Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[ok doser]

Nobody seems to be in unified agreement as to what the lake of fire is either.

it's bad



pretty sure there's unified agreement on that

Oh, but God will force people to be in a state of inescapable suffering if they don't "choose" right while on this physical plain? Not only is your position callous and dismissive, it doesn't add up. Your version of God forces people into existence with a sword hanging over their head effectively. This is the best an all powerful God could come up with?

artie's argument?

"Boooo! I don't like what you said!"

 

[NWL]

Here are the synonyms for resurrection, courtesy of Merriam-Webster.com:

• reanimation,
• rebirth,
• regeneration,
• rejuvenation,
• rejuvenescence,
• renewal,
• resurgence,
• resuscitation,
• revitalization,
• revival,
• revivification

Do you notice the one thing all of these have in common? They all have the prefix "re" at the beginning. "Re-" affirms that the effect is applied to an existing thing, or one that had existed. You can't renew something unless it had at one time been new. You can't revive something unless it had at one time been alive. You can't reanimate something that has never been animated.

At the same time, you can "renew" something without making that something "new" again. You can't revive something without making that something alive again.

To resurrect someone that someone first has to have been alive at one time, and then has to have not been alive, and then has to become alive again. Whether to eternal life or to judgment, it is still a resurrection.

I don't understand why you've written what you have above, I don't deny or have ever expressed anything contrary to what you just wrote. Nothing you said is in opposition to anything that you quoted me with, namely, that people will rise and go to a new heaven or new earth, that people will reside on earth forever or that God's love doesn't seem to fit in with the teaching that he is capable of burning people forever.

Those are good questions, but hardly sufficient to assign the idea of hell to a purely metaphorical construct.

Sodom and Gomorrah were cities, which were made up of people, but personified in your reference. Death and Hades (also personified) were 2 of 3 things that were emptied of the dead that were in them. The sea was the third. The sea IS a place, or at least indicative of a number of places that have the same characteristics. The fact that one of the "things" that are emptied of their dead is an actual place(s), suggests that the others might be as well. I tend to think, however, that "place" is the wrong focus, and instead it should be "condition". I.e., the dead from "the sea" is those people that drowned in the sea, or possibly whose bodies were dumped in the sea. That would leave us to find 2 other "conditions" that would fit "death" and "hades". "Hades" makes me think of those people that were buried, if "Sheol" and "Hades" are the same kind of thing. The remaining, "death", might be those that just died and weren't either buried or dumped in the sea. It would include those who were eaten by animals, who were cremated, or whose remains rotted away (I guess that's about the same as "eaten by animals").

Having to deal with those three conditions points us more strongly back to the concept of dealing with bodies, rather than with disembodied souls or spirits. Bodies are resurrected from the sea, from the grave, and from whatever else might have happened to them. Spirits/souls don't have to stay where the bodies were buried, although I suppose they could.

I understand your argument and how the grave/hell, the sea, earth sodom and Gomorrah, refer to places, thus, when it mentions those places its referring to not those places specifically but rather the people in them. However, death is not place but rather a condition and yet is thrown into the lake of fire as stated in Rev 20:14, why is this significant some might ask? Its significant because five (5) verses later in Rev 21:4 it states "The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:3,4). So in Rev 20:14 it states "death is thrown into the lake of fire" which I maintain denotes everlasting destruction, and what do we find five (5) verses later, a statement confirming that "death will be no more" and that the "former things", which would include death, have "passed away", clear evidence that death "being thrown into the lake of fire" results in a deathless world, suggesting that the lake of fire symbolizes eternal destruction.

You also fail to account for the context in the verses, please remember Jesus stated " that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous" (acts 24:15, John 5:28,29), this is what Rev 20:14,15 is in relation to: And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. The dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. 15 Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.

Please notice the following and how it conflicts with what you say, you suggest that the naming of the places refer to the people in them in. Now notice the following, the accounts context has people in the sea and the grave/hell being brought out of them, "the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead", this "giving up" of people from these places can only refer to the what Jesus described as the "resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous" as it also states they will be judged just as Jesus also said in John 5:28,29. After people are resurrected from the sea, grave/hell and death the account continues "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire", notice how "death" and "the grave" are thrown into the lake of fire 'once everyone is raised from them and no longer in them' in v13, the account continues "Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire", only AFTER death and the grave/Hell are already thrown into the lake of fire do we find the people in them "not found written in the book of life" also thrown into the lake of fire. So to suggest the "sea" and the "grave/hell and death" being thrown into the lake of fire represented the people in those places goes against the account, as the account clearly separates the people from those places as it states they were emptied first and then, and only then, are they thrown into the lake of fire, afterward the people who were brought out of them are thrown into the lake of fire.

From what I can see what I have suggested about the text is the most consistent with scripture.

How many references does it take? If angels are even once called "spirits" then your whole dichotomy of references to spirits being demonic references comes unhinged. Even your list of verses is telling, each use of "spirit" is modified with the adjective "unclean". If the word has to be modified, then "spirit" isn't to be immediately associated with "uncleanness".

Also, your reference to the disciples being afraid of Jesus because they thought he was a spirit, uses a different word, "phantasma", so I don't think the comparison works for you. I'm pretty sure they were just scared because they didn't ever expect anyone to come walking over the water to them.

You are correct and I can admit that since the account in Luke 24 there are no modifications, (i.e unclean spirit) in regards to what type of spirit is mentioned, this is why we must use common sense to determine the most likely answer. The account states the apsotles were "they were terrified and frightened as they imagined that they were seeing a spirit", what does common sense tell you, would the disciples logically be "terrified and frightened" if they concluded the thing in front of them was Jesus raised as a spirit? No, why would it. Would the disciples logically be "terrified and frightened" if they concluded the thing in front of them was an Angel? No, why would it. Would the disciples logically be "terrified and frightened" if they concluded the thing in front of them was a demon? YES! Who wouldn't be. The disciples being terrified only makes sense if they thought the thing they were witnessing was a demon.

Let's be honest, if Jesus as a spirit, or simply as a man or an Angel were to appear in front of you right now and you had an honest held belief it was Jesusor an Angel, would you be scared and terrified? No. However, if you saw what you believed to be a demon appear in front of you right now would you be scared and terrified, most if not all would say yes. Likewise, the account in Luke 24 only makes sense if they thought Jesus was actually a demon when appearing to them, there is no reason they would be terrified if they though it was Jesus as a spirit of an angel.

You said "your reference to the disciples being afraid of Jesus because they thought he was a spirit, uses a different word, "phantasma"", what you have just claimed is completely incorrect, the word used in Luke 24:37 is πνεῦμα (pneuma), I think you're jumping the gun and using an argument against Matthew 14:26 where the apostles saw an apparition (Greek: phantasma), I have not made such an argument which can only suggest to me you're reading up about arguments against the ones I've made and somewhere got mistaken.

I explained my thoughts on this in the last post. If they recognized Him early and didn't recognize Him later, it could be because He was healing from the wounds. The early appearances were more like what they saw Him as on the cross, and the later ones less so. I'm not bound to my version, and there are good people that would disagree. But the idea that Jesus just throws on a different body every time He visits the disciples is ludicrous. The whole purpose of showing them the wounds was to prove that it was really Him. And if He was sometimes someone else (no wounds) what would that mean to them? It would mean that someone could just as easily claim to be Christ who wasn't really. Any old or new body would do. Maybe a baby's body, or a woman's body. Doesn't really matter, because it's not a real part of Him.

Of course they would want to see some indications it was really Jesus! How many other people did they know who had returned from the dead? And those they did know, like Lazarus and a couple others, were brought back by Jesus, so how could Jesus be alive again?

Your account is not believable, remember I already highlighted that the apostles already believed the person standing on the shore to be Jesus by the miracle he preformed, this is clear by the proclamation "It is the Lord!" and them all rushing to see Jesus, to claim that they wanted to ask "who are you" because of facial wounds despite the bible never stating he had facial wounds is complete speculation, the only logical reason why and one that is consistent with the context is that they did not recognize Jesus and therefore wanted to ask "who are you". You can keep claiming that Jesus had wounds and therefore was recognized but you must first admit that it is complete speculation and not biblical but simply a personal belief, it would be more logical to simply state maybe Jesus was wearing a hood rather than this "facial wound" theory you've conjured up.

The point remains, the disciples already thought the person they were heading towards was the Lord, when getting close and seeing him they did not recognize the person they saw, the most consistent understanding is that they did not recognize Jesus as he appeared completely different. I work with thirty people (30) and have eight (8) immediate family members, I could bet every buck I have that if I was shown an image of each person with their faces covered I could identify who they were by their body structure, posture, hair among other things ten times out of ten without fail, most people can do this basic feat (picture all the closet people to you with their heads covered, and be honest with yourself, could you identify them without seeing their face), to suggest they wanted to ask Jesus "who are you" by a facial injuries after already seeing him a week after his death of these apparent facial injuries is ridiculous, what's more, wounds heal and get better over time, to suggest that Jesus appearing to the apostles for the third time when his wounds are even more healed making Jesus -if raised in the same body- more recognizable, even less recognizable is absurd and contrary to science.

Moreover, if Jesus was raised in the same body but was unrecognizable from his facial injuries why was he recognized by the apsotles the day he was raised? John 20:16 and Luke 24:21:

(John 20:16) Jesus said to her: “Mary!” On turning around, she said to him in Hebrew: “Rab·boʹni!” (which means “Teacher!”)
(Luke 24:31) At that their eyes were fully opened and they recognized him; but he disappeared from them.


