Is death just another life?

[Derf]

This came up in another thread, and I'm moving here to discuss in more depth. In particular @JudgeRightly, @Clete, @Leatherneck, and @Right Divider all made some response. I'll try to respond to each in time, but I'll start with JudgeRightly.

My position is that when someone is dead, they are dead--there's no life in them or any part of them, and they cease to function in any way and in any place, until they are resurrected. And I'll admit I'm kind of new to this position, and I want to think through it well. So it helps to have others argue the other side for me, to come to the best understanding possible, hopefully for all involved.

The others, assuming I'm right in grouping in the same camp, believe that when a person dies, his body ceases to function, but his spirit and soul are carried up to Jesus right away, if they are a believer, and to hell right away if they are not. (Please correct me if I've misstated that.)

The first of this was about Jesus, and His death, which I approach cautiously, knowing that He was not always a man, that He existed before He became a man, and that it might work differently for Him. I made a statement about death being the same as "ceasing to exist", and I believe that is possibly a decent way to think of men in general, but I don't know about whether it could apply to Christ, since He has both a human nature and a God nature.

Let's jump in:

His "man" nature was entirely that of a man.

Yes, and I would think His experience would be not just the same in death, but the same forevermore, except where His capabilities of God still exceed ours. I admit to some ignorance on that front--how does Jesus in heaven exist in a physical body and retain omnipresence, for instance? Does it speak to God's omnipresence, or are they different now that He has a forever human body?

And God protected His physical body from corruption. Had He not, that body would have decayed just like any other human body.

I question whether His body was protected more than other humans that were raised within three days of death. I don't think you can extend scripture that far, but maybe.

The Bible tells us that he returned to a glorified, yet still physical, body.

The bible never says "He returned" to His body. It said "He was raised", like here:
[Act 2:24 KJV] Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Note that the pronoun "whom" is a personal pronoun, meaning it refers to Jesus, not to something that was NOT Jesus. If Jesus was still alive while separate from His body, then His body wasn't Him, it was something else. And if His body was all that was dead, then HE wasn't resurrected.

Here are some more (in no particular order) showing that HE was raised from the dead, not that His body was raised, or that He returned to His body:
[1Co 6:14 KJV] And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
[Rom 1:4 KJV] And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
[Rom 8:34 KJV] Who [is] he that condemneth? [It is] Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
[Rom 6:4 KJV] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
This particular one emphasizes that without His being raised from the dead, we have no hope:
[Act 17:31 KJV] Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Our assurance is based on His resurrection. Not on His continued life while He was dead. Not on His return to His body and His body's resurrection.

So Jesus' "human" nature ceased to exist? How many times did Jesus "become" a man? Once? Twice? Do you think that Jesus is no longer a man, where the Bible says that Jesus became a man and will be a man forever more?

Your point is a good one, and perhaps "ceased to exist" is too strong. I'm even struggling with how to explain it, but the man Jesus was not alive when He was dead, was He? If so, then He wasn't resurrected.

I'm not saying you're as bad as James White, but I want you to realize the seriousness of what it is you're saying, and where it leads.

Compare to this:
[2Co 5:17 NKJV] Therefore, if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
So, if all things have become new, then, at least in a sense, we cease to exist, and then we are recreated. Though this applies currently to us, it is also a picture of what is to come, since we know we still have an old man/sinful nature that is at odds with our will to do good.

Chapter verse.

Jesus died, decended into Hell, and returned to his human body on the third day, and forty days later, leading captivity captive, ascended into heaven as both God and Man.

Where does ANY of that imply that Jesus ceased having a human nature?

"Hell" there is "Hades", which is rightfully translated "grave" in many places. It requires extra-biblical texts to make it say "the place of departed spirits in Greek mythology". And you add to scripture when you say "returned to his human body".

What is the "captivity" that he led captive, and when did it occur? Did it occur while He was in Hades, or when He rose from the dead. I would vote for the latter, and "captivity" as a euphemism for "death" or "the grave", since the person that is dead is unable to escape the grave. I can also see "the grave" as a euphemism for the state of death. These are not antithetical to scripture.

I'm not saying Jesus ceased having a human nature. I said He ceased to be alive. And I don't know how that works for God's son who has existed for eternity. I do know that "He is, He was, and He is to come", which tells us, possibly, that "He wasn't" between the "He is" and the "He was". That seems to be the meaning of the verse--that He was alive, then He was dead, and then He became alive again. These are "existence" words.
[Rev 1:8 KJV] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

And that's the main issue your position has. it CANNOT address this issue, because it doesn't have a way to address it.

Mine does not have that issue, because it does not assert that Jesus ceased being human at ANY POINT, but rather that Jesus became a man once as a baby in a manger and still to this very day and forever more is and will forever be both God and man.

No, you're right. You have a different problem, in that He didn't really die. It was just a piece of flesh that died. And if He didn't die, then He wasn't resurrected. And if He wasn't resurrected from the dead, then we have no hope, according to Paul. Yet we know that He was resurrected.

He didn't "die completely, no function remaining whatsoever."

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.Therefore He says: “When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.”(Now this, “He ascended” —what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) - Ephesians 4:7-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians4:7-10&version=NKJV

He descended into Hell ("the lower parts of the earth") to set those who were awaiting justification, those in Abraham's Bosom, free. And then, leading captivity captive, he ascended into heaven.

And he descended into hell, you guessed it, SEPARATED from His physical body, which remained in the tomb until the third day.

