Is death just another life?

[Clete]

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully not forever.

Derf

Derf,

I really am super short on time and, with my main computer down for the count, I'm going to intentionally respond with an extremely short response to your post as a whole rather than my usual point for point response....

My impression is that you can see intuitively how II Corinthians 5:6 undermines your position and have to strain to find some interpretation of not only that verse but every other problem text that anyone throws at you that clearly teaches that we do, in fact, survive our physical death. I also have noticed that you made no effort to answer my question about whether you believe that Jesus ceased to exist for three days and that the Creator recreated Himself in order rise from the dead.

In short, I see a whole lot of what I like to call theological hoop jumping in order to preserve the unfounded notion that we do not survive our physical death. You want me to see it from your point of view but have given me no reason to think that there any good cause to do so. Why not simply read the text and take it to mean what it seems to mean?

Clete

 

[Derf]

hell is a place Jesus taught that the rich man went to ,

Yes

Samuel was brought up from Abraham's side

No. Abraham isn't mentioned.

and in Revelation death and hell delivered up the dead in them.

And the sea. Don't forget about the sea.

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

See? No Abraham.

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

What did the angels carry? And how does it compare with the rich man's fate?

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

seems to be something wrong with the way you view "spirit" , you seem to see it as only "breath" or an "energy" that returns to God

Not "only". But that's one usage.

yet God is a spirit , God gives us the Holy Spirit 3rd person of the trinity (that is to say not an energy)

Amen!

angels and demons are spirit and we are body ,soul and spirit .

Yes, that all makes sense. God breathed into man the breath of life (one version of spirit) and he became a living soul. Man was just a lifeless body, then he (the body) became a living soul. A soul wasn't added to the body, the body became a soul.

your whole premise is spirit less

Nope, there's definitely a spirit involved. Our definitions may differ.

 

[Idolater]

Here's how I responded previously

So I see the point is that because Christ is speaking to Sadducees who don't believe in bodily resurrection that therefore when He says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are "the living" He means, "There will be a resurrection."

But I think we need to take a step back to where He says, not that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are "the living" but that they're not "the dead." Your view is that this means they will be resurrected, but that they are dead at this time. I'm saying, that makes Christ a liar here, or at least recklessly metaphorical.

He didn't just say that the patriarchs are "the living" but also that they are not "the dead."

And yet they were ---- and still are dead, physically, bodily, so we know He did not mean that they are "the living," bodily. Your contention is that it only means that they will be resurrected and nothing more. I'm pushing back on that.

 

[Derf]

So I see the point is that because Christ is speaking to Sadducees who don't believe in bodily resurrection that therefore when He says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are "the living" He means, "There will be a resurrection."

But I think we need to take a step back to where He says, not that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are "the living" but that they're not "the dead." Your view is that this means they will be resurrected, but that they are dead at this time. I'm saying, that makes Christ a liar here, or at least recklessly metaphorical.

He didn't just say that the patriarchs are "the living" but also that they are not "the dead."

Remember how Peter spoke about David?
Acts 2:29 KJV — Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
And:
Acts 2:34 KJV — For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

David's not resurrected, nor in heaven. Where is he? "Dead and buried." Yet surely David shares a similar condition with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I think this verse applies:
Romans 4:17 KJV — (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and -->calleth those things which be not as though they were.<--

And yet they were ---- and still are dead, physically, bodily, so we know He did not mean that they are "the living," bodily. Your contention is that it only means that they will be resurrected and nothing more. I'm pushing back on that.

I'm not sure "only...resurrected" is as small a thing as you make it.

Jesus spoke of death and sleep interchangeably. But he also spoke of perishing. To me, that makes it seem like there's a finality to death that isn't acknowledged with believers. But I also know the wicked will be raised and judged. The perishing seems to speak of those who die without hope of eternal life with Christ, leaving the sleep metaphor for those who die with that hope. But in the meantime death looks the same to both.

 

[Derf]

Derf,

I really am super short on time and, with my main computer down for the count, I'm going to intentionally respond with an extremely short response to your post as a whole rather than my usual point for point response....

Sorry about the computer problems.

My impression is that you can see intuitively how II Corinthians 5:6 undermines your position and have to strain to find some interpretation of not only that verse but every other problem text that anyone throws at you that clearly teaches that we do, in fact, survive our physical death.

Duh. Of course I will strive (not strain) to find some interpretation that supports my view instead of the opposite one. And what I did was point out a hole in YOUR interpretation of II Cor 5:6, which you haven't answered yet (I know...computer problems). I look forward to reading your response.

The bible is clear that the way we survive our physical death is through physical resurrection. What else might be happening besides that is perhaps not as clear. (If you need verses to show that we survive our physical death through physical resurrection, please see your post above: )

I also have noticed that you made no effort to answer my question about whether you believe that Jesus ceased to exist for three days and that the Creator recreated Himself in order rise from the dead.

