Is death just another life?

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
The exact number is ZERO.

If you claim otherwise, then define the word "miracle".

Clete

P.S. Don't read hostility into what is said above. It's just me starting a debate on the subject of miracles. Christians throw around the term "miracle" all the time and it ends up painting God in a very poor light. It seems that almost no one understand what a miracle even is.
If @Gary K means something by his word "miracle" that you don't mean by your word "miracle", and you mean something by your word "miracle" that he doesn't mean by his word "miracle", then the question is: Are you starting a debate on the subject of what he means by his word "miracle", or are you starting a debate on the subject of what you mean by your word "miracle"?

Philosoraptor.jpg
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
I could be wrong on this issue, I admit. But I'll never find out if I'm wrong unless I'm willing to look at and attempt to understand the scriptures used to bolster the other position. I'd ask you to afford me the same courtesy instead of just repeating your same talking points, which I've answered in a way that makes sense of your cited scriptures in favor with my position.

Can you do that?
yes and the dead are still said to be dead after being resurrected , what kind of dead are they ?

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

Derf

Well-known member
yes and the dead are still said to be dead after being resurrected , what kind of dead are they ?

(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
Maybe the kind that need both to be raised and quickened:
John 5:21 KJV — For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
yes and the dead are still said to be dead after being resurrected , what kind of dead are they ?

(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
You do know that's prophetic don't you? It's a future event.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but if you are requiring non-Catholics (those not part of YOUR group of Christians) to stop taking communion, i.e. not be allowed to be part of the catholic (universal) church, then you aren't being very universal in your Roman Catholicism.
Is that too much to ask? To basically just not hate us? Before you go to Communion? The Scripture warns about receiving "unworthily" (1st Corinthians 11). It also (1st Corinthians 10:21) alludes to Malachi 1:7 &12 ("table" meaning altar), sustaining the Catholic teaching that it's a sacrifice and not merely a memorial ritual.
Maybe so. But you had made a statement that the anointing of the Holy Spirit caused an ontological change, like becoming a sheep instead of a goat, or passing from death to life, even if "probationary" or "reversible".
I did. But that was just to offer up a seeming possibility while sticking fairly tightly to the actual text. obv for example we are living, breathing souls here. None of us are dead in a very conventional sense of the word. But I think there's a different convention in play when Paul is writing, when the context suggests that he's not talking about the very conventional sense of the concept of dead.
Someone that passes from death to life, then back to death, and then back to life, perhaps, doesn't seem to have really passed from death to life.
It certainly seems that it is more likely that this is not the case, yes; agreed.
This is one reason I feel like our definitions of "death" and "life" are insufficient, or perhaps insincere, if they don't address the real death and life state, but some "spiritual" death and life state.
Paul says c. "dead in sins" a couple times, doesn't he?
Ok, but I hadn't encountered such usage before. In today's language, "accident" is rarely ever associated with "properties".
Yes basically. A substance is what a thing is. Accidents are everything else. (It's a way to categorize or think about stuff.) Trans means change. "Trans-substance" means the substance changes, like from a corpse to a living soul, or from a goat to a sheep. "Trans-accident" would be like the hair color, the height and weight, the top speed, eye color, the sound of the voice. Whether you're sinning or not.

When there's no clear division this scheme doesn't always make any sense, but when we're talking about things like individuals as distinct from other individuals it works OK I think.
Is it? Jesus Christ rose from the dead in a way that we expect to experience, so it isn't "completely" unique. And there are two other resurrections talked about in Revelation 20 (before and after the millenium) and by Jesus in John's gospel (unto life and unto condemnation). Daniel talked about this dichotomy of resurrection results, too, but it's unclear if his both happen at the same time.
I think Daniel and Revelation are fascinating, and I agree that there is some question how many ---- I'll just call it "physical" resurrections there are. I know Christ's Resurrection was unique and that our resurrection will resemble it because of the promised new bodies and we believe Christ's risen body is a new, "spiritual" (1st Corinthians 15) body. I meant by "completely unique" that there are going to be untold millions of people returning to life all at once at the resurrection of the dead. At Christ's Resurrection it was just Him. (Those who were raised on Good Friday couldn't have preceded His unique Resurrection because He is the Firstborn from the dead.)
I am willing to agree with this idea.
OK. It's an interesting marketing idea.
Well, you were the one who brought up that idea, and I don't think other means of attaining a lack of fear of death should be trusted--because they aren't trustworthy. None of them have shown actual success in defeating death. Jesus's has.
You're coming in loud and clear now.
I think I agree with you here, although "obligatory" has negative connotations.
It does ---- but what kind of negative connotations do you mean when I declare, "Not committing adultery is obligatory"? I guess I think you mean "offensive" ---- is "don't commit adultery" offensive? I get that there is negative connotation. What if you want to commit adultery? It's obligatory for you, as a Christian, to avoid it. To flee from it, actually. But that is negative, if you just feel like you want to.
I prefer to focus on a perfection in acknowledging Him as Lord, such that we desire to do anything He wants. Thus, it might be obligatory, but it is not done because it is obligatory.
That sounds like exactly how I would think the most righteous Hebrews in the time of Jesus's Earthly ministry must have thought. They did what they had to do, and they did it with a smile, and they worked very hard to develop a reasonable explanation for how fulfilling an objective obligation could be done with a genuine smile on your face.
Some might call them "means of grace"--the things that you do, or that are done to you that "help" you to be saved. I'm not comfortable with the idea, because it seems to put the saving power of Christ's death, into which we are baptized, on a par with liturgy, as you call it. Perhaps one is having faith that the act of baptism is what saves, rather than the expression of the complete immersion in the Spirit's power and mission. I'm not sure I'm being very clear here.
We just believe Catechism Text 1257 "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments."
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If @Gary K means something by his word "miracle" that you don't mean by your word "miracle", and you mean something by your word "miracle" that he doesn't mean by his word "miracle", then the question is: Are you starting a debate on the subject of what he means by his word "miracle", or are you starting a debate on the subject of what you mean by your word "miracle"?