Are you saying that people are made in hell?
[Psa 139:15 KJV] My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Except that it is a death. It's not a physical death, where a person is separated from his body, nor is it a spiritual death, where a person is separated from God, but it IS a LEGAL death. It's the death of a marriage. No? Man is legally separated from his wife, therefore their marriage is well and truly dead at that point.

But the people are not dead. A contract may be dead. Are you saying we now need to add another category of death, "contractually dead".
So we have
1. Physical death
2. Spiritual death
3. Contractual death.
And I think you (maybe someone else??) that Jesus was neither spiritually nor physically dead when He cried out to God about being forsaken. So I guess He was contractually dead. Can you see that such is leading us to all kinds of weird theology?

Then why did he say the following?

For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,according to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death.For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell.For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.And being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy of faith,that your rejoicing for me may be more abundant in Jesus Christ by my coming to you again. - Philippians 1:19-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians1:19-26&version=NKJV

Maybe it's confirmation bias, but you have your work cut out for you explaining why Paul would use that sort of wording if death (here, of course, the physical kind) meant anything other than separation, and that of one's body and soul/spirit.

Note that I highlighted where Paul is talking about dying being a gain for him. What is there to gain if death means "soul-sleep" or cessation of existence, even if Paul wakes up in the future "resurrected"? THERE IS NONE! There is no net gain for him to do so, and he would rather spend his time remaining in the flesh, because his converts need him to teach them, and he knows it.

On the other hand, if death is defined as separation, then the issue is resolved! There's a gain for him to go to heaven, because then he can IMMEDIATELY meet his God, Lord, and Savior, not after he's resurrected, but the moment he dies, because at that moment, his soul/spirit is separated from his body, and ascends to heaven, which is far better!


Because their resurrection is where we will see them again.

That event is called the rapture, and it's literally described in the very passage you quoted above.

But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.Therefore comfort one another with these words. - 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Thessalonians4:13-18&version=NKJV

So, if you read your bolded part in your last paragraph, it says "thus" we shall always be with the Lord. In that usage it means, "according to what I wrote above, we shall always be with the Lord." So, according to that, we won't be with the Lord UNTIL that rapture--the trumpet will sound, then the dead will rise first, then we shall be caught up with them to all meet the Lord in the air. A normal understanding of the given chronology would say that if the trumpet hasn't yet sounded, and we who are alive haven't been caught up yet, then the event between those two events also hasn't taken place, so the dead in Christ are NOT with the Lord, because they aren't with the Lord until we are with the Lord.

Regarding "to die is gain", I agree that it is a little tricky to see it as a gain, if he's not immediately with the Lord. Yet, think about it from his point of view. He dies, and the next thing knows (since the dead do not know anything) is when he is next alive--he'll be rising up in the air to meet the Lord. So it's a gain--there's no more pain or sorrow.
[Ecc 9:5 KJV] For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
[Ecc 9:6 KJV] Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.
Remember your citation, that says they are the "dead in Christ". So Paul recognizes that they are dead, and Ecclesiastes says the dead don't know anything. So how is it a gain for Paul to be with Christ if he doesn't even know that he is with Christ.
Which is the better gain, to be with Christ and not know it, or to not be with Christ and not know it?

Because that's not the only verse on the topic, Derf!


"Asleep" is just a euphemism (and a rather apt one) for "dead," because a dead person looks like they're just asleep.

Have YOU ever been to a funeral, or ever examined a person's dead body up close? I have. A few times, actually. All of them (one was some dead guy who had donated his body to science to study, and was laying on a table, and the other two were my grandpa and grandma (open casket funerals)) looked like they could could wake up at any moment.

Have you ever seen a body after a few years in the grave? They don't look like they're asleep anymore.
I agree that the euphemism "sleep" equals "dead". Jesus made that clear when talking about Lazarus. And Lazarus began to stink, so that Martha didn't want to go look at his body. So, I can see your side of the euphemism for a few days, and then I have to move to the other side of the euphemism.

 

[Leatherneck]

This came up in another thread, and I'm moving here to discuss in more depth. In particular @JudgeRightly, @Clete, @Leatherneck, and @Right Divider all made some response. I'll try to respond to each in time, but I'll start with JudgeRightly.

My position is that when someone is dead, they are dead--there's no life in them or any part of them, and they cease to function in any way and in any place, until they are resurrected. And I'll admit I'm kind of new to this position, and I want to think through it well. So it helps to have others argue the other side for me, to come to the best understanding possible, hopefully for all involved.

The others, assuming I'm right in grouping in the same camp, believe that when a person dies, his body ceases to function, but his spirit and soul are carried up to Jesus right away, if they are a believer, and to hell right away if they are not. (Please correct me if I've misstated that.)

The first of this was about Jesus, and His death, which I approach cautiously, knowing that He was not always a man, that He existed before He became a man, and that it might work differently for Him. I made a statement about death being the same as "ceasing to exist", and I believe that is possibly a decent way to think of men in general, but I don't know about whether it could apply to Christ, since He has both a human nature and a God nature.

Let's jump in:

Yes, and I would think His experience would be not just the same in death, but the same forevermore, except where His capabilities of God still exceed ours. I admit to some ignorance on that front--how does Jesus in heaven exist in a physical body and retain omnipresence, for instance? Does it speak to God's omnipresence, or are they different now that He has a forever human body?

I question whether His body was protected more than other humans that were raised within three days of death. I don't think you can extend scripture that far, but maybe.

