Death—it’s not just another life

[JudgeRightly]

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.

Let them misunderstand.

Because it's on them to "Rightly divide the word of truth."

I can tell them what it says, but until they internalize it, and study for themselves, asking God for the wisdom and humility to submit to His word, there's not a whole lot I can do.

Yet still I preach, for we are called to do so and naught else.

 

[Idolater]

Let them misunderstand.

Because it's on them to "Rightly divide the word of truth."

It's on Bishop Timothy, actually. 2nd Timothy 1:2 "To Timothy..."

I can tell them what it says, but until they internalize it, and study for themselves, asking God for the wisdom and humility to submit to His word, there's not a whole lot I can do.

Yet still I preach, for we are called to do so and naught else.

Not in 2nd Timothy you're not.

 

[Right Divider]

It's on Bishop Timothy, actually. 2nd Timothy 1:2 "To Timothy..."

So only Timothy needs to rightly divide the word of truth?

 

[Derf]

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.

Ok, would you tie that back in to the thread topic? I think you are saying that the "born again" requirement is only for the Jews, and it's NOT about either salvation or death and resurrection. Did I get that right?

In which case, I think you (singular) can safely discard the part of the OP that talks about being born again. What about the rest of it?

 

[Right Divider]

Ok, would you tie that back in to the thread topic? I think you are saying that the "born again" requirement is only for the Jews, and it's NOT about either salvation or death and resurrection. Did I get that right?

In which case, I think you (singular) can safely discard the part of the OP that talks about being born again. What about the rest of it?

The term "born again" has nothing to do with physical death.
Human death is the separation of the soul/spirit from the body.
The soul/spirit does not "die" in the same sense as the human (soul/spirit/body). That is why Jesus said this:

Mat 10:28 KJV And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[Derf]

The term "born again" has nothing to do with physical death.
Human death is the separation of the soul/spirit from the body.
The soul/spirit does not "die" in the same sense as the human (soul/spirit/body). That is why Jesus said this:

Mat 10:28 is definitely a good one to bring in to the discussion. But just like you need a different definition of death (“separation”) than one that works in our everyday experience, a different understanding may be needed to understand what Jesus was saying. If “death” is really a complete end of life, then Jesus would need to make a distinction between a temporary death that will be overcome by the resurrection (the person ceases to function for awhile), and a permanent thing that is worse than death that no one can overcome. The problem is that the second death is not a cessation of function—it is “eternal destruction in the lake of fire”.

 

[Right Divider]

Mat 10:28 is definitely a good one to bring in to the discussion. But just like you need a different definition of death (“separation”) than one that works in our everyday experience, a different understanding may be needed to understand what Jesus was saying. If “death” is really a complete end of life, then Jesus would need to make a distinction between a temporary death that will be overcome by the resurrection (the person ceases to function for awhile), and a permanent thing that is worse than death that no one can overcome. The problem is that the second death is not a cessation of function—it is “eternal destruction in the lake of fire”.

I'm not sure why you have such a problem with the term separation. When the body is separated from the soul / spirit that is human death.

 

[Idolater]

So only Timothy needs to rightly divide the word of truth?

In 2nd Timothy, Paul writes to Timothy. Note that he specifically does not write to anyone else.

 

[Right Divider]

In 2nd Timothy, Paul writes to Timothy. Note that he specifically does not write to anyone else.

So only Timothy needs to rightly divide the word of truth?

 

[Idolater]

So only Timothy needs to rightly divide the word of truth?

You tell me. You tell me why you or anyone would take a letter written to someone other than you, as if it is written to you. As an exercise? Sure. But as a directive? Why? Why would you do it? It seems like you would be violating a fairly basic principle in interpretation, to act as if a letter that's not written to you, is written to you.

 

[Gary K]

You tell me. You tell me why you or anyone would take a letter written to someone other than you, as if it is written to you. As an exercise? Sure. But as a directive? Why? Why would you do it? It seems like you would be violating a fairly basic principle in interpretation, to act as if a letter that's not written to you, is written to you.