Philosoraptor.jpg
I'm perfectly capable of reading and I am not responsible for Gary's use (or misuse) of the English language. The word "miracle" is a very common English word that isn't difficult to understand. The practice of defining terms is important in any debate but having to define every common word that we speak isn't the idea behind the practice and it is not incumbant upon me to presuppose that Gary has some weird special meaning for the term "miracle".

Gary believes that God supernaturally (i.e. miraculously) protects "His people" (now there's a term that needs defining) from the COVID vaccine! That is a level of delusion that there isn't any rational way to debate with in the first place. Gary is stupid and believes anything that pops into his mind that he desires to believe. He doesn't believe anything because it makes sense but because he desires for it to be true. He's a delusional idiot that I have no real evidence is even saved. He believes in nonsense so please don't lecture me about defining terms with stupid people.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
I'm perfectly capable of reading and I am not responsible for Gary's use (or misuse) of the English language. The word "miracle" is a very common English word that isn't difficult to understand. The practice of defining terms is important in any debate but having to define every common word that we speak isn't the idea behind the practice and it is not incumbant upon me to presuppose that Gary has some weird special meaning for the term "miracle".

Gary believes that God supernaturally (i.e. miraculously) protects "His people" (now there's a term that needs defining) from the COVID vaccine! That is a level of delusion that there isn't any rational way to debate with in the first place. Gary is stupid and believes anything that pops into his mind that he desires to believe. He doesn't believe anything because it makes sense but because he desires for it to be true. He's a delusional idiot that I have no real evidence is even saved. He believes in nonsense so please don't lecture me about defining terms with stupid people.
So even though the Bible is full of the stories of miracles you don't believe in them?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I'm perfectly capable of reading and I am not responsible for Gary's use (or misuse) of the English language. The word "miracle" is a very common English word that isn't difficult to understand. The practice of defining terms is important in any debate but having to define every common word that we speak isn't the idea behind the practice and it is not incumbant upon me to presuppose that Gary has some weird special meaning for the term "miracle".

Gary believes that God supernaturally (i.e. miraculously) protects "His people" (now there's a term that needs defining) from the COVID vaccine! That is a level of delusion that there isn't any rational way to debate with in the first place. Gary is stupid and believes anything that pops into his mind that he desires to believe. He doesn't believe anything because it makes sense but because he desires for it to be true. He's a delusional idiot that I have no real evidence is even saved. He believes in nonsense so please don't lecture me about defining terms with stupid people.
Did you at least like the dinosaur picture?
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Maybe the kind that need both to be raised and quickened:
John 5:21 KJV — For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
already raised , you know standing and still referred to as dead



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


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

way 2 go

Well-known member
You do know that's prophetic don't you? It's a future event.
doesn't matter
people are raised from the dead and still referred to as dead
the thread is : is death just another life?


the question is how does the bible define Life and how does the bible define Death

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

Gary K

New member
Banned
doesn't matter
people are raised from the dead and still referred to as dead
the thread is : is death just another life?


the question is how does the bible define Life and how does the bible define Death

alive yet dead
(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.
But that refers to the judgement. In fact you only quoted a part of one sentence.

Rev_20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev_20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
But that refers to the judgement.
doesn't matter
people are raised from the dead and still referred to as dead
In fact you only quoted a part of one sentence.
oh no ... oh wait that didn't change anything

the question is how does the bible define Life and how does the bible define Death
there is
physical death
death as a person
death is a place
and spiritual death

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

anything to add on the topic of is death just another life?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I have the same question as to your other post. I'm supposed to read your mind and know what you think? I'm no MADist yet you seem to think I'm supposed to know your theology.
I have no idea what you're even talking about!

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

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

Good bye.
 
Last edited:
Top