The bible never says "He returned" to His body. It said "He was raised", like here:
[Act 2:24 KJV] Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Note that the pronoun "whom" is a personal pronoun, meaning it refers to Jesus, not to something that was NOT Jesus. If Jesus was still alive while separate from His body, then His body wasn't Him, it was something else. And if His body was all that was dead, then HE wasn't resurrected.

Here are some more (in no particular order) showing that HE was raised from the dead, not that His body was raised, or that He returned to His body:
[1Co 6:14 KJV] And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
[Rom 1:4 KJV] And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
[Rom 8:34 KJV] Who [is] he that condemneth? [It is] Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
[Rom 6:4 KJV] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
This particular one emphasizes that without His being raised from the dead, we have no hope:
[Act 17:31 KJV] Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Our assurance is based on His resurrection. Not on His continued life while He was dead. Not on His return to His body and His body's resurrection.

Your point is a good one, and perhaps "ceased to exist" is too strong. I'm even struggling with how to explain it, but the man Jesus was not alive when He was dead, was He? If so, then He wasn't resurrected.

Compare to this:
[2Co 5:17 NKJV] Therefore, if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
So, if all things have become new, then, at least in a sense, we cease to exist, and then we are recreated. Though this applies currently to us, it is also a picture of what is to come, since we know we still have an old man/sinful nature that is at odds with our will to do good.

"Hell" there is "Hades", which is rightfully translated "grave" in many places. It requires extra-biblical texts to make it say "the place of departed spirits in Greek mythology". And you add to scripture when you say "returned to his human body".

What is the "captivity" that he led captive, and when did it occur? Did it occur while He was in Hades, or when He rose from the dead. I would vote for the latter, and "captivity" as a euphemism for "death" or "the grave", since the person that is dead is unable to escape the grave. I can also see "the grave" as a euphemism for the state of death. These are not antithetical to scripture.

I'm not saying Jesus ceased having a human nature. I said He ceased to be alive. And I don't know how that works for God's son who has existed for eternity. I do know that "He is, He was, and He is to come", which tells us, possibly, that "He wasn't" between the "He is" and the "He was". That seems to be the meaning of the verse--that He was alive, then He was dead, and then He became alive again. These are "existence" words.
[Rev 1:8 KJV] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

No, you're right. You have a different problem, in that He didn't really die. It was just a piece of flesh that died. And if He didn't die, then He wasn't resurrected. And if He wasn't resurrected from the dead, then we have no hope, according to Paul. Yet we know that He was resurrected.

Are you saying that people are made in hell?
[Psa 139:15 KJV] My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

But the people are not dead. A contract may be dead. Are you saying we now need to add another category of death, "contractually dead".
So we have
1. Physical death
2. Spiritual death
3. Contractual death.
And I think you (maybe someone else??) that Jesus was neither spiritually nor physically dead when He cried out to God about being forsaken. So I guess He was contractually dead. Can you see that such is leading us to all kinds of weird theology?

So, if you read your bolded part in your last paragraph, it says "thus" we shall always be with the Lord. In that usage it means, "according to what I wrote above, we shall always be with the Lord." So, according to that, we won't be with the Lord UNTIL that rapture--the trumpet will sound, then the dead will rise first, then we shall be caught up with them to all meet the Lord in the air. A normal understanding of the given chronology would say that if the trumpet hasn't yet sounded, and we who are alive haven't been caught up yet, then the event between those two events also hasn't taken place, so the dead in Christ are NOT with the Lord, because they aren't with the Lord until we are with the Lord.

Regarding "to die is gain", I agree that it is a little tricky to see it as a gain, if he's not immediately with the Lord. Yet, think about it from his point of view. He dies, and the next thing knows (since the dead do not know anything) is when he is next alive--he'll be rising up in the air to meet the Lord. So it's a gain--there's no more pain or sorrow.
[Ecc 9:5 KJV] For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
[Ecc 9:6 KJV] Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.
Remember your citation, that says they are the "dead in Christ". So Paul recognizes that they are dead, and Ecclesiastes says the dead don't know anything. So how is it a gain for Paul to be with Christ if he doesn't even know that he is with Christ.
Which is the better gain, to be with Christ and not know it, or to not be with Christ and not know it?

Have you ever seen a body after a few years in the grave? They don't look like they're asleep anymore.
I agree that the euphemism "sleep" equals "dead". Jesus made that clear when talking about Lazarus. And Lazarus began to stink, so that Martha didn't want to go look at his body. So, I can see your side of the euphemism for a few days, and then I have to move to the other side of the euphemism.

Luk 16:19 - There was a certain richman, which was clothed in purple andfine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Tools

Luk 16:20 - And there was a certain-beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Tools

Luk 16:21 - And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Tools

Luk 16:22 - And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Tools

Luk 16:23 - And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seethAbraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom
Tools

Luk 16:24 - And he cried and said,Father Abraham, have mercy on me,and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in thisflame.
Tools

Luk 16:25 - But Abraham said, Son,remember that thou in thy lifetimereceivedst thy good things, andlikewise Lazarus evil things: but nowhe is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Tools

Luk 16:26 - And beside all this,between us and you there is a greatgulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Tools

Luk 16:27 - Then he said, I pray there therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Tools

Luk 16:28 - For I have five brethren;that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Tools

Luk 16:29 - Abraham saith unto him,They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Tools

Luk 16:30 - And he said, Nay, fatherAbraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Tools

Luk 16:31 - And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. www.blueletterbible.com

 

[Derf]

Luk 16:19 - There was a certain richman, which was clothed in purple andfine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Tools

Luk 16:20 - And there was a certain-beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Tools

Luk 16:21 - And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Tools

Luk 16:22 - And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Tools

Luk 16:23 - And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seethAbraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom
Tools

Luk 16:24 - And he cried and said,Father Abraham, have mercy on me,and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in thisflame.
Tools

Luk 16:25 - But Abraham said, Son,remember that thou in thy lifetimereceivedst thy good things, andlikewise Lazarus evil things: but nowhe is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Tools

Luk 16:26 - And beside all this,between us and you there is a greatgulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Tools

Luk 16:27 - Then he said, I pray there therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Tools

Luk 16:28 - For I have five brethren;that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Tools

Luk 16:29 - Abraham saith unto him,They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Tools

Luk 16:30 - And he said, Nay, fatherAbraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Tools

Luk 16:31 - And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. www.blueletterbible.com

Thanks! Can you explain how you think it applies ?