You said "But the idea that Jesus just throws on a different body every time He visits the disciples is ludicrous. The whole purpose of showing them the wounds was to prove that it was really Him", no. The purpose of showing him the wounds was yes, to prove to them that he had been raised, but it doesn't matter if he proved he was alive as a spirit by materialising a body of flesh and appearing to his disciples alive as a spirit.

How then did Jesus body get disposed of? Burning? That would prevent decay. Disappearing? That's hardly something a physical body does, but you said it was supernatural. I suppose Enoch and Elijah also had bodies that needed to be "disposed of". Funny, though, that all this time the Hebrews had been very careful about what happened to their bodies after death. If those old bodies just decay and never have anything happen to them, it was just superstition. I have a hard time believing that, especially when Jesus' body was obviously resurrected (despite your reluctance to believe it), Jesus resurrected other people in their actual bodies, and Revelation talks about people being resurrected by being given up by the sea.

You ARE adding to scripture, because scripture didn't say God disposed of the body. It only says the body didn't undergo decay. Two options that can meet those words: Jesus' old body stayed dead (and thus there's no hope for our resurrection), and Jesus old body was resurrected before decay set in (and thus there IS hope for our resurrection). Taking all of this into spiritual terms derives any meaning of it all, according to Paul.

You asked "How then did Jesus body get disposed of? Burning? That would prevent decay. Disappearing?", I do not know, all we know is that God did not allow his body to see decay. The human body starts decaying a few hours after death, in my career I've dealt with many dead persons, from weeks after death to a few moments after death, the microbes in you guts escapes and starts eating your organs only a few hours after death, decay starts from initial decay to active decay, from days 0-3 is initial decay, initial decay smells as its the body decaying inside. The bible states this never happened to Jesus body yet Jesus wasn't raised until the third day when he would smell from the decay. Your belief suggest Jesus body was left to decay for three days, my one suggests God prevented this by some supernatural means, bear in mind, any action God makes is supernatural.

I agree the thing about Satan wanting Moses' body is an odd thing. I can't say that your version is highly likely, however, since Moses' body had grown old, and the glory that used to shine from it faded. I think that means his body would eventually decay, so there's no problem with it becoming an object of worship. Who wants to worship and decaying body?

You do understand that China, 1 billion of the world's population are deep into ancestor worship, among other countries through Europe and Africa? Even in christianit their is veneration of saints, persons who are dead. Worship and veneration of the dead is a big thing in the world, to suggest "no one wants to worship a decaying body" is to ignore this fact. I've never suggested anyone wants to worship a decaying body, nor does anyone who practices ancestor worship actually worship the dead body, rather they worship the life of the person who had died, this is exactly what Satan possibly intended, he wanted the nation of Israel to venerate Moses so much that it detracted worship form God, what other reason can there be.

Adding to scripture is claiming the bible teaches something when it doesn't, as I've stated I'm speculating and using common sense, I'm hardly adding to the bible. You yourself claim Jesus face was severely injured, you've speculated yet you speculation is based on nothing, it's merely something you've made up to make sense of a contradiction, my speculation is based on scripture, namely, that God is supernatural and he did not allow Jesus body to see decay, I speculate and state God must have disposed of Jesus body to not allow it to see decay.

You're funny! Your example exactly refutes your position. The impression is DEFINITELY not the ring itself.

You miss the point, a "character" has nothing to do with identity but rather quality, you are correct, the impression is DEFINITELY not the ring itself, but the impression is identical to the impression of the ring, this is the point being made, that Jesus is the impression/copy/image/represetation of the Father. You claimed Jesus represented the Father in human form before, the text does not say this, the text says what it says, that Jesus is the exact same thing, namely the impression/copy/image/representation, of what God is. If God is a spirit then Jesus has to be a spirit, if God is invisible Jesus must be invisible, as I've said before this verse is irrefutable in showing Jesus is not a lump of flesh in heaven but is rather a spirit the same way the Father is a spirit, hence why your arguments against this point against it are not as beefed up as your other points to me.


But regarding a representation, Paul tells us [1Ti 2:5 ESV] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
The human Jesus Christ represents God to us, and us to God.

The word ANTHRWPOS does not necessarily mean “man” but is a generic term for “individual” or “person” (cf. Moulton’s Lexicon). It can even refer to women! Angels are many times referred to as “men” (Lk.24:4 Ac.10:30; Ge 32:24). Any reference to the heavenly Jesus as a "man" must be an anthropological expression and not a man literally ( Acts 17:31).

Further, the idea that Jesus is a man in heaven contradicts EVERY explicit statement in the Bible regarding Christ's heavenly body, 1 Cor 15:45 states "The first man was named Adam, and the Scriptures tell us that he was a living person. But Jesus, who may be called the last Adam, is a life-giving spirit..The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.", Jesus is a life-giving spirit and was raised as a spirit, "He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18).

There is far more evidence that Jesus has raised a spirit then he was raised as flesh. Jesus appearance in the locked room can be explained the aspotles thinking he was a unclean spirit/demon. The apostles not wanting to ask Jesus "who are you" only makes sense as Jesus didn't look like Jesus, Jesus taking back his sacrifice nullifying the ransom, all these things taking into account, there can be no doubt Jesus was raised as a spirit as explicitly stated in the scripture, Jesus clearly isn't from dust, namely a fleshly human as 1 Cor 15:45 states, he's a spirit!

Jesus isn't "still alive" since before He became flesh. He died and was resurrected. If He is "still alive" in a way that He did not die, then there was no resurrection. And if Jesus Christ is not raised, we have no hope.

If you say Jesus only had a temporary body that was sacrificed, and that body wasn't raised, and His spirit which animated that body never died, then there is nothing about Jesus that actually died and rose again. The thing that died must be the thing that rose again, if it is to be an actual resurrection (. If that was His spirit that died and was raised, and NOT His body, then somehow we have to understand how Jesus "became flesh" (John 1:14) in a way that He didn't really "become flesh", since His flesh wasn't a significant part of Him.

Before Jesus came to earth he was a spirit, this is clear as it states Jesus "became flesh" when coming to earth (John 1:14), thus he was not flesh prior coming to earth. When Jesus went from a spirit to a human in Mary womb he did not die, his life was simply transferred from that of a spirit to that of a human. Likewise when Jesus died he died as a man, but was raised as a spirit, this is litreally what the bible states "He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18), the bible literally states what I claim is true, you claim 'Jesus was put to death in the flesh and was made alive in the flesh', what you claim goes contrary to what the bible explicitly states.

You state "The thing that died must be the thing that rose again, if it is to be an actual resurrection", no, an individual is not an individual based on the body that they're in, Jesus didn't stop becoming the person he was when he was sent from heaven to earth, likewise Jesus didn't stop being the individual he was when he died as man and was raised as a spirit. The resurrection of mankind is based on the ransom of Jesus life by means of his body and his blood, it has nothing to do with the manner in which he was resurrected.

But Jesus was very clear that there was to be a death, and a rising, and the rising was of the same thing that died, else it wasn't a rising again.
[Mar 8:31 ESV] And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.


You say "blood and body", but the verses you give say "blood", except for Heb 10:10, which makes the point that the body was offered once for all time and with the rest of scripture declares that Jesus' body was broken for us, and that His body was raised alive again.

Just because I did not quote all the scrioture to prove a claim does not mean scripture does not state what I claim, moreover you even admitted that Hebrews 10:10 was given for us yet fail to insert this into your understanding.

(Luke 22:19, 20) Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.

The bread and wine represents Jesus body and blood that he gave for us, Hebrews 10:10 confirms Jesus gave his body, Hebrews 13:12 confirms he gave his blood.

I asked you this in my last reply to you but received no answer, here it is again. The nation of Israel had to offer sin offering sacrifices to God, if someone were to get a bull, offer it to the priest to be killed so their sin could be forgiven but as soon as the bull was killed and placed on the alter the person took all the flesh and meat of the bull back and scraped off the blood from the alter into a bag to keep for themselves would the sacrifice have been nullified or would it still be accepted by Yahweh?

 

[Derf]

it's bad



pretty sure there's unified agreement on that

As evidenced by Brain's next quote, "a state of inescapable suffering"

 

[Derf]

NWL, it is a joy to converse with you! I don't agree with some of your positions (and some I do), but you express yourself well and you don't merely restate yourself.

I don't understand why you've written what you have above, I don't deny or have ever expressed anything contrary to what you just wrote. Nothing you said is in opposition to anything that you quoted me with, namely, that people will rise and go to a new heaven or new earth, that people will reside on earth forever or that God's love doesn't seem to fit in with the teaching that he is capable of burning people forever.

You agree that Jesus was resurrected, but you can't point to what about Him was resurrected. It wasn't His spirit, as His spirit didn't die. It wasn't His body, as His body didn't rise. What was it?

I understand your argument and how the grave/hell, the sea, earth sodom and Gomorrah, refer to places, thus, when it mentions those places its referring to not those places specifically but rather the people in them. However, death is not place but rather a condition and yet is thrown into the lake of fire as stated in Rev 20:14, why is this significant some might ask? Its significant because five (5) verses later in Rev 21:4 it states "The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:3,4). So in Rev 20:14 it states "death is thrown into the lake of fire" which I maintain denotes everlasting destruction, and what do we find five (5) verses later, a statement confirming that "death will be no more" and that the "former things", which would include death, have "passed away", clear evidence that death "being thrown into the lake of fire" results in a deathless world, suggesting that the lake of fire symbolizes eternal destruction.

