Death—it’s not just another life

Derf

Well-known member
I’ve brought this topic up before, but I was inspired by a @Bob Enyart radio program to take this alternative approach (though I don’t think Bob agrees with my view). I’m proposing that death is not to be defined as “separation from God”, which is traditionally the Church’s view admittedly, but a complete cessation all function, body, soul, and spirit. Bob’s excellent arguments against traditional theism are equally valid against traditional “deathism”—I think they probably both came from the same source.

Thus, when we will be resurrected, it is a complete miracle: body soul and spirit will be reborn, and that is the great hope of the Christian according to Paul in 1Thess 4:17, 18.

I propose that John 3 shows that Nicodemus was on track with his question about re-entering his mother’s womb, but he didn’t understand what he was saying.

John 3:3 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:4 (KJV) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

And that’s why he was reproved for being a teacher of Israel and not knowing these things.

Bob did a program recently that touched on the euphemism of Sheol for the womb, and vice versa.
Job 1:21 (KJV) And [Job] said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
Psalms 139:13, 15 (KJV) 13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. …15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

These 2 passages present Sheol as the womb and the womb as Sheol. Bob suggested that since we are dust, then when we are formed in our mother’s womb, it’s like we are being formed of dust in the dust. That means, it seems, that when we return to dust, we are just as much without life as we were before we were conceived, except for the power of God. And when God explained to Adam that he would DIE if he ate of the wrong tree, he really meant that he would cease to exist—except for the promise of God. That power and promise is why those that died were said to be asleep, and still were when Paul wrote 1st Thessalonians.

And when all are resurrected at the end of the ages, all will be brought back to life, some to eternal life, and some to the second death, defined for us as the lake of fire. The lake of fire is a permanent state, as far as I can tell, and those thrown there are thrown there for the express reason that they rejected the Holy Spirit’s conviction that Jesus is the only path to the Father, which is mankind’s substitute test after we failed the first one in Adam. All of which brings about the purpose of God to have a people that want to fellowship with Him forever—on His terms, since He is able to determine the perfect terms, which we agree with in order not to be blotted out from the Lamb’s book of life (sent to the second death).
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I'm not sure how you're wanting to discuss, so perhaps this is off the topic, but to John 3 and the womb being compared with the grave, 1 Peter 1:3 clearly is writing to people who have already been born again, and I don't think anybody thinks his audience had all risen from the dead like Christ did.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I'm not sure how you're wanting to discuss, so perhaps this is off the topic, but to John 3 and the womb being compared with the grave, 1 Peter 1:3 clearly is writing to people who have already been born again, and I don't think anybody thinks his audience had all risen from the dead like Christ did.
Peter writes to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, much like James.
1Pe 1:1 KJV Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Who do you think that these "stranger scattered throughout..." are? They are the same as these:
Jas 1:1 KJV James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
Peter also makes it clear that he is NOT writing to gentiles here:
1Pe 2:11-12 KJV Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; (12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
Note well the THEY and YOU/YOUR distinction.
 

Derf

Well-known member
I'm not sure how you're wanting to discuss, so perhaps this is off the topic, but to John 3 and the womb being compared with the grave, 1 Peter 1:3 clearly is writing to people who have already been born again, and I don't think anybody thinks his audience had all risen from the dead like Christ did.
That’s an excellent way to discuss, Idolator!

here it is: 1 Peter 1:3 (KJV) Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

I’ve underlined where this seems to be a future state Peter is discussing. Without Christ, there was no hope of being born again—just a looking forward to eventual death. Not a burning hell, either; just death, except for Christ.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Peter writes to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, much like James.

Who do you think that these "stranger scattered throughout..." are? They are the same as these:

Peter also makes it clear that he is NOT writing to gentiles here:

Note well the THEY and YOU/YOUR distinction.
Why does that matter in this topic, RD?
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
That’s an excellent way to discuss, Idolator!

here it is: 1 Peter 1:3 (KJV) Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

I’ve underlined where this seems to be a future state Peter is discussing. Without Christ, there was no hope of being born again—just a looking forward to eventual death. Not a burning hell, either; just death, except for Christ.
The hope of course indicates something future. But the hope comes from being 'begotten again'. Is how I read it. I don't think it's really possible to read it another way. "Hath begotten", not 'will beget'.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Why does that matter in this topic, RD?
Because the context of scripture is always vitally important to the discussion of scriptural doctrine.