 

[Leatherneck]

Thanks! Can you explain how you think it applies ?

Jesus taught that 2 men died a rich man and a poor man. They both died and Lazarus went to where Abraham was( paradise side of Sheol)and the rich man went to the torment side of Sheol. They spoke and the rich man begged Abraham to send one who rose from the dead to his 5 brothers so they would not end up like him, but Abraham’s response was if they did not believe Moses and the prophets they would not believe even if one rose from the dead. Scripture also teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

 

[ttruscott]

Some more verses that could indicate some part of the person survives after death:

[Act 7:59-60 KJV] 59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

[2Co 5:8 KJV] 8 We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

[Luk 23:43 KJV] 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. This verse defines death for us...as a separation from an alive spirit. We know that the angels are spirits and GOD is Spirit and they are alive with no reference to a body...so aliveness is probably to be self and other aware. Spiritual death would not have to mean ceasing to exist but being cut off, separated from, GOD's aliveness, a metaphor based upon the idea that a body separated from its sustaining spirit is dead.

Some see an echo of this idea in Ps 9:17
English Standard Version
The wicked shall RETURN to Sheol, all the nations that forget God.

Berean Study Bible
The wicked will RETURN to Sheol—all the nations who forget God.

The word, shub, is translated as return 391 times by the KJV but not here...which may indicate eisegetical bias against people being alive, ie, self and other aware, both before getting a body (as hinted in Matt 13:36-39) and after leaving it to die while they go back to Sheol.

 

[Derf]

Jesus taught that 2 men died a rich man and a poor man. They both died and Lazarus went to where Abraham was( paradise side of Sheol)and the rich man went to the torment side of Sheol. They spoke and the rich man begged Abraham to send one who rose from the dead to his 5 brothers so they would not end up like him, but Abraham’s response was if they did not believe Moses and the prophets they would not believe even if one rose from the dead. Scripture also teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

How much of what you wrote came from the Lazarus/rich man text, and how much from your own mind/memory of what others have told you? For instance, where in the text does it say there was a paradise side of Sheol? We can tell from the story Jesus told was that Lazarus was NOT where the rich man was, and that Lazarus was being comforted by being with Abraham.

 

[Derf]

Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. This verse defines death for us...as a separation from an alive spirit.

You’re assuming that “the spirit” here is referring to a part of the person, and that the person still exists without the body. Even if I grant you that a person is made up of body soul and spirit, or even body and spirit, the person would no longer be a person when one of those was missing.

 

[Leatherneck]

Abr

How much of what you wrote came from the Lazarus/rich man text, and how much from your own mind/memory of what others have told you? For instance, where in the text does it say there was a paradise side of Sheol? We can tell from the story Jesus told was that Lazarus was NOT where the rich man was, and that Lazarus was being comforted by being with Abraham.

Abraham was close enough to the rich man to talk to him. In the text Abraham told the rich man that there was a gulf between them.

Luk 16:26 - And beside all this,between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

 

[Derf]

Abr

Abraham was close enough to the rich man to talk to him. In the text Abraham told the rich man that there was a gulf between them.

Luk 16:26 - And beside all this,between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

So you don’t know that Abraham is in Hades.

 

[Leatherneck]

So you don’t know that Abraham is in Hades.

The gulf separated paradise and the torment side of Sheol. Where do you think Jesus ascended to take captivity captive ? Yep, Jesus ascended to where Abraham and the OT saints were waiting.

 

[Clete]

@Derf,

What do you do with what Jesus told the criminal who was being crucified next to Him?

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”​

Doesn't that single sentence destroy your whole idea about what death is and how "there's no life in them or any part of them, and they cease to function in any way and in any place, until they are resurrected."?

Was either Jesus or that criminal resurrected that day? I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't resurrected until three days later, right?

And how would the existence of such a place as "paradise" fit into your beliefs on these issues?

Clete

 

[Derf]

The gulf separated paradise and the torment side of Sheol. Where do you think Jesus ascended to take captivity captive ? Yep, Jesus ascended to where Abraham and the OT saints were waiting.

Scripture doesn’t talk about a “paradise side” of Sheol. It’s inferred at the most.

What does “captivity” refer to? Isn’t the grave a place of captivity? Wouldn’t taking it captive mean taking away its power to hold onto people?

But if Jesus ascended to where Abraham was, then Jesus death is made unnecessary, it seems.

 

[Derf]

@Derf,

What do you do with what Jesus told the criminal who was being crucified next to Him?

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”​

Doesn't that single sentence destroy your whole idea about what death is and how "there's no life in them or any part of them, and they cease to function in any way and in any place, until they are resurrected."?

Was either Jesus or that criminal resurrected that day? I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't resurrected until three days later, right?