You also fail to account for the context in the verses, please remember Jesus stated " that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous" (acts 24:15, John 5:28,29), this is what Rev 20:14,15 is in relation to: And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. The dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. 15 Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.

Please notice the following and how it conflicts with what you say, you suggest that the naming of the places refer to the people in them in. Now notice the following, the accounts context has people in the sea and the grave/hell being brought out of them, "the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead", this "giving up" of people from these places can only refer to the what Jesus described as the "resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous" as it also states they will be judged just as Jesus also said in John 5:28,29. After people are resurrected from the sea, grave/hell and death the account continues "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire", notice how "death" and "the grave" are thrown into the lake of fire 'once everyone is raised from them and no longer in them' in v13, the account continues "Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire", only AFTER death and the grave/Hell are already thrown into the lake of fire do we find the people in them "not found written in the book of life" also thrown into the lake of fire. So to suggest the "sea" and the "grave/hell and death" being thrown into the lake of fire represented the people in those places goes against the account, as the account clearly separates the people from those places as it states they were emptied first and then, and only then, are they thrown into the lake of fire, afterward the people who were brought out of them are thrown into the lake of fire.

From what I can see what I have suggested about the text is the most consistent with scripture.

I think you misunderstood me. I said the "focus" was on the condition, and not that the area/place/condition is merely talking about the people. I agree with what you say that if death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, it is an indication that there is no more death. Thus, the "second death" must be something not completely like the first death.

So here's what I propose:
If the first death is an actual death like an animal's death (Ecc 3:19, but see 3:21 for possible rebuttal), and there is no life without the body being involved, then the second death, being a cognizant reality, is nothing like the first death, which makes sense for the reason you've stated--that the first kind of death has already been completely defeated--the only thing left is life/cognizance of some sort. That's why I say annihilationism might occur, but only as the first death, and that is reversed with the resurrection--for the good of those that believe and for the bad of those that don't.

You are correct and I can admit that since the account in Luke 24 there are no modifications, (i.e unclean spirit) in regards to what type of spirit is mentioned, this is why we must use common sense to determine the most likely answer. The account states the apsotles were "they were terrified and frightened as they imagined that they were seeing a spirit", what does common sense tell you, would the disciples logically be "terrified and frightened" if they concluded the thing in front of them was Jesus raised as a spirit? No, why would it. Would the disciples logically be "terrified and frightened" if they concluded the thing in front of them was an Angel? No, why would it. Would the disciples logically be "terrified and frightened" if they concluded the thing in front of them was a demon? YES! Who wouldn't be. The disciples being terrified only makes sense if they thought the thing they were witnessing was a demon.

Let's be honest, if Jesus as a spirit, or simply as a man or an Angel were to appear in front of you right now and you had an honest held belief it was Jesusor an Angel, would you be scared and terrified? No. However, if you saw what you believed to be a demon appear in front of you right now would you be scared and terrified, most if not all would say yes. Likewise, the account in Luke 24 only makes sense if they thought Jesus was actually a demon when appearing to them, there is no reason they would be terrified if they though it was Jesus as a spirit of an angel.

That must have been disappointing for the shepherds to find out they had been visited by a demon. [Luk 2:9 NASB] And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.

You said "your reference to the disciples being afraid of Jesus because they thought he was a spirit, uses a different word, "phantasma"", what you have just claimed is completely incorrect, the word used in Luke 24:37 is πνεῦμα (pneuma), I think you're jumping the gun and using an argument against Matthew 14:26 where the apostles saw an apparition (Greek: phantasma), I have not made such an argument which can only suggest to me you're reading up about arguments against the ones I've made and somewhere got mistaken.

I'll retract that one.

Your account is not believable, remember I already highlighted that the apostles already believed the person standing on the shore to be Jesus by the miracle he preformed, this is clear by the proclamation "It is the Lord!" and them all rushing to see Jesus, to claim that they wanted to ask "who are you" because of facial wounds despite the bible never stating he had facial wounds is complete speculation, the only logical reason why and one that is consistent with the context is that they did not recognize Jesus and therefore wanted to ask "who are you". You can keep claiming that Jesus had wounds and therefore was recognized but you must first admit that it is complete speculation and not biblical but simply a personal belief, it would be more logical to simply state maybe Jesus was wearing a hood rather than this "facial wound" theory you've conjured up.

The point remains, the disciples already thought the person they were heading towards was the Lord, when getting close and seeing him they did not recognize the person they saw, the most consistent understanding is that they did not recognize Jesus as he appeared completely different. I work with thirty people (30) and have eight (8) immediate family members, I could bet every buck I have that if I was shown an image of each person with their faces covered I could identify who they were by their body structure, posture, hair among other things ten times out of ten without fail, most people can do this basic feat (picture all the closet people to you with their heads covered, and be honest with yourself, could you identify them without seeing their face), to suggest they wanted to ask Jesus "who are you" by a facial injuries after already seeing him a week after his death of these apparent facial injuries is ridiculous, what's more, wounds heal and get better over time, to suggest that Jesus appearing to the apostles for the third time when his wounds are even more healed making Jesus -if raised in the same body- more recognizable, even less recognizable is absurd and contrary to science.

Moreover, if Jesus was raised in the same body but was unrecognizable from his facial injuries why was he recognized by the apsotles the day he was raised? John 20:16 and Luke 24:21:

(John 20:16) Jesus said to her: “Mary!” On turning around, she said to him in Hebrew: “Rab·boʹni!” (which means “Teacher!”)
(Luke 24:31) At that their eyes were fully opened and they recognized him; but he disappeared from them.


You said "But the idea that Jesus just throws on a different body every time He visits the disciples is ludicrous. The whole purpose of showing them the wounds was to prove that it was really Him", no. The purpose of showing him the wounds was yes, to prove to them that he had been raised, but it doesn't matter if he proved he was alive as a spirit by materialising a body of flesh and appearing to his disciples alive as a spirit.

It's not a proof if any old spirit can manifest with wounds whenever he wants to. Your argument defeats the purpose by showing the logic not to be valid. Jesus doesn't show anything special by just having wounds that are fabricated on the spot, since He could fabricate them even if He hadn't suffered the wounding.

You asked "How then did Jesus body get disposed of? Burning? That would prevent decay. Disappearing?", I do not know, all we know is that God did not allow his body to see decay. The human body starts decaying a few hours after death, in my career I've dealt with many dead persons, from weeks after death to a few moments after death, the microbes in you guts escapes and starts eating your organs only a few hours after death, decay starts from initial decay to active decay, from days 0-3 is initial decay, initial decay smells as its the body decaying inside. The bible states this never happened to Jesus body yet Jesus wasn't raised until the third day when he would smell from the decay. Your belief suggest Jesus body was left to decay for three days, my one suggests God prevented this by some supernatural means, bear in mind, any action God makes is supernatural.

Out of time for today--I'll have to get back to this one another time. (You can tell I don't always address these things in order.)

You miss the point, a "character" has nothing to do with identity but rather quality, you are correct, the impression is DEFINITELY not the ring itself, but the impression is identical to the impression of the ring, this is the point being made, that Jesus is the impression/copy/image/represetation of the Father. You claimed Jesus represented the Father in human form before, the text does not say this, the text says what it says, that Jesus is the exact same thing, namely the impression/copy/image/representation, of what God is. If God is a spirit then Jesus has to be a spirit, if God is invisible Jesus must be invisible, as I've said before this verse is irrefutable in showing Jesus is not a lump of flesh in heaven but is rather a spirit the same way the Father is a spirit, hence why your arguments against this point against it are not as beefed up as your other points to me.

Yes, that's what I was saying--the impression is a visible representation of an invisible ring. Its the character of God--not the form. See next comment.

But regarding a representation, Paul tells us [1Ti 2:5 ESV] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
The human Jesus Christ represents God to us, and us to God.

The word ANTHRWPOS does not necessarily mean “man” but is a generic term for “individual” or “person” (cf. Moulton’s Lexicon). It can even refer to women! Angels are many times referred to as “men” (Lk.24:4 Ac.10:30; Ge 32:24). Any reference to the heavenly Jesus as a "man" must be an anthropological expression and not a man literally ( Acts 17:31).

Further, the idea that Jesus is a man in heaven contradicts EVERY explicit statement in the Bible regarding Christ's heavenly body, 1 Cor 15:45 states "The first man was named Adam, and the Scriptures tell us that he was a living person. But Jesus, who may be called the last Adam, is a life-giving spirit..The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.", Jesus is a life-giving spirit and was raised as a spirit, "He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18).

There is far more evidence that Jesus has raised a spirit then he was raised as flesh. Jesus appearance in the locked room can be explained the aspotles thinking he was a unclean spirit/demon. The apostles not wanting to ask Jesus "who are you" only makes sense as Jesus didn't look like Jesus, Jesus taking back his sacrifice nullifying the ransom, all these things taking into account, there can be no doubt Jesus was raised as a spirit as explicitly stated in the scripture, Jesus clearly isn't from dust, namely a fleshly human as 1 Cor 15:45 states, he's a spirit!