First of all, I have already suggested that Jesus is a special case, because He existed prior to being human. If He already has an existence outside of humanity, then it's quite possible that He reverted to that existence when He died. However, there's no indication in scripture that Jesus, once He became a man, ever ceased to be a man, even momentarily. That's actually why we use the phrase "the eternal God-Man"--there was no turning back from His decision, I don't think. Even if there was a path for turning back from His humanity, it seems likely that it would have resulted in the loss of salvation of all of mankind.

But for a second, let's assume that Jesus "ceased to exist for three days", and then was resurrected. Why is that any more of a problem than saying Jesus, the immortal God, died and rose again three days later?

In short, I see a whole lot of what I like to call theological hoop jumping in order to preserve the unfounded notion that we do not survive our physical death. You want me to see it from your point of view but have given me no reason to think that there any good cause to do so. Why not simply read the text and take it to mean what it seems to mean?

Clete

Which, as you would tell me if I said the same to you, is question-begging. In other words, to say that the bible fits your view better than the other is to say the other is wrong without proof. That doesn't mean you can't prove your view with the bible, but that just saying it without proof is lazy. I'll let it slide, however, because of your computer problems and time constraints. Sorry...too caustic.

 

[way 2 go]

hell is a place Jesus taught that the rich man went to ,Yes

a teaching you don't believe.

it was the rich man's spirit in hell as his body was buried.
(Luke 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

Samuel was brought up from Abraham's side
No. Abraham isn't mentioned.

that is what Jesus taught about where his people went before the cross
(Luke 16:22-23)
[22] And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom

and in Revelation death and hell delivered up the dead in them.
And the sea. Don't forget about the sea.

death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire
(Revelation 20:14) And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire
and hell is a place for spirits
(II Peter 2:4) For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved to judgment;

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

See? No Abraham.

we do see Samuel's spirit though and Samuel is disturbed at being brought up .
(I Samuel 28:15) And Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up?

What did the angels carry? And how does it compare with the rich man's fate?

the rich mans spirit and the rich mans fate was sealed at the moment he died , no room for repentance by faith after death.

seems to be something wrong with the way you view "spirit" , you seem to see it as only "breath" or an "energy" that returns to God
Not "only". But that's one usage.

God is spirit , angels are spirit and we have a spirit that you want to redefine as breath to suit your view

(Romans 8:16) The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.

4151 pneuma pnyoo'-mah from 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit:--ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. Compare 5590. see GREEK for 4154 see GREEK for 5590

Yes, that all makes sense. God breathed into man the breath of life (one version of spirit) and he became a living soul. Man was just a lifeless body, then he (the body) became a living soul. A soul wasn't added to the body, the body became a soul.

the soul spirit was added to the body that was formed
no animal received that treatment

(Genesis 1:26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.

pneuma psyche soma

Nope, there's definitely a spirit involved. Our definitions may differ.

you when it comes to man you have spirit as breath only ,
which doesn't fit here and other places
(Romans 8:16) The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.

 

[Derf]

a teaching you don't believe.

Not the same as you, apparently.

it was the rich man's spirit in hell as his body was buried.

An extrapolation from the text...

(Luke 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

The beggar was carried, the rich man was buried. You can't bury a spirit, but it seems to compare the two at this point.

that is what Jesus taught about where his people went before the cross

Right, that's why I say it's an extrapolation from the text. You are applying your view of Jesus' teaching to the story of Samuel. It's not wrong to do so, but if you do it too quickly, you might miss the truths of the text itself. Kinda like how Calvinists always apply their view of passages to make them sound Calvinistic, even though we wouldn't think of them that way.

(Luke 16:22-23)
[22] And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom

death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire
(Revelation 20:14) And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire
and hell is a place for spirits

Yes, that's what we are often taught. If so, then why are a bunch of dead people resurrected prior to being thrown into the lake of fire? it makes no sense.

(II Peter 2:4) For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved to judgment;

Angels are different than men. That "hell" is also different. It's "Tartarus". It would be helpful to read a translation that distinguishes between Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, and the lake of fire, just in case they are different places. For instance, if "hell"(Hades) is thrown into "hell"(lake of fire, Gehenna, maybe??) and the angels that sinned are held in "hell"(Tartarus) before they judged and thrown into "hell"(lake of fire), it seems important to know the difference.

we do see Samuel's spirit

An extrapolation of the text. "Spirit" isn't mentioned any more than "Abraham".

though and Samuel is disturbed at being brought up .
(I Samuel 28:15) And Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up?

Disturbed from what? Sleep?

the rich mans spirit and the rich mans fate was sealed at the moment he died , no room for repentance by faith after death.

God is spirit , angels are spirit and we have a spirit that you want to redefine as breath to suit your view

(Romans 8:16) The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.

4151 pneuma pnyoo'-mah from 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit:--ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. Compare 5590. see GREEK for 4154 see GREEK for 5590

the soul spirit was added to the body that was formed
no animal received that treatment

Which treatment? having a soul or having a spirit?
The word for "soul" is "nephesh" in Gen 2:7. The next place it is used is here:
[Gen 2:19 KJV] And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature (nephesh), that [was] the name thereof.