Death is separation. Not necessarily separation from God.
We normally speak of death as the separation of body and soul.
The "second death" is separation of soul and God.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Because the context of scripture is always vitally important to the discussion of scriptural doctrine.

Death is separation. Not necessarily separation from God.
We normally speak of death as the separation of body and soul.
The "second death" is separation of soul and God.
The part I have a problem with is where does the “separation” definition come from?
 

Derf

Well-known member
The hope of course indicates something future. But the hope comes from being 'begotten again'. Is how I read it. I don't think it's really possible to read it another way. "Hath begotten", not 'will beget'.
Yes, and the “hath begotten” is in reference to our being “in” Jesus Christ. So we were once dead, in that there was no hope for life to continue. Now we are alive in Christ, whereby we know that our lives will continue after we die—through resurrection. That’s why we are “begotten unto a lively hope”.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
That’s the same way traditional theists say they come up with the idea that God knows the future exhaustively.

That's because they don't have an overview of the Bible, and their reasoning, while somewhat consistent, is basically flawed, and because of that, they don't have a firm grasp on reality.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Yes, and the “hath begotten” is in reference to our being “in” Jesus Christ.
But it's also a more direct reference, "hath begotten us again", to being born again, cf. John 3.
So we were once dead, in that there was no hope for life to continue.
Indeed, Ephesians 2:1
Now we are alive in Christ, whereby we know that our lives will continue after we die—through resurrection. That’s why we are “begotten unto a lively hope”.
Sure.
 

Right Divider

Body part
But it's also a more direct reference, "hath begotten us again", to being born again, cf. John 3.
The "begotten again" refers to Israel.

First Peter is written to Israel. See 1 Peter 1:1 with James 1:1

Israel was God's "firstborn son" (Exo 4:22) and will need to be "born again" to take their rightful place as the nation above the other nations with Christ as King.
 

Derf

Well-known member
That's because they don't have an overview of the Bible, and their reasoning, while somewhat consistent, is basically flawed, and because of that, they don't have a firm grasp on reality.
I'm glad you caught that. I'm suggesting the same is true here. But we only come to a firm grasp on reality when we interpret scripture and reality correctly. So a broad declaration of something that's only understandable from a broad scope of the bible is ripe for misunderstanding.
 

Derf

Well-known member
The "begotten again" refers to Israel.

First Peter is written to Israel. See 1 Peter 1:1 with James 1:1

Israel was God's "firstborn son" (Exo 4:22) and will need to be "born again" to take their rightful place as the nation above the other nations with Christ as King.
Would you say, RD, that @Idolater is incorrect in coupling 1 Peter 1:3 with John 3:16?

If your answer is "Yes", then you would recognize the need for ALL believers to be "born again" as Jesus described to Nicodemus?

If your answer is "No", then is there a need or a state of being "born again" for Gentile Christians?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Would you say, RD, that @Idolater is incorrect in coupling 1 Peter 1:3 with John 3:16?
No, but I would say that this is not related to the body of Christ.
If your answer is "Yes", then you would recognize the need for ALL believers to be "born again" as Jesus described to Nicodemus?
Jesus told Nicodemus that THEY (you is PLURAL in the KJB) needed to be born again. He did NOT tell Nicodemus that HE (individually) needed to be born again.
If your answer is "No", then is there a need or a state of being "born again" for Gentile Christians?
It's a term that has been highly confused to due the lack of right division and the common doctrines of Churchianity that blur the scriptures that are meant for specific audiences.
 

Derf

Well-known member
No, but I would say that this is not related to the body of Christ.
Ok, I'll consider that.
Jesus told Nicodemus that THEY (you is PLURAL in the KJB) needed to be born again. He did NOT tell Nicodemus that HE (individually) needed to be born again.
He did say, "Except A MAN be born again"
[Jhn 3:3 KJV] 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
It's a term that has been highly confused to due the lack of right division and the common doctrines of Churchianity that blur the scriptures that are meant for specific audiences.
That seems altogether possible, on all sides.
 

Right Divider

Body part
He did say, "Except a MAN be born again"
[Jhn 3:3 KJV] 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
That is because the YOU (plural) is made up of individuals (men of Israel).

The gospel of the kingdom that the Lord Jesus Christ preached while on earth was about the kingdom of Israel and Christ as its King.
That seems altogether possible, on all sides.
No quite sure what you mean there.
 
Top