Before Jesus came to earth he was a spirit, this is clear as it states Jesus "became flesh" when coming to earth (John 1:14), thus he was not flesh prior coming to earth. When Jesus went from a spirit to a human in Mary womb he did not die, his life was simply transferred from that of a spirit to that of a human. Likewise when Jesus died he died as a man, but was raised as a spirit, this is litreally what the bible states "He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18), the bible literally states what I claim is true, you claim 'Jesus was put to death in the flesh and was made alive in the flesh', what you claim goes contrary to what the bible explicitly states.

You state "The thing that died must be the thing that rose again, if it is to be an actual resurrection", no, an individual is not an individual based on the body that they're in, Jesus didn't stop becoming the person he was when he was sent from heaven to earth, likewise Jesus didn't stop being the individual he was when he died as man and was raised as a spirit. The resurrection of mankind is based on the ransom of Jesus life by means of his body and his blood, it has nothing to do with the manner in which he was resurrected.

I think you're finding yourself at a loss here, aren't you? Once again, if Jesus didn't have some part of him that both died and was resurrected, then there's no Christian faith. If the Son "became flesh" then He became something else--a new nature was added to His previous self. If that new nature of physical man is still dead, then He might go back to being spirit, but He's no longer a man. Man is physical, made from dust. Jesus became man to die in our place, but He also rose again as the firstfruits of those that defeat death.

And here's another verse showing Jesus representing the Father: [Jhn 14:9 ESV] Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Jesus, a man, standing before Philip, says "if you've seen me", and Philip was obviously seeing Jesus at that particular time, "you've seen the Father." That doesn't make the Father physical, though Jesus was at that time. And then means He can still be physically resurrected after His death.

Just because I did not quote all the scrioture to prove a claim does not mean scripture does not state what I claim, moreover you even admitted that Hebrews 10:10 was given for us yet fail to insert this into your understanding.

(Luke 22:19, 20) Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.

The bread and wine represents Jesus body and blood that he gave for us, Hebrews 10:10 confirms Jesus gave his body, Hebrews 13:12 confirms he gave his blood.

I asked you this in my last reply to you but received no answer, here it is again. The nation of Israel had to offer sin offering sacrifices to God, if someone were to get a bull, offer it to the priest to be killed so their sin could be forgiven but as soon as the bull was killed and placed on the alter the person took all the flesh and meat of the bull back and scraped off the blood from the alter into a bag to keep for themselves would the sacrifice have been nullified or would it still be accepted by Yahweh?

What did the Israelites do with the passover lamb? They ate it. It came from their own flocks (at least originally), and they sacrificed it and ate it. What kind of sacrifice would it be if they kept the sacrifice for themselves (and ate it)? It would be one that complies with God's commands.

 

[Arthur Brain]

God alienates people? Oh well.

Not sure why you quoted me as I said or implied no such thing.

:idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

As evidenced by Brain's next quote, "a state of inescapable suffering"

Well, for proponents of eternal torment, hell, or rather the lake of fire, it would have to be inescapable and unending, right? The point is, why isn't there crystal clear uniformity on the matter? Why any disagreement on it at all?

 

[ok doser]

... why isn't there crystal clear uniformity on the matter?

why would you expect it?

what matters in your world have crystal clear uniformity?

 

[7djengo7]

That many people are alienated by doctrines of eternal suffering and the obvious reasons as to why?

Alienated from what, though? Alienated from doctrines of eternal suffering?

 

[NWL]

NWL, it is a joy to converse with you! I don't agree with some of your positions (and some I do), but you express yourself well and you don't merely restate yourself.

Likewise.

You agree that Jesus was resurrected, but you can't point to what about Him was resurrected. It wasn't His spirit, as His spirit didn't die. It wasn't His body, as His body didn't rise. What was it?

Jesus died as a man in his flesh, and was then simply raised as a spirit person. I understand your misunderstanding in relation to what I believe in relation to what you understand of the bible, since you state "It wasn't His spirit, as His spirit didn't die", I do not believe Jesus or even us had of have a spirit or soul, the spirit of a man simply relates and is synonymous with the word "life", hence when Jesus said "Father, into your hand I entrust my spirit" (Luke 23:46), this wasn't to say Jesus spirit never died or went out of him but rather it was simply Jesus expressing that his life was in the hands of his father who was to soon to raise him. I've said this before to you but the word spirit has more than one definition in the bible, when it speak about the spirit of a man its not in relation to a non-physical part of a person, his soul, it simply relates to a persons "life", context in each case determines what the word "spirit" means, be it in relation to a spirit body, to the wind, the holy spirit, to demon, to emotions of a person or an angel, among other definitions.

Another example of spirit showing it refers to a life of a man is P 146:4 that states "His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish", notice how the spirit or life goes out, man returns to the ground and on that very day a persons thoughts stop, they do not continue in the spirit that goes out of the person as the word "spirit" simply refers and means the life of a person, the verse is simply saying "his life went out of him", hence the reason why other translations render this verse "When his breath leaves him" and others "When their spirit departs", as from a grammatical and contextual point of view the word "spirit" simply means "life".

So when you ask "you can't point to what about Him was resurrected. It wasn't His spirit, as His spirit didn't die. It wasn't His body, as His body didn't rise. What was it?" I would simply say Jesus died as a man in the flesh and was raised a sprit. The same way his life was transferred from a spirit to a man when initially coming to earth, Jesus was simply transferred as a dead human back to a spirit, this is literally what the scriptures express, "He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. And in this state he went and preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:18), this is an undeniable expression of Jesus being a spirit even preaching to the spirit in prison as a spirit.

I think you misunderstood me. I said the "focus" was on the condition, and not that the area/place/condition is merely talking about the people. I agree with what you say that if death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, it is an indication that there is no more death. Thus, the "second death" must be something not completely like the first death.

So here's what I propose:
If the first death is an actual death like an animal's death (Ecc 3:19, but see 3:21 for possible rebuttal), and there is no life without the body being involved, then the second death, being a cognizant reality, is nothing like the first death, which makes sense for the reason you've stated--that the first kind of death has already been completely defeated--the only thing left is life/cognizance of some sort. That's why I say annihilationism might occur, but only as the first death, and that is reversed with the resurrection--for the good of those that believe and for the bad of those that don't.

Ok, I would summarise the first death and the second death as follows:

The first death: A state of unconsciousness, with the inability to do anything, people who have the first death have the prospect to be raised to life again by God.
The second death: A state of unconsciousness, with the inability to do anything, people who have the second death have been judged and have no prospect to be raised by God again, their non-existence is now eternal.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the things you've said above, when you say "then the second death, being a cognizant reality, is nothing like the first death, which makes sense for the reason you've stated--that the first kind of death has already been completely defeated--the only thing left is life/cognizance of some sort" I understand this to mean that you believe that any who have the second death are in a state of consciousness as it must be different from the first death which is a state of unconsciousness, am I correct that this is what you believe? Please also confirm whether or not you believe anyone who gets the second death are tormented?

I don't understand why the second death can't refer to the same thing as the first death, but the condition of death being everlasting which sets it apart from the first death. Anyone who has the second death is only dead for a time as there is a "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous", anyone who is judged to be unworthy after being made alive again then gets the second death, they become dead again like in the first death, but since they have been judged by the righteous God their state of non-existence is everlasting, this, to me, is what the second death means, if you could, explain why this is not a possibility. Hebrews 6:2 mentions "the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment".

That must have been disappointing for the shepherds to find out they had been visited by a demon. [Luk 2:9 NASB] And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.

There is a huge difference in the two scenarios, the apostles were used to supernatural feats and had even seen glorious appearances of Jesus and others previously and more accustomed to such feats, these poor lonely shepherds in the wilderness were not, it is not striking then that the two words used to describe the fear the apostles and the shepherds had as different. If God were to appear in front of you right now you might become fearful, not that you are scared of God but rather you are God-fearing of him out of deep respect, this is the fear the shepherds had, this can be seen by the Greek words that was used to describe their fear, the fear the apostles had, by the Greek word usage, was the kind of fear of horror or shock.

Luke 24:37:emphoboi (4422 strongs) and emphoboi (1719 strongs)

4422: (from the root meaning, "fly") – properly, flutter; (figuratively) terrify, like when someone "flies off" into unrealistic, irrational behavior.... in ancient Greek meant "to alarm, be startled, terrified" (HELPS)
1719 émphobos (from 1722, "in" and 5401 /phóbos, "fear") – properly, locked in a state of fear, i.e. in the grip of a fearful state of mind. (HELPS)

Luke 2:9 - phobon (5401)
5401 phóbos (from phebomai, "to flee, withdraw") – fear (from Homer about 900 bc on) 5401 (phóbos) meant withdrawal, fleeing because feeling inadequate (without sufficient resources, Abbott-Smith).
Fear (5401 /phóbos) is commonly used in Scripture – sometimes positively (in relation to God) but more often negatively of withdrawing from the Lord (His will).

It's not a proof if any old spirit can manifest with wounds whenever he wants to. Your argument defeats the purpose by showing the logic not to be valid. Jesus doesn't show anything special by just having wounds that are fabricated on the spot, since He could fabricate them even if He hadn't suffered the wounding.

He's proving that he is the risen Christ, it doesn't matter how or what did Jesus to prove he was the risen Christ just as long as the apostles believed. Jesus would have known the apostles would never believe he was the risen christ unless he showed them wounds of some sort, just like Thomas didn't believe, thus he proved it to them in that manner and many other ways. You're correct any old spirit (non-demonic one) could've done what Jesus did and manifested himself in Jesus form and did the same things, this does not disprove that Jesus didn't do it though. The bible doesn't claim Jesus did anything special by showing his wounds, this was merely for the apostle's sake so that they would believe. I fail to see how Jesus having the ability to form a temporary body and replicate his wounds is self-defeating.