So there's at least some of the same treatment.

[SPOILER="Nephesh"]Soul is Nephesh. The word "nephesh" is found over 700 times in the Old Testament. It literally means "throat.". Just like when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness. They were hungry and thirsty and missed the melons and cucumber back in Egypt. So, they cried out and said, "Our "nephesh" has dried up." (Numbers 11:6)
From https://godtv.com/soul-nephesh-hebrew-word/[/SPOILER]

Also, Solomon says:
[Ecc 3:21 KJV] Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

So now we have verses that say animals have both soul and spirit.

(Genesis 1:26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.

pneuma psyche soma

Is that what is meant there? And does it mean that man is immortal, like God, except for his physical body?

you when it comes to man you have spirit as breath only ,
which doesn't fit here and other places
(Romans 8:16) The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.

"With our spirit" or "with our spirits"? If not plural, then it is probably something different than the individual spirit each of us has.

 

[Clete]

Sorry about the computer problems.

I'm relegated to using my laptop with this tiny little screen a baby sized keyboard. What a pain in the neck!

I'm going today to start shopping for parts to build a new system.

Duh. Of course I will strive (not strain) to find some interpretation that supports my view instead of the opposite one.

It's definitely straining and doing so pretty hard and for no profitable purpose. I mean, the amount of effort needed to make the text of scripture coincide with a particular view needs to bear some relationship to the importance of that view. Whether or not you're willing to admit it, and regardless of the integrity of your motive, the idea that we cease to exist when we die is, without a doubt, an extraordinary claim, especially from within a Christian paradigm.

More than that, it is a claim with no benefit! There is no rational puzzle it seeks to unravel, no theological knot it seeks to untie, no ecclesiastical confusion it seeks to clear up. There's no scientific, historical, philosophical or doctrinal issue that is served in any way by postulating such an idea. It is the very epitome of an answer in search of a question.

And so you set a task for yourself that is the theological equivalent to draining Lake Mead to recover a disposable boat anchor.

And what I did was point out a hole in YOUR interpretation of II Cor 5:6, which you haven't answered yet (I know...computer problems). I look forward to reading your response.

You did no such thing. You seem to be unaware of what it means to "beg the question" because you tout question begging arguments as has having exposed a hole in my "interpretation" of a text and then accuse me of question begging when I appeal, not to an interpretation, which is what you're doing, but to the plain reading of the text.

The bible is clear that the way we survive our physical death is through physical resurrection.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Derf.

Four counter examples come immediately to mind....

Matthew 17:1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”​

​

Luke 16:19 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.​

24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’​

27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”​

​

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”​

Revelation 6:9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.​

Not a single person in the above passages, whether parable or otherwise, is resurrected.

This single point alone is sufficient to disprove your entire thesis.

First of all, I have already suggested that Jesus is a special case, because He existed prior to being human. If He already has an existence outside of humanity, then it's quite possible that He reverted to that existence when He died. However, there's no indication in scripture that Jesus, once He became a man, ever ceased to be a man, even momentarily. That's actually why we use the phrase "the eternal God-Man"--there was no turning back from His decision, I don't think. Even if there was a path for turning back from His humanity, it seems likely that it would have resulted in the loss of salvation of all of mankind.

Okay, so did He die or not?

"What does it mean to die?" is the issue at hand here. If death means we cease to exist and Jesus didn't cease to exist, then Jesus didn't die and if He didn't die then He didn't rise from the dead and if Christ be not risen, we are all still in our sins. (I Corinthians 15:17)

But for a second, let's assume that Jesus "ceased to exist for three days", and then was resurrected. Why is that any more of a problem than saying Jesus, the immortal God, died and rose again three days later?

God cannot cease to exist, Derf!

That which does not exist cannot rise! That which does not exist cannot do anything!

Just what level of completely obvious self-contradiction are you willing to entertain to preserve this completely bankrupt (i.e. unprofitable) idea?

Which, as you would tell me if I said the same to you, is question-begging. In other words, to say that the bible fits your view better than the other is to say the other is wrong without proof.

WHAT?

I DO NOT have to prove the plain reading of scripture and quoting, without interpretation or commentary, a passage in support of a doctrine is, in no way, question begging! It's exactly the opposite!

If I quoted you Genesis 1:1 in support of the idea that the universe was created, and this "question begging" point of yours was correct, then you could rightly argue that my argument is begging the question unless I prove that God exists, which would just be complete nonsense!

We are two Christians, having a discussion about Christian doctrine. The truth of the scripture is presupposed and the plain reading of a passage takes precedence over any doctrinally motivated interpretation. Not only that but if the doctrine being debated is the motivation behind that interpretation then THAT is the example of question begging, not the citation of the plain reading, because the meaning conveyed by the plain reading is governed by the text itself, by the words on the page and by the context in which they were written.

