eternal--it will never die. Even in the lake of fire, most Christians will say the soul or spirit lives on. Isn't that what Satan said? "You won't really die."

I haven't said any such thing. I am not the source of this doctrine, the bible is and explicitly so...

Daniel 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,​

Some to everlasting life,​

Some to shame and everlasting contempt.​

​

Matthew 18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.​

​

Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:​

​

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”​

​

Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.​

​

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before [c]God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.​

​

NO, it is not me who is saying this, it is God's word that says it. If you say otherwise, you've one Hell (literally) of a big hill to climb.

Maybe you are, too.

Well, since I'm saying they're two different but related things, it seems rather hard to believe that I could be conflating the two.

But you wouldn't let that stop you, as an open theist, anyway.

That's the last syllable of your post I read or will read. Believe whatever you want. I no longer care.

Good bye.



Why do I ever take these fools off ignore? It never lasts longer than a week!

 

[Clete]

I would like to apologize for the language I used at the end of my last post. I've edited it out.

The gall was simply more than I could take, which is no excuse, but merely an explanation.

 

[Derf]

Hi Clete. I'm probably on ignore, so you might not see this, but I wanted to address it anyway. And normally I would go through it comment-by-comment--maybe I still will. But I think it's better that I explain again why I'm doing this thread. My transition to Open Theism brought me to this site. OT was an eye opener for me, that told me I had been fed a Christian mythology, of sorts, that was based more on people's preconceived notions about God than about what He was actually telling us in His word. I've been called a heretic for that transition, and it's somewhat freeing, I must say. This topic, about what death really means in scripture, is possibly a side issue. My position on it is not unique in Christian thought, or at least most is not. Maybe my wording is different. I think it would fit within the "pale of orthodoxy".

I'm not asking everyone to agree with me. In fact, I appreciate the comments, because it helps me think through it better to see if I'm off track. Your comments help me to see that I'm not expressing myself very well, so I hope, with your help, I can do better.

I apologize for my contentiousness. I definitely have a temper, and it shows sometimes. And I can be, um, caustic in my responses. I will try to tone that down, whether you return to the thread or not.

What I'm hoping to get some of my readers to do, if possible, is to clear out the pre-programming of how the Christian mythology describes death, and see if God actually describes something else in His Word. Perhaps we'll all just end up back with the same story, in which case, we will have learned to defend it better. But perhaps we will end up seeing a clearer picture of what God did for us in sacrificing His son to save us from death. I think that's possible, and if so, it should be attempted.

I don't even understand how you could be saying this. It seems one single point pancakes the whole thing, a point that you yourself quote verbatim. I literally cannot understand how such a contradiction is even possible for anyone who paying the least bit of attention to what they themselves are saying.

[Gen 2:7 KJV] And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

How can that not be talking about Adam's physical body? God formed his body of the dust of the ground and breathed into HIS NOSTRILS the breath of life. Is there some part of us other than our physical body that is formed of the dust of the ground? Are nostril not part of our physical body?

It's definitely talking about Adam's body...because that's all he was at the time. But if that was "Adam", then what is Adam when God's breath of life leaves him? Gen 3 tells us he went back to being dust:
[Gen 3:19 KJV] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

Non-sequitor. The scripture does require it as you yourself have quoted! This conversation isn't making any sense!

I would suggest to you that it doesn't make sense BECAUSE you are only looking at it from your point of view. Maybe you can't do anything else, but try to see it from the POV I'm suggesting.

You're claiming it isn't. Not the same thing. The verses you yourself quote are entirely consistent with it by just a simple cursory reading of the text. If you want to make an argument, then you've have to show that the verses do not mean what they plainly state.


Because you say so?

God said that IN THE DAY you eat of the Tree you shall die. That's what God specifically and explicitly stated.

You missed some of this conversation with way2go, perhaps, but the phrase "IN THE DAY" doesn't mean the same thing as "on the day". Even in our vernacular, we don't use "in the day" to mean "within a single 24 hour period." For instance we say "back in the day", and mean during a past period of time that was longer than 24 hours. Genesis uses the same phrase "in the day" to mean "in six 24 hour periods" in the SAME chapter where God tells Adam he will die in the day he eats of the tree.
[Gen 2:4 KJV] These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

No, I'm not and yes it is necessary for the reasons I gave in my previous post.


Spiritual separation doesn't bring death, it is death. Sin brings spiritual separation.


Question begging. You are presuming the truth of your position in order to make this argument. There was no lie if Adam and Eve died spiritually (i.e. their relationship was spiritually severed) when they sinned, which is clearly the case, or else, as I said in the previous post, there would have been no motive to remove them from Eden.


Exactly, it would have meant that the Earth would be, in effect, Hell.

II Corinthians 5:6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.​

Paul talks about death as being absent from the body, but there are actually 3 states of man that are expressed in this chapter.
1. At home in the body (alive in our physical bodies)
2. Naked/absent from the body (a condition we don't desire)
3. Alive in our eternal bodies

[2Co 5:1 KJV] For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle (#1) were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens (#3).
[2Co 5:2 KJV] For in this (#1) we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven (#3):
[2Co 5:3 KJV] If so be that being clothed (#3) we shall not be found naked (#2).
[2Co 5:4 KJV] For we that are in [this] tabernacle(#1) do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed (#2), but clothed upon (#3), that mortality might be swallowed up of life (#3).
[2Co 5:5 KJV] Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing (#3) [is] God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
[2Co 5:6 KJV] Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body (#1), we are absent from the Lord:
[2Co 5:7 KJV] (For we walk by faith, not by sight
[2Co 5:8 KJV] We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body (#2), and to be present with the Lord (#3).
[2Co 5:9 KJV] Wherefore we labour, that, whether present (#1--present in our earthly bodies) or absent (#2), we may be accepted of him. (in other words, whether we are alive or dead when Christ comes)

Why do we need to be accepted of Him?
[2Co 5:10 KJV] For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

So, in vs 6, Paul is saying that we are willing to become absent from the body (naked) through persecution or trials, for instance, rather than remain alive in our physical bodies by denying Christ or in disobedience to Him. What it definitely is NOT saying, despite most Christians believing such, is that "absent from the body" EQUALS "present with the Lord". Maybe you could make that case from some other scripture, but not this one.