Yes, that's what I was saying--the impression is a visible representation of an invisible ring. Its the character of God--not the form. See next comment.

There is no "invisible ring" with the example though, an invisible ring doesn't stamp hot wax leaving a visible imprint as you say, rather a visible ring "print" stamps hot wax leaving a visible imprint, the definition demands the imprint to an exact copy of the print itself. God is not the ring, God is the print, Jesus is an exact copy and imprint of God's print. Again the text is undeniable with what it says, to start assuming Jesus was a visible imprint of an invisible God adds ideas and words into the text, the text is literally saying Jesus is exactly the same image/imprint/representation of God, we must take the bible for what it says over personal ideologies, it does not say he is the physical or visible representation.

I think you're finding yourself at a loss here, aren't you? Once again, if Jesus didn't have some part of him that both died and was resurrected, then there's no Christian faith. If the Son "became flesh" then He became something else--a new nature was added to His previous self. If that new nature of physical man is still dead, then He might go back to being spirit, but He's no longer a man. Man is physical, made from dust. Jesus became man to die in our place, but He also rose again as the firstfruits of those that defeat death.

You say "if Jesus didn't have some part of him that both died and was resurrected, then there's no Christian faith", yet I do say he was resurrected, he was raised in a spirit form, Jesus as an entity was resurrected. There is nothing in the bible that states the same part of Jesus that died HAD to be resurrected, if there is then please show it. Jesus existed prior coming to earth as a spirit, "but you [Father] prepared a body for me" (Hebrews 10:5). Nothing in yellow above proves that Jesus remained as a man. You seem to make claims that Jesus as a man rose again as the firstfruits of those that defeat death but those scripture say nothing about Jesus rising as a man. To claim that me suggesting Jesus "rose as a spirit" is to deny the resurrection of Jesus is to unwittingly imply Son the did not really come to earth since it was by the same method Jesus life was transferred from heaven to earth that Jesus life was resurrected from earth to heaven. I see no reasoning against what the bible explicitly states that Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18).

And here's another verse showing Jesus representing the Father: [Jhn 14:9 ESV] Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Jesus, a man, standing before Philip, says "if you've seen me", and Philip was obviously seeing Jesus at that particular time, "you've seen the Father." That doesn't make the Father physical, though Jesus was at that time. And then means He can still be physically resurrected after His death.

I'll assume this part was in relation to what I said about Hebrews 1:3 and Jesus being the exact representation of God. Again, John 14:9 was Jesus talking on his earthly ministry, Hebrews 1:3 was talking about Jesus after his death and resurrection after he had sat down at the right hand of God in heaven, these are two huge different contrasts. Jesus said what he said in John 14 because as he earlier explained "For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak" (John 12:49).

Please read the following account and how Paul uses the word corruption in relation to physical fleshly man:

(1 Cor 15:35,40,42,50) Nevertheless, someone will say: “How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what sort of body are they coming?”...And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort....So it is with the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised up in incorruption....it is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body...But I tell you this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.." (I have cropped out scripture for length purposes but please read1 Cor 15:35-50)

Now notice the following in Acts 13:34 when Paul writes "And the fact that He [God] resurrected him from the dead never again to return to corruption, He has stated in this way: ‘I will give you the expressions of loyal love promised to David, which are faithful."

Paul cleary demonstrates that fleshly bodies are bodies of "corruption", since bodies of flesh can all get sick, injured and decay after death. When people are raised up to heaven though Paul makes it clear that people are raised in incurrption, this is because a spirit body is not physical or bodies of flesh and therefore cannot get ill, injured or decay since they are not tangible, only physical things have those attributes. Jesus had a body that was corruptible, but when he was raised Paul states he would "never again to return to corruption", a clear indicator he was not raised in the same corruptible fleshly body that he died in. Paul makes a clear comparison to humans who when alive are "sown a physical body" compared to that of heavenly raised ones who are "raised up a spiritual body". The scripture are undeniable that people and Jesus were raised as spirits.

What did the Israelites do with the passover lamb? They ate it. It came from their own flocks (at least originally), and they sacrificed it and ate it. What kind of sacrifice would it be if they kept the sacrifice for themselves (and ate it)? It would be one that complies with God's commands.

I wasn't speaking about the passover lamb, my question was already defined by the sin offering the nation of Israel had to give year after year, I could have easly mentioned how the Levities used to eat the meat along with the family who offered the sacrifice, but I didn't. Again, my question was would the sacrifice be valid if the person offering the sacrifice kept it for themselves by taking back the meat and the blood? Would the sacrifice be valid?

 

[Derf]

Likewise.



Jesus died as a man in his flesh, and was then simply raised as a spirit person.

You seem to make a distinction between a "man" and a "spirit person". This is good, since "man" is what Adam was--the very first one. And Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man:
[Rom 5:17 ESV] For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
[1Ti 2:5 ESV] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Neither of the foregoing verses give any other option than that Jesus is still a man.

So when you ask "you can't point to what about Him was resurrected. It wasn't His spirit, as His spirit didn't die. It wasn't His body, as His body didn't rise. What was it?" I would simply say Jesus died as a man in the flesh and was raised a sprit. The same way his life was transferred from a spirit to a man when initially coming to earth, Jesus was simply transferred as a dead human back to a spirit, this is literally what the scriptures express, "He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. And in this state he went and preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:18), this is an undeniable expression of Jesus being a spirit even preaching to the spirit in prison as a spirit.

Again, you make a great distinction between being a man in the flesh and being a spirit. You seem to recognize, rightly, that Jesus was NOT a man before He took on flesh. But we are assured that Jesus remains a man after He died. Thus, He is NOT without a body. His disciples saw Him in His bodily form, after His resurrection, rising up to heaven. It wasn't just a spirit that was rising up to heaven, just as it wasn't just a spirit Elisha saw rising up to heaven when Elijah went up. There wasn't a separation of spirit from body for Elijah anymore than there was for Jesus. Neither will we, if we remain alive until His coming, be just spirits rising up to heaven:
[1Th 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.
Because, as you conveniently left out below:
[1Co 15:51 KJV] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Ok, I would summarise the first death and the second death as follows:

The first death: A state of unconsciousness, with the inability to do anything, people who have the first death have the prospect to be raised to life again by God.
The second death: A state of unconsciousness, with the inability to do anything, people who have the second death have been judged and have no prospect to be raised by God again, their non-existence is now eternal.

You are then admitting that "Death" is NOT swallowed up in victory, nor is "Death" thrown into the Lake of Fire, by which it can never have power over anyone again. Nor is the last enemy to be defeated "Death", since "Death" will then be a permanent victor:
[1Co 15:26 KJV] The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.

If the lake of fire is the second death, and the first death is thrown into the second death, then how can death be destroyed by death?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the things you've said above, when you say "then the second death, being a cognizant reality, is nothing like the first death, which makes sense for the reason you've stated--that the first kind of death has already been completely defeated--the only thing left is life/cognizance of some sort" I understand this to mean that you believe that any who have the second death are in a state of consciousness as it must be different from the first death which is a state of unconsciousness, am I correct that this is what you believe? Please also confirm whether or not you believe anyone who gets the second death are tormented?

I'm still thinking through what the first death actually is, but my proposition is that it is a state of unconsciousness, as you seem to think, too. What is that unconsciousness like? Well, the body decays and goes away, so the unconsciousness doesn't apply to the body, which no longer exists (and in fact, our bodies may contain molecules of other people's bodies). What's left? An unconscious soul or spirit? I guess that's possible, but does God have some storage place for unconscious spirits? Rev mentions something like this: [Rev 6:9 KJV] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:...[Rev 6:11 KJV] And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

I don't understand why the second death can't refer to the same thing as the first death, but the condition of death being everlasting which sets it apart from the first death. Anyone who has the second death is only dead for a time as there is a "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous", anyone who is judged to be unworthy after being made alive again then gets the second death, they become dead again like in the first death, but since they have been judged by the righteous God their state of non-existence is everlasting, this, to me, is what the second death means, if you could, explain why this is not a possibility. Hebrews 6:2 mentions "the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment".

For one thing, I don't believe the bible ever puts the word "everlasting" with "death", despite the numerous associations between "everlasting" and "life". "Destruction", yes, but not "death". As explained before, the second death is not described in the same terms as the first death, as the first death is never termed a "lake of fire" or any other kind of "fire", is it?

And if death is the penalty for sin, then can God be just when people have to die 2 deaths? There must be something else going on after the first death is reversed: Christ can claim victory for the resurrection, even if unto judgment. Beyond that, the problem is what to do with people who have died once and even after the resurrection are not willing to follow the commands of God in God's Kingdom. What punishment remains when the stated punishment is already been fulfilled, but God's will is still not being done on earth as it is in heaven, at least as it relates to those people?

Kings on earth have a similar problem. There are only three potential solutions for someone who won't obey. Imprisonment, Banishment, and Death. The Death option no longer exists, so you have imprisonment and banishment. Banishment, for a King has all authority in heaven and earth and under the earth, is an impossibility--there's nowhere to send them. Imprisonment is all that's left, I think. And imprisonment in a place that doesn't receive any of the good things God gives to His people, those of His kingdom. If God is the source of all good, and these people are refusing any good from God, the only thing left is evil for them. They get what they choose.