And how would the existence of such a place as "paradise" fit into your beliefs on these issues?

Clete

Thanks for the response, Crete. I still plan to do a fuller response to your post in the other thread, but it needs more attention than I’ve had to give it.

Is it possible, in your opinion, that the commas may be misplaced in Luke 23:43, or are they inspired by God to be where Luke put them?

 

[Clete]

How much of what you wrote came from the Lazarus/rich man text, and how much from your own mind/memory of what others have told you? For instance, where in the text does it say there was a paradise side of Sheol? We can tell from the story Jesus told was that Lazarus was NOT where the rich man was, and that Lazarus was being comforted by being with Abraham.

Who cares where they were? Maybe one was in Florida and the other in Washington D.C. What does it matter? The point is that there were awake and experiencing things and talking back and forth after they died! That would be hard to do if your definition of death is, "no life in them or any part of them, and they cease to function in any way and in any place, until they are resurrected."

I'm curious about something else. Where is this line of reasoning coming from? I don't mean, "Who taught it to you?" I'm wondering what is it that's motivating it? Where is the need to believe this? What consequence do you see coming as a result of believing that we do not cease to exist when our body dies?

Clete

 

[Clete]

Thanks for the response, Crete. I still plan to do a fuller response to your post in the other thread, but it needs more attention than I’ve had to give it.

Is it possible, in your opinion, that the commas may be misplaced in Luke 23:43, or are they inspired by God to be where Luke put them?

I would respond to that by saying that there isn't any reason other than your doctrine to move the commas around. If you can make a grammatical argument (i.e. based on the actual text) then I'm all ears but otherwise it's an exercise in question begging.

(Did you notice that I left out all the commas in those two sentences! )

 

[JudgeRightly]

This came up in another thread, and I'm moving here to discuss in more depth. In particular @JudgeRightly, @Clete, @Leatherneck, and @Right Divider all made some response. I'll try to respond to each in time, but I'll start with JudgeRightly.

o/

My position is that when someone is dead, they are dead--there's no life in them or any part of them, and they cease to function in any way and in any place, until they are resurrected. And I'll admit I'm kind of new to this position, and I want to think through it well. So it helps to have others argue the other side for me, to come to the best understanding possible, hopefully for all involved.

The others, assuming I'm right in grouping in the same camp, believe that when a person dies, his body ceases to function, but his spirit and soul are carried up to Jesus right away, if they are a believer, and to hell right away if they are not. (Please correct me if I've misstated that.)

Close enough.

The first of this was about Jesus, and His death, which I approach cautiously, knowing that He was not always a man, that He existed before He became a man, and that it might work differently for Him. I made a statement about death being the same as "ceasing to exist", and I believe that is possibly a decent way to think of men in general, but I don't know about whether it could apply to Christ, since He has both a human nature and a God nature.

Let's jump in:

Geronimo!

Yes, and I would think His experience would be not just the same in death, but the same forevermore, except where His capabilities of God still exceed ours. I admit to some ignorance on that front--how does Jesus in heaven exist in a physical body and retain omnipresence, for instance?

When "omnipresence" is defined as "God can be anywhere He wants to be, simultaneously," then there's no real issue. If omnipresence means "everywhere simultaneously" and nothing else, then there's a problem, and leads to panentheism, which is a topic for a different thread.

Does it speak to God's omnipresence, or are they different now that He has a forever human body?

I think at the very least, we have to recognize that at this point, Jesus' human body is not like ours anymore, as He now has a glorified human body. Even so, if it comes down to attributes given by the greeks and the fact that the Bible says Jesus has a human body in Heaven, I'll side with the Bible 10 times out of 10, even if that means sacrificing the "omnis" and "ims," including omnipresence.

I question whether His body was protected more than other humans that were raised within three days of death. I don't think you can extend scripture that far, but maybe.

Scripture says that Jesus' body did not see corruption. (Acts 2:31; Psalm 16:10 (which is also relevant later in this post))

That means no decay. To be fair, whether that was simply due to his body being genetically perfect, or due to supernatural protection, the Bible is not explicit.

However, Even something that is perfect cannot overcome entropy, which is what decay/corruption is.

Thus, unless you can provide an alternate explanation, I'm going to stick with His body being protected from corruption, likely supernaturally.

The bible never says "He returned" to His body. It said "He was raised", like here:
[Act 2:24 KJV] Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Note that the pronoun "whom" is a personal pronoun, meaning it refers to Jesus, not to something that was NOT Jesus. If Jesus was still alive while separate from His body, then His body wasn't Him, it was something else. And if His body was all that was dead, then HE wasn't resurrected.

You're forgetting the part where there's three different parts to a human being, including Jesus, which is where the "separation" aspect comes in.

Plants consist of a body, but no soul or spirit. This is evidenced by the facts that you cannot have a relationship with a plant. (Note the "relationship aspect".)
Animals (to varying extents) consist of a body and a soul. To the extent that an animal has a soul, the deeper the relationship one can make with it.
Man is tripartite. We consist of body, soul, and spirit. Because we have a body, we can interact with the world around us. Because we have a soul, we can interact with other creatures, including humans. But because man is the only creature that has a spirit, we can interact with God, who IS spirit.

Jesus, after his incarnation, was fully man (in addition to being fully God), and thus, is tripartite. He had a physical body and soul that was perfect (due to His supernatural conception), and He, who was God, was Spirit in the flesh with a human soul. (Colossians 2:9)

So when Jesus died on the Cross, it was His body that died, and saw no corruption, while, as Ephesians 4:8-10 says, His soul/spirit descended into "the lower parts of the earth."