While I do not agree with RD's over all position taking scripture personally is vital to understanding scripture.

You're position is such that nothing in scripture applies to modern day Christians because it was all written to other people. Your position also says that spiritual advice given to another person is never applicable to others than to whom it was specifically written. Good spiritual advice, like that given to Timothy by Paul, is excellent advice to others too. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason for it to be included in the canon of scripture. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instructiun in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Derf]

While I do not agree with RD's over all position taking scripture personally is vital to understanding scripture.

You're position is such that nothing in scripture applies to modern day Christians because it was all written to other people. Your position also says that spiritual advice given to another person is never applicable to others than to whom it was specifically written. Good spiritual advice, like that given to Timothy by Paul, is excellent advice to others too. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason for it to be included in the canon of scripture. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instructiun in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I think you’re missing his point. RD was saying that Peter and James were written to someone besides gentile Christians, and Idolater was pointing out the inconsistency in his approach.

 

[Derf]

I'm not sure why you have such a problem with the term separation. When the body is separated from the soul / spirit that is human death.

That is human death by a consensus of those that believe it already, which is circular. I’m asking you to consider it might not be correct. I am suggesting that such a definition is assumed a priori rather than determined from the usage in scripture.

And you’ve shown by your responses that you don’t have much to back up your definition—just your original premise that death is separation.

I’m under much of the same influences as you. I was taught from early on that death = separation. But I was also taught that God’s knowledge of the future is exhaustive. And the reasoning behind both is similar—it’s introduced as a definition. God = exhaustive foreknowledge, and death = separation. Matching bookends in traditional doctrine.

I’ve come to believe that the first bookend is not true. And I’m thinking the second is not true either.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That is human death by a consensus of those that believe it already, which is circular. I’m asking you to consider it might not be correct. I am suggesting that such a definition is assumed a priori rather than determined from the usage in scripture.

And you’ve shown by your responses that you don’t have much to back up your definition—just your original premise that death is separation.

I’m under much of the same influences as you. I was taught from early on that death = separation. But I was also taught that God’s knowledge of the future is exhaustive. And the reasoning behind both is similar—it’s introduced as a definition. God = exhaustive foreknowledge, and death = separation. Matching bookends in traditional doctrine.

I’ve come to believe that the first bookend is not true. And I’m thinking the second is not true either.

Bob and co. came up with this excellent definition of life:

"Life is God, and the property which He imparted to entities within creation that makes them either beings or organisms. The effects of this property may be further described, but it's nature, being tied up in the very nature of the essence of the Godhead, cannot be otherwise defined."

Based on that definition, "separation," of man from God, and of soul/spirit from body, fits very well, as removal of a man from God results in his spiritual death (Genesis 2:17), and the removal of the property "life" from a body results in the soul/spirit being separated from the body (2 Corinthians 5:1-8).

 

[Gary K]

I think you’re missing his point. RD was saying that Peter and James were written to someone besides gentile Christians, and Idolater was pointing out the inconsistency in his approach.

I'm not missing Idolater's point. I'm responding directly to his words. I'm also aware of RD's position. Like I said, I disagree with his main premise. But, he is correct on the narrow issue I addressed. Scripture is to be taken personally. Look at how Jesus used scripture in his battle in the wilderness with the devil. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

We are not to pick and choose what we want to believe applies to us. We are to take all scripture as proceeding directly to us from the mouth of God. Scripture is just as important to our lives as is the food we eat. Remember Jesus' conversation with the Samarian woman at Jacob's well? That conversation fulfilled Jesus' appetite for food as He told His disciples that He had food they knew nothing about. And what was the food? The lessons taught by scripture.

 

[Derf]

I'm not missing Idolater's point. I'm responding directly to his words. I'm also aware of RD's position. Like I said, I disagree with his main premise. But, he is correct on the narrow issue I addressed. Scripture is to be taken personally. Look at how Jesus used scripture in his battle in the wilderness with the devil. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

We are not to pick and choose what we want to believe applies to us. We are to take all scripture as proceeding directly to us from the mouth of God. Scripture is just as important to our lives as is the food we eat. Remember Jesus' conversation with the Samarian woman at Jacob's well? That conversation fulfilled Jesus' appetite for food as He told His disciples that He had food they knew nothing about. And what was the food? The lessons taught by scripture.