That doesn't mean you can't prove your view with the bible, but that just saying it without proof is lazy. I'll let it slide, however, because of your computer problems and time constraints. Sorry...too caustic.

Anyone with half a mind, who's been here for any length of time at all, would laugh out loud at anyone with the temerity to accuse me of being lazy in regards to either making, or responding to, substantive arguments.

Clete

 

[Derf]

I'm relegated to using my laptop with this tiny little screen a baby sized keyboard. What a pain in the neck!

I'm going today to start shopping for parts to build a new system.

I feel for you. I've been doing mine on a cell phone.

It's definitely straining and doing so pretty hard and for no profitable purpose. I mean, the amount of effort needed to make the text of scripture coincide with a particular view needs to bear some relationship to the importance of that view.

Do we get to decide which things it's ok not to be accurate about? If we decide the importance, then we can relegate the gospel to a back burner.

Whether or not you're willing to admit it, and regardless of the integrity of your motive, the idea that we cease to exist when we die is, without a doubt, an extraordinary claim, especially from within a Christian paradigm.

Why? It doesn't seem that extraordinary to me. Maybe you're talking about your paradigm.

More than that, it is a claim with no benefit! There is no rational puzzle it seeks to unravel, no theological knot it seeks to untie, no ecclesiastical confusion it seeks to clear up. There's no scientific, historical, philosophical or doctrinal issue that is served in any way by postulating such an idea. It is the very epitome of an answer in search of a question.

Kind of like children questioning their parents' admonitions when they don't understand well enough?

And so you set a task for yourself that is the theological equivalent to draining Lake Mead to recover a disposable boat anchor.

Kind of like the disciples seeking to win the Jews to Christ?

You did no such thing. You seem to be unaware of what it means to "beg the question" because you tout question begging arguments as has having exposed a hole in my "interpretation" of a text and then accuse me of question begging when I appeal, not to an interpretation, which is what you're doing, but to the plain reading of the text.

No, just because you don't understand my arguments doesn't make them question begging ones. Do you have an answer for why Paul speaks of 3 states, when one of them is NEVER, EVER applicable?

Saying it doesn't make it so, Derf.

Four counter examples come immediately to mind....

Matthew 17:1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”​

Elijah probably wasn't a spirit, since he didn't die. Moses was not in a different state from Elijah, as far as we can tell. So, was Moses in a bodily form, or was Elijah in a spiritual form? The disciples thought they might need shelter.

​

Luke 16:19 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.​

24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’​

27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”​

​

Weve been talking about what this means. To use it as evidence of your view is question begging.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”​

How did Abraham see it? He "was" glad; he "saw" it. Those are past tense verbs, so Jesus isn't talking about something Abraham is currently experiencing.

Revelation 6:9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.​

Not a single person in the above passages, whether parable or otherwise, is resurrected.

Moses might have been. Abraham was not currently experiencing Christ, and the souls under the altar were told to go back to sleep--so their resurrection was still to come, yet they weren't in heaven communing with Jesus. So it doesn't help your view either.

Plus, as Peter talked about David not being in heaven, neither was Abraham, so were they both in hell, after Abraham's bosom was raised up to heaven?

This single point alone is sufficient to disprove your entire thesis.

Supra

Okay, so did He die or not?

Yes. Is God immortal? Can he die. Of course not. But Jesus, God the Son, died.

"What does it mean to die?" is the issue at hand here. If death means we cease to exist and Jesus didn't cease to exist, then Jesus didn't die and if He didn't die then He didn't rise from the dead and if Christ be not risen, we are all still in our sins. (I Corinthians 15:17)

Jesus ceased to exist in at least his human form.

God cannot cease to exist, Derf!

God cannot die, Clete. He's immortal.

That which does not exist cannot rise! That which does not exist cannot do anything!

Just what level of completely obvious self-contradiction are you willing to entertain to preserve this completely bankrupt (i.e. unprofitable) idea?


WHAT?

I DO NOT have to prove the plain reading of scripture and quoting, without interpretation or commentary, a passage in support of a doctrine is, in no way, question begging! It's exactly the opposite!

Calling your view "the plain reading of scripture" is indeed question begging. Especially when God defines death as returning to dust.

If I quoted you Genesis 1:1 in support of the idea that the universe was created, and this "question begging" point of yours was correct, then you could rightly argue that my argument is begging the question unless I prove that God exists, which would just be complete nonsense!

We are two Christians, having a discussion about Christian doctrine. The truth of the scripture is presupposed and the plain reading of a passage takes precedence over any doctrinally motivated interpretation. Not only that but if the doctrine being debated is the motivation behind that interpretation then THAT is the example of question begging, not the citation of the plain reading, because the meaning conveyed by the plain reading is governed by the text itself, by the words on the page and by the context in which they were written.

The truth of scripture is presupposed, not your interpretation.

Anyone with half a mind, who's been here for any length of time at all, would laugh out loud at anyone with the temerity to accuse me of being lazy in regards to either making, or responding to, substantive arguments.