Heresy.

(I stopped trying to keep track of who has said what on this forum a long time ago. I don't doubt that you've said it here in the past but I don't actually recall it one way or the other.)


Nope. Arguments from silence, in the form you performed it, are fallacious - ALWAYS! You can literally make up whatever nonsensical stupidity you want and call it doctrine by means of arguing from what the bible DOES NOT say.


Not according to the bible and to long established Christian doctrine. Again, you are conflating (intentionally) physical and spiritual death.

I'm actually trying to establish the equivalence. Calling it "conflating" is begging the question.

Just how is it that you think it's possible to be absent from your body and present with the Lord if nothing survives your death?

This is the key to the whole gospel! Resurrection is how we will go from being absent from our bodies to being present with the Lord. And I will admit that "nothing survives your death" is a poor wording on my part. Obviously something survives if we are resurrected. But if the body that dies is essentially the whole person (there's no spirit or soul remaining somewhere), then it's like nothing survives death. What I think is happening is that God remembers us and resurrects our decomposed bodies and gives us back our memories and personalities, etc. But I admit to a lack of understanding about how this works.

Just what do you think it means when Paul says, "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. (romans 7:9)" and, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins," (Eph. 2:1), and "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses," (Col. 2:13)

I propose that Paul means that we are all "dead" in that we will all die. Without the law, we think there's nothing wrong, but the commandments/law tell us the truth that we will die (because of sin). So we are made alive (right now) together with Him (remember how He was made alive by resurrection) in the hope of our own resurrection, because our trespasses have been forgiven.

There is practically no end to the passages that are completely at odds with everything you're saying here.


I could quote so many verses from Paul that PROVE that there is spiritual death that it would feel like I had quoted everything he wrote. His entire ministry is about life from death and the contrast between the flesh (law) and the Spirit (faith).

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.​

We are crucified with Christ, dying the death required by the law, so that we will live forever--BY FAITH, meaning something that we haven't attained yet but are hoping for.

It makes complete sense because we are not mere animals.

In the following passages, please note that they are all talking about something that is happening in our resurrected state. It doesn't say these things about our spirits, but about our bodies in which our spirits dwell (I've added my comments in red to your text):

I haven't said any such thing. I am not the source of this doctrine, the bible is and explicitly so...

Daniel 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, {resurrection}​

Some to everlasting life,​

Some to shame and everlasting contempt.​

​

Matthew 18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. {everlasting fire is the fate of unbelievers AFTER their resurrection}​

​

Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: {AFTER resurrection}​

​

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” {AFTER resurrection}​

​

Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. {I'm not sure why you think this applies to us, but notice the beast and false prophet were thrown "alive" into the lake of fire}​

​

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before [c]God {AFTER resurrection, as you agreed earlier}, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.​

​

Do you see what I mean? You're giving verse about resurrection and using them to say we don't ever fully die.

That's the last syllable of your post I read or will read. Believe whatever you want. I no longer care.

I know you do care, Clete, and that's why you end conversations like this.

Good bye.

Hopefully not forever.

Derf

 

[Clete]

Hi Clete. I'm probably on ignore, so you might not see this, but I wanted to address it anyway.

No, you're not on ignore.

My main computer is in the shop, porobably with a bad mother board and so I'll be slow to respond but I will respond to your post as soon as time allows.

 

[way 2 go]

In the following passages, please note that they are all talking about something that is happening in our resurrected state. It doesn't say these things about our spirits, but about our bodies in which our spirits dwell (I've added my comments in red to your text):

Do you see what I mean? You're giving verse about resurrection and using them to say we don't ever fully die.


Derf

hell is a place Jesus taught that the rich man went to , Samuel was brought up from Abraham's side
and in Revelation death and hell delivered up the dead in them.

(I Samuel 28:11-12) [11] And the woman said, Whom shall I bring up to you? And he said, Bring up Samuel to me. [12] And the woman saw Samuel, and cried out with a loud voice. And the woman spoke to Saul, saying, Why have you deceived me, for you are Saul?

(Luke 16:22-23)
[22] And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried. [23] And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

(Revelation of John 20:13-14) [13] And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works. [14] And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

seems to be something wrong with the way you view "spirit" , you seem to see it as only "breath" or an "energy" that returns to God
yet God is a spirit , God gives us the Holy Spirit 3rd person of the trinity (that is to say not an energy)
angels and demons are spirit and we are body ,soul and spirit .

your whole premise is spirit less

 

[JudgeRightly]

seems to be something wrong with the way you view "spirit" , you seem to see it as only "breath" or an "energy" that returns to God
yet God is a spirit , God gives us the Holy Spirit 3rd person of the trinity (that is to say not an energy)
angels and demons are spirit and we are body ,soul and spirit .

your whole premise is spirit less

This reminded me of a couple of recent Kgov shows...

Molecular Biology & The Breath of Life | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Molecular Biology & The Breath of Life - Part II | KGOV.com

kgov.com