And if you don’t think you’re preaching to the choir, you missed Idolater’s point.

 

[Gary K]

And if you don’t think you’re preaching to the choir, you missed Idolater’s point.

Here is what I'm specifically responding to of Idolator's post.

It seems like you would be violating a fairly basic principle in interpretation, to act as if a letter that's not written to you, is written to you.

Show me how I am misinterpreting what he's saying to RD. RD is wrong overall. He separates himself from other human beings and says much of scripture doesn't apply to him. But in this specific instance from Timothy he is applying Paul's instructions to Timothy to himself. In that he's not wrong. And Idolator is saying that to apply something written to someone else as if it is written to himself violates basic rules of interpretation. That cannot be for if it was true no scripture could be applied to us as individuals for all of scripture was first written to someone else.

 

[Right Divider]

You tell me. You tell me why you or anyone would take a letter written to someone other than you, as if it is written to you. As an exercise? Sure. But as a directive? Why? Why would you do it? It seems like you would be violating a fairly basic principle in interpretation, to act as if a letter that's not written to you, is written to you.

Some of what is written is clearly universal. If you cannot understand that , you have a serious problem.
If you think that Paul's admonition to rightly divide is only and solely for Timothy.... you're wrong.

 

[Right Divider]

That is human death by a consensus of those that believe it already, which is circular.

Not true.

I’m asking you to consider it might not be correct. I am suggesting that such a definition is assumed a priori rather than determined from the usage in scripture.

I suggest that you are wrong.

And you’ve shown by your responses that you don’t have much to back up your definition—just your original premise that death is separation.

It's the Biblical definition. Sorry that you don't like it.

I’m under much of the same influences as you. I was taught from early on that death = separation.

Because it's true.

But I was also taught that God’s knowledge of the future is exhaustive.

Non-sequitur.

And the reasoning behind both is similar—it’s introduced as a definition. God = exhaustive foreknowledge, and death = separation. Matching bookends in traditional doctrine.

The two are not directly related.

I’ve come to believe that the first bookend is not true. And I’m thinking the second is not true either.

 

[Idolater]

While I do not agree with RD's over all position taking scripture personally is vital to understanding scripture.

You're position is such that nothing in scripture applies to modern day Christians because it was all written to other people. Your position also says that spiritual advice given to another person is never applicable to others than to whom it was specifically written. Good spiritual advice, like that given to Timothy by Paul, is excellent advice to others too. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason for it to be included in the canon of scripture. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instructiun in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It was more than just that 2nd Timothy was written specifically to the man Timothy. It was also written, as was 1st Timothy, and Titus, to bishops. This is a very special gift, that Timothy and Titus the bishops have provided to the Church; literal letters written to them personally, individually, with genuine, from-the-horse's-mouth Apostolic guidance and wisdom. They, Bishops Titus and Timothy, are the men who gave the Church these letters, there isn't any indication that these letters were circulated like many of Paul's other letters, that were copied and distributed, like Galatians, to multiple different Church dioceses /parishes /communities---in order for us to have these letters, the addressees themselves had to provide them for inclusion in the anthology that is the New Testament.

(None of the above should be interpreted to mean that the Holy Spirit is not the author of all Scripture; He surely is, none of this should be taken to mean that it wasn't ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit in ensuring that 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus are among the NT books either; as it surely is. But He worked through men, namely the Apostle Paul and the bishops Timothy and Titus, in bringing about these books' inclusion in the Bible.)

So the real point is that Paul was writing to a bishop in 2nd Timothy. And none of us are bishops, so it literally is not written to any of us, but surely, to use a common Dispensationalist phrase, it is written for us, and by us, I mean the Church. There is every reason that the Holy Spirit made sure that 2nd Timothy was part of the NT canon.