Clete

You can be lazy in a particular area, though, without it meaning that you don't type long posts. And you are in this one.

Hope you take that in the spirit it's meant, coming from a brother.

Derf

 

[Clete]

I feel for you. I've been doing mine on a cell phone.

I've only ever done that a very few times. No way that it's worth it.

Do we get to decide which things it's ok not to be accurate about? If we decide the importance, then we can relegate the gospel to a back burner.

Stupid question and non-sequitor conclusion.

You make decisions about what is important or not, multiple times a day, every single day of your life. A fact that is both undeniably true and TOTALLY irrelevant to the point I made.

Would you think it worth the effort to drain a lake to recover a spare set of car keys? NO! You wouldn't and yet you'd stain out gnats to swallow the camel of "Death=non-existence" in direct opposition to the plain reading of multiple scriptures.

Why? It doesn't seem that extraordinary to me. Maybe you're talking about your paradigm.

Stupidity. It's an extraordinary claim and you know it. Are you TRYING to get ignored? You'd better start ramping up the common sense or that's what's coming.

Kind of like children questioning their parents' admonitions when they don't understand well enough?

Okay, so I see now. You've reached the end of anything resembling substance and are just intentionally being a jack-ass.

Good bye.

 

[Derf]

I've only ever done that a very few times. No way that it's worth it.


Stupid question and non-sequitor conclusion.

You make decisions about what is important or not, multiple times a day, every single day of your life. A fact that is both undeniably true and TOTALLY irrelevant to the point I made.

Would you think it worth the effort to drain a lake to recover a spare set of car keys? NO! You wouldn't and yet you'd stain out gnats to swallow the camel of "Death=non-existence" in direct opposition to the plain reading of multiple scriptures.


Stupidity. It's an extraordinary claim and you know it. Are you TRYING to get ignored? You'd better start ramping up the common sense or that's what's coming.


Okay, so I see now. You've reached the end of anything resembling substance and are just intentionally being a jack-ass.

Good bye.

What I'm saying is
1. If it isn't that important, then my view shouldn't be a threat to you or other Christians.
And
2. We don't determine the importance of God's truth. I.e., if He tells us how things work, we should be interested, instead of just assuming we already know everything.

Finally, don't be such a child, Clete. If you don't want to discuss something, then don't discuss it. You don't have to call people names just because you're failing to convince anyone.

 

[way 2 go]

Not the same as you, apparently.

An extrapolation from the text...

The beggar was carried, the rich man was buried. You can't bury a spirit, but it seems to compare the two at this point.

Right, that's why I say it's an extrapolation from the text. You are applying your view of Jesus' teaching to the story of Samuel. It's not wrong to do so, but if you do it too quickly, you might miss the truths of the text itself. Kinda like how Calvinists always apply their view of passages to make them sound Calvinistic, even though we wouldn't think of them that way.

the bible teaches existence after death

Yes, that's what we are often taught. If so, then why are a bunch of dead people resurrected prior to being thrown into the lake of fire? it makes no sense.

resurrected for judgement day
and we put people in jail while they're waiting for judgement then they go to prison.

Angels are different than men. That "hell" is also different. It's "Tartarus". It would be helpful to read a translation that distinguishes between Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, and the lake of fire, just in case they are different places. For instance, if "hell"(Hades) is thrown into "hell"(lake of fire, Gehenna, maybe??) and the angels that sinned are held in "hell"(Tartarus) before they judged and thrown into "hell"(lake of fire), it seems important to know the difference.

God is spirit , angels are spirit and we are spirit : all have bodies - Jesus - angels went to the daughters of men

(Genesis 6:4) There were giants in the earth in those days. And also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore to them, they were mighty men who existed of old, men of renown
(Jude 1:6) And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day;

hell is not the lake of fire
and
same hell just deeper
5020 tartaroo tar-tar-o'-o from Tartaros (the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment:--cast down to hell.

An extrapolation of the text. "Spirit" isn't mentioned any more than "Abraham".

the medium saw Samuel before Saul did can only be explained by spirit.
Samuel came up can only be explained by spirit , as it is impossible to for him to dig his way up physically.
It was Samuel as the bible says it was and his prophecy came true
(I Samuel 28:15) And Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up?

(I Samuel 28:19) And, the LORD will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The LORD also shall deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.

Peter and James saw and heard Moses and Elijah spirits
(Matthew 17:3) And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking with Him.

Jesus didn't resurrect Moses and Elijah and then murder them

Disturbed from what? Sleep?

doesn't matter , Samuel exists and was disturbed being brought up

Which treatment? having a soul or having a spirit?
The word for "soul" is "nephesh" in Gen 2:7. The next place it is used is here:
[Gen 2:19 KJV] And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature (nephesh), that [was] the name thereof.

God didn't breath life into anything else but man
(Genesis 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

(Genesis 1:26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth

So there's at least some of the same treatment.