There is a huge difference in the two scenarios, the apostles were used to supernatural feats and had even seen glorious appearances of Jesus and others previously and more accustomed to such feats, these poor lonely shepherds in the wilderness were not, it is not striking then that the two words used to describe the fear the apostles and the shepherds had as different. If God were to appear in front of you right now you might become fearful, not that you are scared of God but rather you are God-fearing of him out of deep respect, this is the fear the shepherds had, this can be seen by the Greek words that was used to describe their fear, the fear the apostles had, by the Greek word usage, was the kind of fear of horror or shock.

Luke 24:37:emphoboi (4422 strongs) and emphoboi (1719 strongs)

4422: (from the root meaning, "fly") – properly, flutter; (figuratively) terrify, like when someone "flies off" into unrealistic, irrational behavior.... in ancient Greek meant "to alarm, be startled, terrified" (HELPS)
1719 émphobos (from 1722, "in" and 5401 /phóbos, "fear") – properly, locked in a state of fear, i.e. in the grip of a fearful state of mind. (HELPS)

Luke 2:9 - phobon (5401)
5401 phóbos (from phebomai, "to flee, withdraw") – fear (from Homer about 900 bc on) 5401 (phóbos) meant withdrawal, fleeing because feeling inadequate (without sufficient resources, Abbott-Smith).
Fear (5401 /phóbos) is commonly used in Scripture – sometimes positively (in relation to God) but more often negatively of withdrawing from the Lord (His will).

I don't think you've proved anything here. You're welcome to try again.

He's proving that he is the risen Christ, it doesn't matter how or what did Jesus to prove he was the risen Christ just as long as the apostles believed. Jesus would have known the apostles would never believe he was the risen christ unless he showed them wounds of some sort, just like Thomas didn't believe, thus he proved it to them in that manner and many other ways. You're correct any old spirit (non-demonic one) could've done what Jesus did and manifested himself in Jesus form and did the same things, this does not disprove that Jesus didn't do it though. The bible doesn't claim Jesus did anything special by showing his wounds, this was merely for the apostle's sake so that they would believe. I fail to see how Jesus having the ability to form a temporary body and replicate his wounds is self-defeating.

How about if car maker were to replicate Elvis's car in every detail, and show it to people as if it were the car the Elvis drove? Pick something else. How about we replicate in every detail one of Michelangelo's paintings or sculptures, and say "this is the very painting/sculpture created by Michelangelo"? What would you say about that? Would you think you had been lied to?

There is no "invisible ring" with the example though, an invisible ring doesn't stamp hot wax leaving a visible imprint as you say, rather a visible ring "print" stamps hot wax leaving a visible imprint, the definition demands the imprint to an exact copy of the print itself. God is not the ring, God is the print, Jesus is an exact copy and imprint of God's print. Again the text is undeniable with what it says, to start assuming Jesus was a visible imprint of an invisible God adds ideas and words into the text, the text is literally saying Jesus is exactly the same image/imprint/representation of God, we must take the bible for what it says over personal ideologies, it does not say he is the physical or visible representation.

Well, if all you're looking at is the impression, then there is indeed an invisible ring--you don't see it, so it's invisible. (The method of becoming invisible is not under discussion.) But if Jesus is still "the man Jesus Christ", then He is NOT God who is only spirit. Now, Jesus might be invisible at this time, but that's because when He went up into heaven, the disciples lost sight of Him. It doesn't mean He became a body-less spirit.

You say "if Jesus didn't have some part of him that both died and was resurrected, then there's no Christian faith", yet I do say he was resurrected, he was raised in a spirit form, Jesus as an entity was resurrected. There is nothing in the bible that states the same part of Jesus that died HAD to be resurrected, if there is then please show it. Jesus existed prior coming to earth as a spirit, "but you [Father] prepared a body for me" (Hebrews 10:5). Nothing in yellow above proves that Jesus remained as a man. You seem to make claims that Jesus as a man rose again as the firstfruits of those that defeat death but those scripture say nothing about Jesus rising as a man. To claim that me suggesting Jesus "rose as a spirit" is to deny the resurrection of Jesus is to unwittingly imply Son the did not really come to earth since it was by the same method Jesus life was transferred from heaven to earth that Jesus life was resurrected from earth to heaven. I see no reasoning against what the bible explicitly states that Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18).

Not really. If Jesus existed prior to coming to earth as a man, and then He went back to being the same as He was before--not a man--how can we be brothers of His, fellow-heirs, without losing our manhood. You're treading on some shaky ground here.

I'll assume this part was in relation to what I said about Hebrews 1:3 and Jesus being the exact representation of God. Again, John 14:9 was Jesus talking on his earthly ministry, Hebrews 1:3 was talking about Jesus after his death and resurrection after he had sat down at the right hand of God in heaven, these are two huge different contrasts. Jesus said what he said in John 14 because as he earlier explained "For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak" (John 12:49).

Either way, Jesus was a man when He talked to Philip, and He's a man now, according to Paul: [1Ti 2:5 KJV] For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Please read the following account and how Paul uses the word corruption in relation to physical fleshly man:

(1 Cor 15:35,40,42,50) Nevertheless, someone will say: “How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what sort of body are they coming?”...And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort....So it is with the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised up in incorruption....it is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body...But I tell you this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.." (I have cropped out scripture for length purposes but please read1 Cor 15:35-50)

Now notice the following in Acts 13:34 when Paul writes "And the fact that He [God] resurrected him from the dead never again to return to corruption, He has stated in this way: ‘I will give you the expressions of loyal love promised to David, which are faithful."

Paul cleary demonstrates that fleshly bodies are bodies of "corruption", since bodies of flesh can all get sick, injured and decay after death. When people are raised up to heaven though Paul makes it clear that people are raised in incurrption, this is because a spirit body is not physical or bodies of flesh and therefore cannot get ill, injured or decay since they are not tangible, only physical things have those attributes. Jesus had a body that was corruptible, but when he was raised Paul states he would "never again to return to corruption", a clear indicator he was not raised in the same corruptible fleshly body that he died in. Paul makes a clear comparison to humans who when alive are "sown a physical body" compared to that of heavenly raised ones who are "raised up a spiritual body". The scripture are undeniable that people and Jesus were raised as spirits.

Or with a body that will last forever, possibly like those in the lake of fire???
The point of Paul's passage is that the body is changed--I don't deny that--but that it is still a body. He's dealing with the body both before and after: "with what sort of body are they coming?"

I wasn't speaking about the passover lamb, my question was already defined by the sin offering the nation of Israel had to give year after year, I could have easly mentioned how the Levities used to eat the meat along with the family who offered the sacrifice, but I didn't. Again, my question was would the sacrifice be valid if the person offering the sacrifice kept it for themselves by taking back the meat and the blood? Would the sacrifice be valid?

I'll consider my point proven.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Alienated from what, though? Alienated from doctrines of eternal suffering?

Um, yeah, just that. Thought it was clear enough?

 

[Derf]

Well, for proponents of eternal torment, hell, or rather the lake of fire, it would have to be inescapable and unending, right? The point is, why isn't there crystal clear uniformity on the matter? Why any disagreement on it at all?

Because even if it were absolutely clear, there would be people who reject it. And those who reject it would find ways to alter it to make it more palatable to them.

Here's an example: A man and his wife live in a beautiful orchard. Though they didn't plant it, they work the orchard and don't have to pay any rent. They are allowed to partake of any of the fruit of the trees of the orchard except one. When they eat of that particular fruit, they are assured that they will die. They know what "die" means--the husband is an accomplished taxonomist, They don't want to die, so they agree to set an extra boundary of protection around the tree, and they decide not to even touch the tree itself.

For some reason, though, when someone else shows up saying they will not die if they eat the fruit, but instead they will become as powerful and rich as the orchard owner. The stranger convinces them quite readily, they eat of the fruit and die.

Why do you think they were so easily convinced to take the word of a stranger over the owner of the orchard? Wasn't there crystal clear uniformity on the matter? Why any disagreement at all?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because even if it were absolutely clear, there would be people who reject it. And those who reject it would find ways to alter it to make it more palatable to them.

Here's an example: A man and his wife live in a beautiful orchard. Though they didn't plant it, they work the orchard and don't have to pay any rent. They are allowed to partake of any of the fruit of the trees of the orchard except one. When they eat of that particular fruit, they are assured that they will die. They know what "die" means--the husband is an accomplished taxonomist, They don't want to die, so they agree to set an extra boundary of protection around the tree, and they decide not to even touch the tree itself.

For some reason, though, when someone else shows up saying they will not die if they eat the fruit, but instead they will become as powerful and rich as the orchard owner. The stranger convinces them quite readily, they eat of the fruit and die.

Why do you think they were so easily convinced to take the word of a stranger over the owner of the orchard? Wasn't there crystal clear uniformity on the matter? Why any disagreement at all?

That isn't actually answering why there isn't uniform agreement among those who do believe in it. If there's no clear cut uniformity on the issue among proponents of it then why would anyone else be convinced?

With regards to your analogy, it doesn't really hold up as people aren't generally walking around "knowing" that there's a hellish fate that awaits them if they don't believe or get things in order in one brief speck of a physical existence. It's an abstract, something unprovable and part of a doctrine within the more fundamentalist/evangelical churches that not all Christians believe in by any stretch. It's almost akin to those who bizarrely argue that people "choose" their own perceived take on "hell".