His body didn't disappear, nor did it decompose, yet He Himself descended into hell. Ergo, His soul/spirit separated from His body. Ergo, when He was raised, He returned to His body.

Here are some more (in no particular order) showing that HE was raised from the dead, not that His body was raised,

You realize that by being raised from the dead, that INCLUDES His body, right?

or that He returned to His body:

Supra.

[1Co 6:14 KJV] And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
[Rom 1:4 KJV] And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
[Rom 8:34 KJV] Who [is] he that condemneth? [It is] Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
[Rom 6:4 KJV] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Amen!

This particular one emphasizes that without His being raised from the dead, we have no hope:
[Act 17:31 KJV] Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.

AMEN!

Our assurance is based on His resurrection.

Agreed. His resurrection FROM THE DEAD. AKA, His resurrection from His soul/spirit being separated from His body.

His death was physical death, thus, He was separated from His body.
Thus, when He was raised, He was brought back to His body.

Not on His continued life while He was dead.

Stolen concept fallacy.

He was dead, physically, in that his body had no life in it.
He was dead, spiritually, being separated from the other Persons of the Trinity.
He was alive, in a different sense, in that His soul/spirit did not cease to exist, nor was it dormant or unconscious, etc.
He became alive again, physically (raised from the dead), on the third day, in that His body and soul/spirit were rejoined.

Not on His return to His body and His body's resurrection.

It's the same thing. How do we know?

1 Samuel 28; Matthew 27:45-55; John 11

Among others.

Your point is a good one, and perhaps "ceased to exist" is too strong. I'm even struggling with how to explain it,

Then maybe your position isn't defensible?

but the man Jesus was not alive when He was dead, was He?

He was alive in one way, and dead in another. There's no contradiction.

Even the Bible describes a few different statuses.
I believe @way 2 go can give you a full list here plus references.

If so, then He wasn't resurrected.

Again, stolen concept fallacy. He WAS resurrected, brought back to life physically.

Compare to this:
[2Co 5:17 NKJV] Therefore, if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

AMEN!

So, if all things have become new, then, at least in a sense, we cease to exist, and then we are recreated.

Not necessarily, and that's speaking of something else entirely, to be honest.

First, something can be regenerated without it ceasing to exist.

For example, in the Garden of Eden, and in the New Earth in the future, the fruit of the Tree of Life is used to restore the human body to a perfect state. Yet the person eating it doesn't cease to exist simply because he ate one of the fruits...

And it says "all things have become new." Not: "the person ceased to exist, but was recreated."

Yes, our old self is dead, and yes, we are become new, but we didn't cease to exist at any point.

Though this applies currently to us, it is also a picture of what is to come, since we know we still have an old man/sinful nature that is at odds with our will to do good.

Supra.

"Hell" there is "Hades", which is rightfully translated "grave" in many places.

I don't deny this. And yet, just as "asleep" is another way to say someone is dead, so to is "grave" another way of referring to Hell.

It requires extra-biblical texts to make it say "the place of departed spirits in Greek mythology".

I'm not talking about "the place of departed spirits in Greek mythology," Derf.

I'm talking about Abraham's Bosom, one of the compartments of "The Pit" (Isaiah 14:15), AKA Hell.

The Greek's "place of departed spirits" is their corrupted interpretation of what Hell really is, Derf.

And you add to scripture when you say "returned to his human body".

I'm not saying that "returned to His human body" is verbatim in scripture, Derf, I'm simply trying to explain what the Bible says. Don't bear false witness, please.

What is the "captivity" that he led captive,

It is those righteous dead who were awaiting the "death of the High Priest" (Numbers 35; Joshua 20) in Abraham's Bosom (Luke 16:22), held captive in Hell until God could provide a means to justify them.

and when did it occur?

When he ascended into Heaven.

Did it occur while He was in Hades,

No. But He did set the captives free while He was in Hell.

And, for the purposes of this discussion and to stay away from Greek mythology, let's use "hell" instead of Hades, since that's from Greek mythology, and not the Bible.

or when He rose from the dead.

No.

I would vote for the latter, and "captivity" as a euphemism for "death" or "the grave", since the person that is dead is unable to escape the grave. I can also see "the grave" as a euphemism for the state of death. These are not antithetical to scripture.

Sure, until you examine the context of the rest of the Bible, at which point, you notice all the holes in the bag where the water is pouring out.

I'm not saying Jesus ceased having a human nature. I said He ceased to be alive.

What does "ceased to be alive" mean, according to your position?

And I don't know how that works for God's son who has existed for eternity. I do know that "He is, He was, and He is to come", which tells us, possibly, that "He wasn't" between the "He is" and the "He was".

NO. This would contradict (presently) the "He was", if at some point "He wasn't."

Because even today, He is, was, and is to come. That's a statement of His existence, indeed, in that he has always existed, and never ceased to exist, nor will he ever cease to exist.

That seems to be the meaning of the verse--that He was alive, then He was dead, and then He became alive again. These are "existence" words.

Again, you're conflating two different things.

As I said above:

He was dead, physically, in that his body had no life in it. (Physical death is separation of the body and soul/spirit.)
He was dead, spiritually, being separated from the other Persons of the Trinity. (Spiritual death is separation from God.)
He was alive, in a different sense, in that His soul/spirit did not cease to exist, nor was it dormant or unconscious, etc. (His soul/spirit never ceased living.)
He became alive again, physically, on the third day, in that His body and soul/spirit were rejoined. (He was raised from the dead, never to die (either spiritually or physically) again.)