[SPOILER="Nephesh"]Soul is Nephesh. The word "nephesh" is found over 700 times in the Old Testament. It literally means "throat.". Just like when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness. They were hungry and thirsty and missed the melons and cucumber back in Egypt. So, they cried out and said, "Our "nephesh" has dried up." (Numbers 11:6)
From https://godtv.com/soul-nephesh-hebrew-word/[/SPOILER]

no
and
no

5315 nephesh neh'-fesh from 5314; properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):--any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it. see HEBREW for 05314

Also, Solomon says:
[Ecc 3:21 KJV] Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

that sentence ends in a question mark
that makes that a question not a statement of fact


7307 ruwach roo'-akh from 7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):--air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit((-ual)), tempest, X vain, ((whirl-))wind(-y). see HEBREW for 07306

God said this about Man
(Genesis 1:26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.

pneuma psyche soma

So now we have verses that say animals have both soul and spirit.

are you trying to say animals exist after death or man does not exist after death
because you have no evidence animals exist after death and man does not exist after death

Is that what is meant there? And does it mean that man is immortal, like God, except for his physical body?

(Genesis 1:26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.
(John 4:24) God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

we are not complete without a body but our spirit can exist apart from our body

Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

(and no I'm not going to discuss the coma )

(Romans 8:16) The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.

"With our spirit" or "with our spirits"? If not plural, then it is probably something different than the individual spirit each of us has.

I don't have multiple spirits , just one

 

[Derf]

the bible teaches existence after death

So do I...because of resurrection.

resurrected for judgement day
and we put people in jail while they're waiting for judgement then they go to prison.

See below about the angels in chains of darkness, not fire.

God is spirit , angels are spirit and we are spirit : all have bodies - Jesus - angels went to the daughters of men

That's a pretty big leap to make. I think you'll have a hard time backing that up with scripture.

(Genesis 6:4) There were giants in the earth in those days. And also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore to them, they were mighty men who existed of old, men of renown
(Jude 1:6) And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day;

Chains of darkness might be tartarus. No fire yet, right?

hell is not the lake of fire

Hell is used for "hades", "tartarus", and "gehenna", and gehenna, where their worm dyeth not and their fire is not quenched, is often associated with the lake of fire. Is that correct? I'm not so sure.

and
same hell just deeper
5020 tartaroo tar-tar-o'-o from Tartaros (the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment:--cast down to hell.

the medium saw Samuel before Saul did can only be explained by spirit.

It could be explained by her having better eyesight. Or by her being a "seer", someone that gets information from demonic sources.

Samuel came up can only be explained by spirit , as it is impossible to for him to dig his way up physically.

That's why he needed angels to help him come up, similar to Peter needing help to get out of prison.

It was Samuel as the bible says it was and his prophecy came true
(I Samuel 28:15) And Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up?

(I Samuel 28:19) And, the LORD will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The LORD also shall deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.

"With me" meaning what? I'm the grave? In a dead state? There's too little info to know for sure.

Peter and James saw and heard Moses and Elijah spirits
(Matthew 17:3) And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking with Him.

Jesus didn't resurrect Moses and Elijah and then murder them

No, we don't know how they got there. It doesn't say Jesus did anything to get them there. But does it say Elijah, who was taken from the earth without dying was in a dead state? If so, did he die while in God's care, after taking him up to heaven? That's weird. But neither do we know what happened to either of them afterward. That makes yours an argument from silence.

doesn't matter , Samuel exists and was disturbed being brought up

It might matter. If he was disturbed from "sleep" or "rest", then it either wasn't just a spirit being disturbed, or spirits sleep.

God didn't breath life into anything else but man
(Genesis 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

True.

(Genesis 1:26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth

Ok

no
and
no

5315 nephesh neh'-fesh from 5314; properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):--any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it. see HEBREW for 05314

that sentence ends in a question mark
that makes that a question not a statement of fact


7307 ruwach roo'-akh from 7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):--air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit((-ual)), tempest, X vain, ((whirl-))wind(-y). see HEBREW for 07306

Ok

God said this about Man
(Genesis 1:26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.

Ok

pneuma psyche soma

are you trying to say animals exist after death or man does not exist after death
because you have no evidence animals exist after death and man does not exist after death

Nope. I'm trying to say that your understanding of what the spirit comprises is faulty, since the verse suggests both animals and humans have spirits of some sort.

(Genesis 1:26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.

Ok

(John 4:24) God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Does that mean we actually are out of the body? No.

we are not complete without a body but our spirit can exist apart from our body

Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

(and no I'm not going to discuss the coma )

"coma" Are you trying to be funny?

I don't have multiple spirits , just one

no, but a group of people would have more than one. Paul was talking to a group.

 

[Idolater]

Remember how Peter spoke about David?

Yes.

Acts 2:29 KJV — Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
And:
Acts 2:34 KJV — For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

David's not resurrected, nor in heaven. Where is he? "Dead and buried." Yet surely David shares a similar condition with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Well played. But a verse you neglect is pertinent. " He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Soul and flesh, body and soul. In whatever way that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are "the living," King David too.