 

[Derf]

That isn't actually answering why there isn't uniform agreement among those who do believe in it. If there's no clear cut uniformity on the issue among proponents of it then why would anyone else be convinced?

With regards to your analogy, it doesn't really hold up as people aren't generally walking around "knowing" that there's a hellish fate that awaits them if they don't believe or get things in order in one brief speck of a physical existence. It's an abstract, something unprovable and part of a doctrine within the more fundamentalist/evangelical churches that not all Christians believe in by any stretch. It's almost akin to those who bizarrely argue that people "choose" their own perceived take on "hell".

I'm just saying that even if there's no lack of uniformity and no lack of clarity, the confusion can still result.

This particular issue may not be the most important.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm just saying that even if there's no lack of uniformity and no lack of clarity, the confusion can still result.

This particular issue may not be the most important.

Except, why isn't there absolute clarity? Why is there any disagreement on the subject at all? It's not like it's a trifling detail or something not that important, you're talking about the eternal suffering of people here.

 

[ok doser]

Wasn't there crystal clear uniformity on the matter?

:thumb:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Worth pulling out for consideration

follow the link back for the full post

The problem is the same as always, as depicted by Dunning-Kruger. Those who are the most ignorant and the most convinced of the accuracy of their perceptions are the least correct and most uncorrectable.

 

[Derf]

Except, why isn't there absolute clarity? Why is there any disagreement on the subject at all? It's not like it's a trifling detail or something not that important, you're talking about the eternal suffering of people here.

Maybe there is absolute clarity, and maybe there are a lot of hard-headed people that aren't willing to take it as it was given, but want to make it into something they like better. Like the husbandman and his wife.

Maybe you're one of those hard-headed people. Maybe I am.

 

[ok doser]

The problem is the same as always, as depicted by Dunning-Kruger. Those who are the most ignorant and the most convinced of the accuracy of their perceptions are the least correct and most uncorrectable.

I read this on my handheld, which displays the TOL logo at the top very differently than my laptop does - it's a large view of a small arc of the world as viewed from space, and it occurred to me that my own little little part of that world - the part I know intimately and well, is a flyspeck of the greater world. And that the more I learn about that part I know "well", the more I realize how little I actually know.

So I got some hot chocolate

 

[NWL]

You seem to make a distinction between a "man" and a "spirit person". This is good, since "man" is what Adam was--the very first one. And Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man:
[Rom 5:17 ESV] For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
[1Ti 2:5 ESV] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Neither of the foregoing verses give any other option than that Jesus is still a man.

Notice what you just said, "Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man", now notice what scripture says " was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18). Your statement is almost identical with 1 Peter 3:18 the only difference being 1 Peter 3:18 communicates Jesus was raised as a "spirit" whereas you say he was raised "as a man", what you say goes contrary to scripture. The same can be said with your complete statement "This is good, since "man" is what Adam was--the very first one. And Jesus died as a man, and was raised as a man" and 1 Cor 15:45, "So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.". What you claim and what you say goes contrary to what the scripture literally says, I cannot fathom how you overlook this.

You bring out Romans 5:17 that mentions death reigned because of one man, namely Adam, and that it's through one man, Jesus, that we get life through. Nothing in the verse implies Jesus is still a man, it simply implies the fact that Jesus the man was the person who gave his life and thus it is through him a man that we live. For instance, imagine that Jesus was NEVER resurrected but remained dead or was to be resurrected 300 years after his death instead of 3 days, his sacrifice would still redeem mankind, the very same statement could still be said, "because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ", the scripture is referring to the ransom of Jesus as a man and isn't implying Jesus still lives as a man, such an idea is read into scripture.

As I've said in regards to 1 Tim 2:5 before "The word ANTHRWPOS does not necessarily mean “man” but is a generic term for “individual” or “person” (cf. Moulton’s Lexicon). It can even refer to women! Angels are many times referred to as “men” (Lk.24:4 Ac.10:30; Ge 32:24). Any reference to the heavenly Jesus as a "man" must be an anthropological expression and not a man literally ( Acts 17:31).". Another example of this is that God is called "he" yet is neither male nor female since being male or female relates to gender distinction of the physical Gods physical creation, it would be folly for someone to claim God is a male and not a female as the bible mentions him as a "he", God is genderless.

When we read the verse however it should be clear that Jesus was acting as a mediator when on earth and was being spoken about in the past tense, this is clear by the context, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:5,6). Jesus, as the greater Moses (Heb 3:3), acted as a meditator when on earth the same way Moses acted as a meditator when on earth "[the Law] it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator" (Gal 3:19).

Again, you make a great distinction between being a man in the flesh and being a spirit. You seem to recognize, rightly, that Jesus was NOT a man before He took on flesh. But we are assured that Jesus remains a man after He died. Thus, He is NOT without a body. His disciples saw Him in His bodily form, after His resurrection, rising up to heaven. It wasn't just a spirit that was rising up to heaven, just as it wasn't just a spirit Elisha saw rising up to heaven when Elijah went up. There wasn't a separation of spirit from body for Elijah anymore than there was for Jesus. Neither will we, if we remain alive until His coming, be just spirits rising up to heaven:
[1Th 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.
Because, as you conveniently left out below:
[1Co 15:51 KJV] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

(2 Corinthians 5:16) So from now on we know no man from a fleshly viewpoint. Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way.

Jesus has a body, it's simply a spirit body. Again, if angels were able to materialize temporary physical body then there is no reason why Jesus, if a spirit, was not able to do the same and appear to many people as he did. Again, I cannot fathom how you can take "we certainly no longer know him [Jesus according to the flesh] in that way" to mean anything other than it expressing Jesus is no longer in body of flesh.

2 Corinthians 5:1 talks about a house or tent, referring to the body of a man, notice what it states, "For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be torn down, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens", notice how Paul speak about a house/body that is not physically made ("made with hands") this is only possible if ones who go to heaven, like Jesus, are in non-physical bodies. God, Jesus and the Angels prior to coming to earth were all spiritual beings, none of them were tangible, it's very weird to me that people have this idea that physical beings can enter into a non-physical realm, when scripture states "flesh and blood" cannot enter into heaven, it's so very clear to me that such a thing was only said as Paul was trying to make clear that only non-physical things are in heaven.

Do you believe people who are resurrected to heaven will have spirit bodies like the angels or physical fleshly bodies?

You are then admitting that "Death" is NOT swallowed up in victory, nor is "Death" thrown into the Lake of Fire, by which it can never have power over anyone again. Nor is the last enemy to be defeated "Death", since "Death" will then be a permanent victor:
[1Co 15:26 KJV] The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.

If the lake of fire is the second death, and the first death is thrown into the second death, then how can death be destroyed by death?

We must remember the Bible uses anthropomorphic language, especially when we're talking about the first and second death, death simply refers to the non-existence of something that was in existence. I believe I now understand why you said what you said above, please correct me if I'm wrong, you understand such passages of "The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death" to mean that no one who is dead will remain dead since death itself will be destroyed. I differ on opinion with this, when 1 Cor 15:26 states "The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death" I understand this to be the same thing as described in Rev 20:14 when it states "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire", in Rev 20:14 death is hurled into the lake of fire which to me means eternal destruction this is where 1 Cor 15:26 is fulfilled, I hope we agree on this, but let me continue and explain further. This is why Rev 21:3,4, when speaking about the new heaven and new earth, states "[God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more", when it mentions of death being "brought to nothing" and "being no more" I do not take this to mean all those are dead 'have' to be alive by what is said,but rather, those who are alive will never be subjected to death again, that is what death being "brought to nothing" and "being no more" means. You need to remember "death" is never actually destroyed, God doesn't get death like its some type of entity or tangible object and destroy it, the scriptures are simply expressing that 'no one will die again', it's in that sense that 'death is destroyed', the bible is using anthropomorphic language to explain things on simple terms. Nothing in 1 Cor 15:26 expresses that ones who are subjected to eternal death have to stay dead since the "death being destroyed" is in relation to people not dying 'anymore' in the future.

You asked "If the lake of fire is the second death, and the first death is thrown into the second death, then how can death be destroyed by death?", I believe my answer above should suffice but if it's not I would answer that death isn't literally destroyed by death since death isn't a real literal entity or thing, its simply an expression that something that did exist no longer exists, the bible using anthropomorphic language to explain that ones who are faithful to God will never be subjected to death again, expressing this by stating "death will be destroyed by being thrown into the lake of fire which means the second death", with the second death meaning eternal judgment and destruction.

I'm still thinking through what the first death actually is, but my proposition is that it is a state of unconsciousness, as you seem to think, too. What is that unconsciousness like? Well, the body decays and goes away, so the unconsciousness doesn't apply to the body, which no longer exists (and in fact, our bodies may contain molecules of other people's bodies). What's left? An unconscious soul or spirit? I guess that's possible, but does God have some storage place for unconscious spirits? Rev mentions something like this: [Rev 6:9 KJV] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:...[Rev 6:11 KJV] And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate by saying this but I disagree with the idea that there is a place that exists for the soul/spirits of the dead. The term soul is simply an expression for a man, an individual. The teaching that man has a soul or the immortality of the soul is nowhere found in scripture, this is known by most if not all scholars, please note what these scholars (scholarly material) say about the bible usage of the word soul:

“There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [neʹphesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy·kheʹ] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

"Indeed, the salvation of the 'immortal soul' has sometimes been a commonplace in preaching, but it is fundamentally unbiblical. Biblical anthropology is not dualistic but monistic: human being consists in the integrated wholeness of body and soul, and the Bible never contemplates the disembodied existence of the soul in bliss.", Myers (ed.), "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary", p. 518 (1987).