[Rev 1:8 KJV] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

AMEN!!!

No, you're right. You have a different problem, in that He didn't really die.

He did die.

Remember, death is separation, according to my position.

Thus, when He died, He died physically (in that his body was separated from His soul/spirit) and spiritually (in that He was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit).

It was just a piece of flesh that died.

NO. A piece of flesh can't "die" in the same way that a person can die. A chunk of flesh dies when life (the quality that God imparted to entities within creation that makes them either beings or organisms) is separated from it.

But a person who dies physically is separated from his body, and a person who dies spiritually is separated from His Creator, yet in both cases, his soul/spirit is not separated from "life," in that he ceases to exist or that he becomes unconscious. No, when someone dies physically, if he is also dead spiritually, then his soul goes straight to hell, where he will await Judgement Day, after which he will be cast into the Lake of Fire, where he will truly be separated from his Creator, for the rest of eternity.

And if He didn't die, then He wasn't resurrected.

There's that dirty stolen concept fallacy again.

Supra.

And if He wasn't resurrected from the dead, then we have no hope, according to Paul. Yet we know that He was resurrected.

Supra.

Are you saying that people are made in hell?
[Psa 139:15 KJV] My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Not at all.

In fact, if you step back for a moment, and consider the entire chapter of Psalm 139, you'd have an easier time recognizing that it's a chapter on fetology. It's all about the baby in the womb (which is what I said previously about "the womb" and "the lower parts of the earth" being interchangeable throughout scripture).

But the people are not dead.

Duh. I was using an analogy to demonstrate that death means separation, regardless of the kind of death.

I said their marriage was dead, because they, at the point of the divorce becoming finalized, become legally separated.

A contract may be dead. Are you saying we now need to add another category of death, "contractually dead".
So we have
1. Physical death
2. Spiritual death
3. Contractual death.

Don't be dumb, Derf.

Supra.

And I think you (maybe someone else??) that Jesus was neither spiritually nor physically dead when He cried out to God about being forsaken.

What I said was that Jesus WAS spiritually dead (and after that, died physically, of a broken heart, no less) at that point.

So I guess He was contractually dead.

No. Don't be dumb.

Can you see that such is leading us to all kinds of weird theology?

Supra.

So, if you read your bolded part in your last paragraph, it says "thus" we shall always be with the Lord. In that usage it means, "according to what I wrote above, we shall always be with the Lord."

Correct.

So, according to that, we won't be with the Lord UNTIL that rapture

Correct.

--the trumpet will sound, then the dead will rise first, then we shall be caught up with them to all meet the Lord in the air.

Correct.

A normal understanding of the given chronology would say that if the trumpet hasn't yet sounded, and we who are alive haven't been caught up yet, then the event between those two events also hasn't taken place, so the dead in Christ are NOT with the Lord, because they aren't with the Lord until we are with the Lord.

Incorrect.

Again, as I pointed out, and as scripture points out, the dead in Christ are with Him already, but their bodies are not; their bodies are still on the earth, in varying stages of decomposition, some fresh in the grave, and most completely decomposed, but still physically on the earth, and not in heaven.

I believe I posted this in the other thread, but if you haven't read it, it's worth reading, and explains in better detail what I've been saying.

Will the Resurrection of the Body Be a Physical Resurrection from the Dead?

Yes, our bodies will be raised not spiritually or ethereally but physically and materially. Our souls will be reunited with our transformed physical bodies, brought back to life from the dead. Scripture teaches this in many ways. First, simply to…

www.desiringgod.org

Regarding "to die is gain", I agree that it is a little tricky to see it as a gain, if he's not immediately with the Lord. Yet, think about it from his point of view. He dies, and the next thing [he] knows (since the dead do not know anything) is when he is next alive--he'll be rising up in the air to meet the Lord. So it's a gain--there's no more pain or sorrow.

Yes, but then he's lost out on however many years it would have been since his death to fellowship with those in Christ, and indeed, Christ Himself!

That's a loss in ANYONE'S book!

[Ecc 9:5 KJV] For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
[Ecc 9:6 KJV] Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.

I strongly caution you on quoting from Ecclesiastes.

It was written by backslidden Solomon, after he had become wicked.

Even more strongly, I recommend that you listen to Bob Enyart's Bible Study on Ecclesiastes, which can be found HERE, or at the very least, listen to THIS show from March 21st, 2013.

Remember your citation, that says they are the "dead in Christ."

Yes, separated from their physical body, yet present with the Lord.

So Paul recognizes that they are dead,

Supra.

and Ecclesiastes says the dead don't know anything.

Again, Ecclesiastes was written by backslidden Solomon.

From the above show page:

About our Ecclesiastes Study: As mentioned on today's program, check out our verse-by-verse Ecclesiastes study! Without a teacher, Christians struggle to make sense of backslidden Solomon's book of Ecclesiastes, which says that All is vanity. What is crooked cannot be made straight. Man has no advantage over animals for all go to one place. Nothing is better than that a man should rejoice in his own works. So I praised the dead more than the living. Yet, better than both is he who has never existed. One good man among a thousand I have found, but a woman among all these I have not found. A man has nothing better under the sun than to eat, drink, and be merry. Drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already accepted your works.

So how is it a gain for Paul to be with Christ if he doesn't even know that he is with Christ.

Begging the question.

Which is the better gain, to be with Christ and not know it, or to not be with Christ and not know it?

Supra.

Have you ever seen a body after a few years in the grave?