Since we know and Peter confirms it's not the body, then it must be the soul. While Christ's soul went to hell we don't believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or David did.

It makes sense that Christ's death was a death in multiple senses, just not in the "ceasing to exist" sense.

I think this verse applies:
Romans 4:17 KJV — (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and -->calleth those things which be not as though they were.<--

I can see that pattern, yes, but it doesn't advance your position, it merely doesn't contradict it.

It doesn't contradict lots of positions though.

I'm not sure "only...resurrected" is as small a thing as you make it.

Jesus spoke of death and sleep interchangeably. But he also spoke of perishing. To me, that makes it seem like there's a finality to death that isn't acknowledged with believers. But I also know the wicked will be raised and judged. The perishing seems to speak of those who die without hope of eternal life with Christ, leaving the sleep metaphor for those who die with that hope. But in the meantime death looks the same to both.

In the body, yes. I mean, with some very rare exceptions, like Enoch and Elijah and other assumptions. And excepting incorruptible bodies as well. So except for the exceptions, sure. In the body, death looks the same to both.

But the soul: do you think all souls descend into hell, as Christ did? Based on Peter's preaching in Acts 2:29-34 which you invoked, there are two aspects to death, the soul and the body. Are you saying that all souls descend into hell as Christ did? Or did Christ descend into hell for a special and unique purpose which doesn't apply to people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David?

 

[way 2 go]

So do I...because of resurrection.

you don't believe the continued existence of the spirit\soul outside the body after physical death

BTW: I use the word absurd not to insult you but because I find your position absurd but you have the company of the sadduces
they just take it one or two steps further .
(Acts 23:8) For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both

See below about the angels in chains of darkness, not fire.

you assume no fire ?

That's a pretty big leap to make. I think you'll have a hard time backing that up with scripture.

(Genesis 1:26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness
(John 4:24) God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Chains of darkness might be tartarus. No fire yet, right?

again you assume no fire , why ?

same hell just deeper
5020 tartaroo tar-tar-o'-o from Tartaros (the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment:--cast down to hell.

Hell is used for "hades", "tartarus", and "gehenna", and gehenna, where their worm dyeth not and their fire is not quenched, is often associated with the lake of fire. Is that correct? I'm not so sure.

hell can't be thrown into itself
(Revelation of John 20:14) And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire

It could be explained by her having better eyesight. Or by her being a "seer", someone that gets information from demonic sources.

Samuel was a spirit and
if we start using your logic could we not reject Jesus as God ?
(serious question btw: you are rejecting all the evidence of a spirits continued existence after death and claiming there is no evidence.)


she could see Samuel first because of her ability to see spirits
Saul asked "What is his form?" as he could not see Samuel yet.

Saul could only see & hear Samuel when he surfaced , Saul answered Samuel's question that was directed at Saul.

(I Samuel 28:14-15) [14] And he said to her, What is his form? And she said, An old man comes up, and he is covered with a cloak. And Saul saw that it was Samuel, and he bowed his face to the ground, and prostrated himself. [15] And Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am grievously distressed, for the Philistines are warring against me. And God has left me and does not answer me any more, neither by prophets nor by dreams. And I have called you so that you may make known to me what I should do.

Samuel came up can only be explained by spirit , as it is impossible to for him to dig his way up physically.

That's why he needed angels to help him come up, similar to Peter needing help to get out of prison.

going for the absurd , digging , poor choice

no angels were seen and more like than Peter
Peter and James saw and heard Moses and Elijah spirits
(Matthew 17:3) And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking with Him.

"With me" meaning what? I'm the grave? In a dead state? There's too little info to know for sure.

you have to question "with me" because your theology is broken and you deny scripture with absurd arguments.

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

No,

we don't know how they got there.

transported by God , how else ?

It doesn't say Jesus did anything to get them there. But does it say Elijah, who was taken from the earth without dying was in a dead state? If so, did he die while in God's care, after taking him up to heaven?

God is God of the living

That's weird. But neither do we know what happened to either of them afterward. That makes yours an argument from silence.

Jesus didn't resurrect Moses and Elijah and then murder them.
the bible didn't say they were resurrected ,that absurd argument
would make Moses the first resurrected from the dead and not Jesus


(Matthew 17:7-8) [7] And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise and do not be terrified. [8] And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus alone.
(Acts 26:23) that Christ should suffer, that by a resurrection of the dead, He would be the first, going to proclaim light to the people and to the nations.

It might matter. If he was disturbed from "sleep" or "rest", then it either wasn't just a spirit being disturbed, or spirits sleep.

no

True.

Ok

Ok

Ok

Nope. I'm trying to say that your understanding of what the spirit comprises is faulty, since the verse suggests both animals and humans have spirits of some sort.

you're trying to find away to justify your absurd belief

you can't have a spiritual connection with an animal you can use anthropomorphism to give an animal human qualities

(John 4:24) God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.
Does that mean we actually are out of the body? No.