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

When scripture such as 1 Peter 3:20 state in regards to souls "while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water" the usage of soul is simply expressing eight 'persons' were carried. When Gen 2:7 states "And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul" Adam becoming a living soul simply means he was a 'person/human'. There is nothing in the bible that suggest man has a soul that is separate from his body or survives death. When Rev 6: 9 states "When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given" it's not expressing man has a soul that lives in a person, but rather simply refers to resurrected faithful 'individuals' of Jesus. The original-language for “soul” in Hebrew (ne´phesh) and Greek (psy·khe´), both ne´phesh and psykhe´ are ALSO used to mean the 'life as a creature', human or animal. Because servants of God have the hope of a resurrection in the event of death, they have the hope of living again as “souls,” or living creatures. That is why Jesus said that “whoever loses his soul [his life as a creature] for the sake of me and the good news will save it. Really, of what benefit is it for a man to gain the whole world and to forfeit his soul? What, really, would a man give in exchange for his soul?”. So the soul either refers to a person or the life of a living person.

Most of Christianity teach an immortal soul separate from the body but this is not found in the bible, if you Wikipedia "soul" and then Wikipedia "Soul in the bible" you will see a stark difference with what Christianity teaches about the soul and what the bible mentions of the soul.

For one thing, I don't believe the bible ever puts the word "everlasting" with "death", despite the numerous associations between "everlasting" and "life". "Destruction", yes, but not "death". As explained before, the second death is not described in the same terms as the first death, as the first death is never termed a "lake of fire" or any other kind of "fire", is it?

And if death is the penalty for sin, then can God be just when people have to die 2 deaths? There must be something else going on after the first death is reversed: Christ can claim victory for the resurrection, even if unto judgment. Beyond that, the problem is what to do with people who have died once and even after the resurrection are not willing to follow the commands of God in God's Kingdom. What punishment remains when the stated punishment is already been fulfilled, but God's will is still not being done on earth as it is in heaven, at least as it relates to those people?

Kings on earth have a similar problem. There are only three potential solutions for someone who won't obey. Imprisonment, Banishment, and Death. The Death option no longer exists, so you have imprisonment and banishment. Banishment, for a King has all authority in heaven and earth and under the earth, is an impossibility--there's nowhere to send them. Imprisonment is all that's left, I think. And imprisonment in a place that doesn't receive any of the good things God gives to His people, those of His kingdom. If God is the source of all good, and these people are refusing any good from God, the only thing left is evil for them. They get what they choose.

You are correct, the bible never does put the word "everlasting" with "death", but common sense must also be used, if one receives the punishment of "eternal destruction" then destruction can only mean one thing if no other modifiers are in use, namely death. (2 Thessalonians 1:9) These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength", the everlasting destruction can only refer to death, and the death -if everlasting- has to be everlasting to be described that way or else scripture contradicts itself.

You said "And if death is the penalty for sin, then can God be just when people have to die 2 deaths? There must be something else going on after the first death is reversed". I did allude to this earlier and gave my stance on the matter, Rev 21 states there will be a "resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous", the righteous ones will have a resurrection of life whereas the unrighteous will have a resurrection of judgment. It is my believe the unrighteous ones will be resurrected again where the earth is filled with the knowledge of God, they will be given another chance, based on their actions they will be judged according to their deeds, if judged unrighteous by their newly resurrected deeds they will be forever cast into the lake of fire meaning they are eternally dead.

(Rev20:12-14) 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. The dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. 15 Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.

I don't think you've proved anything here. You're welcome to try again.

If God appeared to you would you have fear in the sense of horror or fear in the sense of respect (God-fearing)?

The original language word used in regards to the shepherd is in relation to that of godly fear, the word used for fear with the apostles was one relating to shock and horror, that's the point I was making.

How about if car maker were to replicate Elvis's car in every detail, and show it to people as if it were the car the Elvis drove? Pick something else. How about we replicate in every detail one of Michelangelo's paintings or sculptures, and say "this is the very painting/sculpture created by Michelangelo"? What would you say about that? Would you think you had been lied to?

In what sense is it a lie if Jesus rose as a spirit, recreated a body temporarily, and claimed he was Jesus when he was Jesus? Are you trying to say to you that if Jesus appeared in front of you right now in a flesh form and claimed he did in fact rise as a spirit but only temporarily made a body to his apostles as he was to you now, you would feel like Jesus was somehow lying?

Did the person of Jesus stop being the person who he went from spirit to flesh when coming to earth? If your answer is no then why is it somehow deceitful for Jesus to claim he was Jesus if being raised as a spirit in a bodily form?

Well, if all you're looking at is the impression, then there is indeed an invisible ring--you don't see it, so it's invisible. (The method of becoming invisible is not under discussion.) But if Jesus is still "the man Jesus Christ", then He is NOT God who is only spirit. Now, Jesus might be invisible at this time, but that's because when He went up into heaven, the disciples lost sight of Him. It doesn't mean He became a body-less spirit.

You saying "Well, if all you're looking at is the impression, then there is indeed an invisible ring--you don't see it, so it's invisible" is a very poor argument, in my opinion. I have a signet ring at home, are you trying to say that if I push the print into hot wax, throw the ring out the window so I can't see it that the ring itself is invisible? No, the ring is still visible it's simply not in my line of vision. Nobody would say a coffin buried under the ground is invisible, or the sun when its sets is invisible as we can't see it. Language only defines things as "invisible" that are inherently invisible, and not to things that are simply not visible to the observer. I understand why you're using this argument as you need to somehow detangle the fact that Jesus is called "invisible", so result in claiming he's invisible in the sense we can't currently see him, I think you need to be honest with yourself as its clear invisible means invisible.

Strongs 517 - aoratō
Usage: unseen, invisible.
517 aóratos (from 1 /A "not" and 3708 /horáō, "see") – properly, not seen; invisible to the physical ("naked") eye

You're getting the word "invisible" and claiming its speaking from a relative point of view of the writer. Things that are invisible are not relative in nature, they are objective or inherently true. Going off your understanding of "invisible" everything outside the room I'm sitting in is invisible as I can't see it, no one speaks or writes this way but of course, you're attempting to claim such an understanding "invisible" as the normal definition of invisible contradicts your belief. To show to you once and for all that when scripture states Jesus was "invisible" it meant what it clearly stated all I ask is that you read the following, 1 Timothy 6:16 " the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen." Notice, Timothy, speaking of the risen Jesus states, "whom no man has seen or can see", you claim Jesus was raised in the flesh and was seen in his body by hundreds, yet scripture states "no man has seen" Jesus. The reason why "no man has seen or can see" Jesus is because Jesus is a spirit and spirits are invisible in nature, when Jesus appeared to the apostles he appeared in bodies that were not his, that were not him, the bodies were only temporary, thus no man has seen the risen Jesus in his spirit body or can see him, as he is an invisible spirit.

There can be nothing said that will change the meaning of Jesus being "the exact representation of [Gods] very being", Jesus is whatever the Father is, if the Father is an invisible spirit then Jesus is too, nothing you've shown has shown this to be untrue at present. .

Not really. If Jesus existed prior to coming to earth as a man, and then He went back to being the same as He was before--not a man--how can we be brothers of His, fellow-heirs, without losing our manhood. You're treading on some shaky ground here.

That's exactly what we lose when we become heirs, our manhood. Those who go to heaven are changed, just as Jesus was into a spirit, like angels are spirits. "But in the future world no one who is worthy to rise from death will either marry or die. They will be like the angels and will be God's children, because they have been raised to life. (Luke 20:36 CEV), and also "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt 22:30). Resurrected ones will be spirits as Angels are spirits, they then become Christ brothers.

Or with a body that will last forever, possibly like those in the lake of fire???
The point of Paul's passage is that the body is changed--I don't deny that--but that it is still a body. He's dealing with the body both before and after: "with what sort of body are they coming?"

A spirit body is still a body, how is it possible that mankind as "flesh and blood" will go to heaven when the verse states flesh and blood cannot enter into heaven? What else other than a spirit body can be in a spiritual place?

Why does Paul state "it is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body" in relation to earthly man compared to when he goes to heaven, how can being "raised up a spiritual body" simply not mean what it clearly states, that such ones a raised up in a spiritual body and not a physical body?

I saw no reasoning againist my position with Acts 13:34 compared to 1 Cor 15:35,40,42,50 where is states "And the fact that He [God] resurrected him from the dead never again to return to corruption". The verse states Jesus was to never return to corruption again, Paul makes it clear that when he talks about corruption he's talking about a human body (read 1 Cor 15:35,40,42,50), so how do you rectify that Jesus was never to return to corruption when you claim he did?

I'll consider my point proven.

Are you sure this isn't a sneaky way of getting out of answering my question. My question was would the sacrifice be valid if the person offering the sacrifice kept it for themselves by taking back the meat and the blood? Would the sacrifice be valid?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Jesus was raised in the same body but was unrecognizable from his facial injuries when he appeared to them when they were fishing then why was he recognized by the apostles the day he was raised? John 20:16 and Luke 24:21:

(John 20:16) Jesus said to her: “Mary!” On turning around, she said to him in Hebrew: “Rab·boʹni!” (which means “Teacher!”)
(Luke 24:31) At that their eyes were fully opened and they recognized him; but he disappeared from them.