Not in person, but I've seen plenty of corpses in fictional works on television, does that count?

They don't look like they're asleep anymore.

Duh.

I agree that the euphemism "sleep" equals "dead".

Good.

Jesus made that clear when talking about Lazarus. And Lazarus began to stink, so that Martha didn't want to go look at his body. So, I can see your side of the euphemism for a few days, and then I have to move to the other side of the euphemism.

The euphemism has no reference to the state of a person's consciousness after death. That's where your error is.

 

[Derf]

Who cares where they were? Maybe one was in Florida and the other in Washington D.C. What does it matter? The point is that there were awake and experiencing things and talking back and forth after they died! That would be hard to do if your definition of death is, "no life in them or any part of them, and they cease to function in any way and in any place, until they are resurrected."

I'm curious about something else. Where is this line of reasoning coming from? I don't mean, "Who taught it to you?" I'm wondering what is it that's motivating it? Where is the need to believe this? What consequence do you see coming as a result of believing that we do not cease to exist when our body dies?

I can ask you the same question. Who taught you your doctrine? What motivates you to defend it? I’ll wager it’s the same motivation as mine—I want to understand scripture better to understand my savior better. And if something is not from the Bible, yet I think it is, I want to know the truth. That’s why I started questioning the standard, dare I say traditional, story of life after life, where we never really die.

 

[Derf]

I would respond to that by saying that there isn't any reason other than your doctrine to move the commas around. If you can make a grammatical argument (i.e. based on the actual text) then I'm all ears but otherwise it's an exercise in question begging.

(Did you notice that I left out all the commas in those two sentences! )

Funny!
If doctrine is the reason to move them, then perhaps doctrine put them there in the first place, as the original Greek didn’t have them. Try reading it this way:
Luke 23:43 (NKJV) And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”

 

[JudgeRightly]

How much of what you wrote came from the Lazarus/rich man text, and how much from your own mind/memory of what others have told you? For instance, where in the text does it say there was a paradise side of Sheol?

Rich man is separated from Abraham and Lazarus by a gulf.

Or, in other words, on one side of the gulf, you have the rich man, on the other side, you have Abraham and Lazarus.
Paradise is just another name for "Abraham's Bosom," because it's a paradise compared to its surroundings in Hell.

You’re assuming that “the spirit” here is referring to a part of the person,

Is there any reason to believe otherwise, other than reading your doctrine into the text?

and that the person still exists without the body.

"Absent from the body and present with the Lord..." seems to affirm that.

Even if I grant you that a person is made up of body soul and spirit, or even body and spirit, the person would no longer be a person when one of those was missing.

Says who? You? Your doctrine?

The phrase above says otherwise. Did I mention it's from Paul?

Also, the verse just says that the body without the spirit is dead. (Scripture is literally defining "death" as "separation" here, btw.) It does NOT say that the person is no longer a person when they die.

So you don’t know that Abraham is in Hades.

Abraham was in Hell, in "Abraham's Bosom," prior to Christ's death and burial.

He is now in heaven with Christ, and has been since Christ's ascension.

Scripture doesn’t talk about a “paradise side” of Sheol. It’s inferred at the most.

Supra.

What does “captivity” refer to? Isn’t the grave a place of captivity? Wouldn’t taking it captive mean taking away its power to hold onto people?

Supra, my previous post.

But if Jesus ascended to where Abraham was, then Jesus death is made unnecessary, it seems.

Abraham was freed and taken to Heaven AFTER Christ's physical death.

Funny!
If doctrine is the reason to move them, then perhaps doctrine put them there in the first place, as the original Greek didn’t have them. Try reading it this way:
Luke 23:43 (NKJV) And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Which is why Clete said to:

make a grammatical argument (i.e. based on the actual text)

No?

Grammar is more than just where a comma is placed.

 

[Clete]

I can ask you the same question. Who taught you your doctrine?

I wasn't asking you who taught you. I thought I made that clear, didn't I?

What motivates you to defend it?

Because the bible seems to clearly teach it by a plain reading of the test.

I’ll wager it’s the same motivation as mine—I want to understand scripture better to understand my savior better.

That isn't at all what I was asking. Anyone with half a brain would say that. I'm asking what the basis of this doctrine is. You are THE ONLY person I've ever heard of who believes it and so there has to be something you see as an unpleasant rational consequence of the normal doctrine and I'm just curious to know what that is.

And if something is not from the Bible, yet I think it is, I want to know the truth. That’s why I started questioning the standard, dare I say traditional, story of life after life, where we never really die.

I have no problem with questioning doctrine, I just don't get what there is that could have possibly been compelling enough to cause you to adopt such an unorthodox position as that we don't survive our physical death. What is it about the idea that there is an existence that continues past our physical death that you object too? Isn't that what this whole Christianity thing is all about?

Is it the idea that if Jesus continued to "live" after His physical death that He didn't actually die at all and that therefore the whole salvation plan doesn't work?

If its anything along those lines (and it may not be!) then I'd ask you why wouldn't it work? Is it not God whom we've sinned against? Is it not also His plan of salvation? Is He not the Judge who gets to decide what payment is sufficient to balance the scales of justice?

I just cannot figure out a reason that would make it necessary to believe that death must mean "total unconscious dormancy".

Clete

P.S. Please don't read any hostility into any of this. I am honestly trying to see where you're coming from here. I typically either know from past experience or am able to figure out someone's underlying premises and I try to drill down to the most basic beliefs that are predicating whatever is being debated but I don't have a clue on this one and so I want to understand it.