God is a spirit , we have a spirit that is like God's spirit , we can have a connection with God .

you're argument is our spirit is mearly breath ?

Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

"coma" Are you trying to be funny?

I don't want to disscuss the coma or comma
if that's all someone has to deny scripture then their unreasnable ,so why brother or bother

(Romans 8:16) The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.

no, but a group of people would have more than one. Paul was talking to a group.

it's greek

 

[Derf]

Yes.

Well played. But a verse you neglect is pertinent. " He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Soul and flesh, body and soul.

In other words, David's soul WAS left in hell? Yes, I think that's what it is saying. Because David wasn't resurrected, his soul remained in hell.

In whatever way that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are "the living," King David too.

Yep.

Since we know and Peter confirms it's not the body, then it must be the soul. While Christ's soul went to hell we don't believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or David did.

Why not? Why would Christ go to hell, but not A, I, J, and D? Isn't the argument that Lazarus, the poor man, went to hell, just to the better part? Wasn't "Abraham's bosom" a part of hell? Wasn't that where Jesus was going to be with the thief on the cross for three days, only He called it "Paradise"?

It makes sense that Christ's death was a death in multiple senses, just not in the "ceasing to exist" sense.

I don't like the phrase "ceasing to exist", but I don't know of a better term. If God says to Adam, "You are dust, and to dust you will return," what else can you make of it. If God putting breath of life into the lump of clay made a "living soul", wouldn't removing it make a lump of clay again? There's no promise of existing in death at that point in scripture. And if we make one up, why? Just to bolster a presupposition? Let's at least try to check out our presuppositions instead of letting them drive our interpretations.

I can see that pattern, yes, but it doesn't advance your position, it merely doesn't contradict it.

My point is that if death is assured, then sometimes people are called "dead" before they are actually dead. This corresponds, imo, to what Paul talks about when he says "you were dead in your trespasses and sins." Because of sin, we are assured of death. Then once we believe in Jesus, we are assured of life, i.e., we have eternal life (even though we may die first).

It doesn't contradict lots of positions though.

In the body, yes. I mean, with some very rare exceptions, like Enoch and Elijah and other assumptions.

Is there death that looks different somehow associated with Enoch and Elijah?

And excepting incorruptible bodies as well.

Yes. Incorruptible bodies are not affected by the first death, so they need a second kind of death.

So except for the exceptions, sure. In the body, death looks the same to both.

I don't know how to describe death in someone who hasn't died (Enoch and Elijah).

But the soul: do you think all souls descend into hell, as Christ did?

No. Some souls descend into the sea. That's why both the sea and hell have to "give up the dead".
[Rev 20:13 KJV] 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.

Based on Peter's preaching in Acts 2:29-34 which you invoked, there are two aspects to death, the soul and the body. Are you saying that all souls descend into hell as Christ did? Or did Christ descend into hell for a special and unique purpose which doesn't apply to people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David?

I think we most often think of "souls" as some part of the human, rather than the human himself. If the body dies, and the soul (person) descends into hell, what is actually going on? Did Christ, in some spirit form, descend into a spiritual realm? Or was He buried, descending into the grave? Hades (one word the KJV translates as "hell") and "Sheol" (another word the KJV translates as "hell") are both also used to refer to "the grave" in the KJV.

Isn't it, then, your presupposition that there are two aspects of death, the soul and the body, and what that means? But Genesis describes a single death that affects both--that the living soul doesn't exist when the body returns to dust, because the body was part of the soul.

 

[Clete]

What I'm saying is
1. If it isn't that important, then my view shouldn't be a threat to you or other Christians.
And
2. We don't determine the importance of God's truth. I.e., if He tells us how things work, we should be interested, instead of just assuming we already know everything.

Finally, don't be such a child, Clete. If you don't want to discuss something, then don't discuss it. You don't have to call people names just because you're failing to convince anyone.

I'd love to discuss it with someone who knew what it meant to be substantive and responsive. You seem only to be able to ignore or blow off every substantive thing that is said in opposition to your thesis and to avoid common sense like the plague. That isn't the sort of discussion anyone is actually interested in.

So far as I'm concerned, I've established that the belief that death=non-existence is false and utterly incompatible with anything that resembles the plain reading of scripture. You can do what you want with it. Ignore it is what you will do, but that won't be because I haven't done my job.

 

[Derf]

I'd love to discuss it with someone who knew what it meant to be substantive and responsive. You seem only to be able to ignore or blow off every substantive thing that is said in opposition to your thesis and to avoid common sense like the plague. That isn't the sort of discussion anyone is actually interested in.

So far as I'm concerned, I've established that the belief that death=non-existence is false and utterly incompatible with anything that resembles the plain reading of scripture. You can do what you want with it. Ignore it is what you will do, but that won't be because I haven't done my job.

Thanks for being part of the discussion, Clete.

 

[Right Divider]

Thanks for being part of the discussion, Clete.

It would have been great if you had actually listened to what he said.

 

[Derf]

It would have been great if you had actually listened to what he said.

And vice versa.