Death—it’s not just another life

[Derf]

Not true.

I suggest that you are wrong.

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

Because it's true.

Non-sequitur.

The two are not directly related.

Well, thanks for your inputs. I appreciate your direct and weighty refutations.

 

[Idolater]

...RD is wrong overall. He separates himself from other human beings and says much of scripture doesn't apply to him....

RD basically believes that the "New Testament" books are all the books except for Paul's letters, and that Paul's letters form a third part of the Bible, iow he sees the Bible dividing between the Old Testament, the NT, and then Paul.

 

[Right Divider]

RD basically believes that the "New Testament" books are all the books except for Paul's letters, and that Paul's letters form a third part of the Bible, iow he sees the Bible dividing between the Old Testament, the NT, and then Paul.

BINGO!!! That's exactly the point.

https://graceambassadors.com/myster...ew-covenant-and-the-fellowship-of-the-mystery

P.S. Also note that there was a time BEFORE the old covenant. The old covenant was not established until after Israel left Egypt. Exodus 19

 

[Derf]

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).

Here's one internet source of similar thinking. And I'm not arguing with Bob's definition of life--it's hard to, seeing that it admits of being ambiguous on some points.

How is physical death related to spiritual death? (from GotQuestions.org)​

ANSWER​

​

The Bible has a great deal to say about death and, more importantly, what happens after death. Physical death and spiritual death are both a separation of one thing from another. Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body, and spiritual death is the separation of the soul from God. When understood in that way, the two concepts are very closely related, and both physical death and spiritual death are reflected in the very first references to death.​

​

In the creation account (Genesis 1–2), we read how God created a variety of living beings. These animals had life, an inward element that gave movement and energy to their physical bodies. Scientists are still at a loss to explain what truly causes life, but the Bible is clear that God gives life to all things (Genesis 1:11-28; 1 Timothy 6:13). The life that God gave to mankind was different from that which He gave to animals. In Genesis 2:7, we are told that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Whereas animals have a purely physical life, humans have both a physical and a spiritual element of life, and the death we experience likewise has both a physical and a spiritual element.​

​

According to Genesis 2:17, God told Adam that, if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would “surely die.” Some skeptics have tried to use this verse to show an inconsistency in the Bible, because Adam and Eve did not die the very day they ate of that fruit. However, there are different types of life, and there are different types of death. A person can be physically alive and spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1, 5) and vice versa (Matthew 22:32). When they sinned (Genesis 3:7), Adam and Eve immediately lost their spiritual life, they become “dead” to godliness, they forfeited Eden, and they came under God’s judgment (eternal death). Their shame triggered a correlating action, as they hid from God (Genesis 3:8)—their internal separation from God manifests itself in an external separation from Him.​

...​

Notice the reasoning behind the "separation" definition from GotQuestions. They say that since Adam didn't physically die on the day he ate the fruit, then death must have another definition. Yet that use of day is ambiguous--it can easily be an era (in opposition to the more specific use of "day" in Gen 1). Also, dying might be seen as a process, as in the Young's Literal Translation: [Gen 2:17 YLT] 17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

They reference Matt 22:32 to say that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive, but Jesus was answering a question from someone that didn't believe in the resurrection. Thus, the previous verse asserts the context--the RISING from the dead--and the current state of the subjects--DEAD. God is God of the living, because He raises (will raise) them from the dead (at some point in the future compared to the time Jesus was talking), not because they are already alive. Jesus' statement becomes meaningless if the resurrection is about a live person becoming a live person--that's not what resurrection is, unless you redefine it to mean something different than we understand. Most Christians today hold to the "death is separation" definition, at least here in the US, but do they really hold to corollary, "resurrection is joining", definition? Maybe they do, but I haven't heard people talk that way. If that's true, then why don't we talk about a dead loved one being "resurrected" into God's presence immediately upon death?

Finally, if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were spiritually dead (because they were born that way), not being able to be spiritually alive until the death and resurrection of Jesus occurred at a time later than He made the statement to the Sadducees, and then they died physically, in what since were they still alive? And were they spiritually resurrected, but not physically resurrected, when Jesus died? I don't think most people have thought through the ramifications of redefining death as "separation".

 

[Derf]

And even if there is a separation involved, that doesn’t mean it’s the definition of death.

For instance, if you get a traffic ticket, you have to sign it to agree to show up in court. We don’t thereby define “traffic infraction” as “signature”.

2nd example. You sit down to eat lunch most times. You don’t define lunch as “sitting down”.

 

[Derf]

What about the dust aspect of death? Dust you are, and to dust you shall return (Gen 3:19). If Adam returned to what he was before, and he didn’t exist before he was created, then how can we say he merely “separated” from his body. That means he (the part that is the essential him) did NOT return to what he was before, making God a liar.

 

[Idolater]

What about the dust aspect of death? Dust you are, and to dust you shall return (Gen 3:19). If Adam returned to what he was before, and he didn’t exist before he was created, then how can we say he merely “separated” from his body. That means he (the part that is the essential him) did NOT return to what he was before, making God a liar.

If Adam was obviously highly configured dust, and upon death he would return to more randomly configured dust, rather than highly configured dust, which we are while breathing, that's also self-directed, highly configured dust; then it's disintegration of us that's death, there's the medical death where we stop breathing, and there's the complete disintegration that happens to our body, either accelerated by fire, or occurring slowly over the centuries, disintegrating completely back into randomly configured dust again.

How disintegrated are we? Did we just die, and so not that disintegrated, or have we been long dead, and we're further along the disintegration process?

The idea of our high configuration though, that idea always exists, even after our body disintegrates completely, the idea of its integration lives on, it's impossible for it to be destroyed. I'm just talking about the idea, or the thought, of our complete integration, when we're self-directed highly configured dust, breathing. That concept exists, not only after we die but before we live, logic doesn't grow with time, the available space is always the same, so just the idea of me, and of you, existed from the beginning of time, logically. It will exist until the end of time, whatever that means. It's certain.

The logical possibility of me and of you, existed from the beginning, whenever or whatever that was. Or, it existed forever, whichever you prefer, but the point is that it was never added to logical space, it was always there in logical space, just the idea, not that the idea would necessarily materialize, but it as an idea, existed.

The idea of Jeff Bezos flying into space existed from the beginning of time as well; I'm not trying to say anything profound, but rather, trivial.

All I'm trying to say is that this trivial observation about logic, that it basically eternally 'contains' all real possibilities, might be related to or how 'the essential us' persists after bodily death. And if God can create ex Nihilo, then He can surely create another materialization of the eternally existing idea of me and of you, at some later date. And we might also have before then, some other form of materialization, or even two different other forms of the eternally unique idea of you and me, temporarily materialized in some way.

 

[Right Divider]

What about the dust aspect of death? Dust you are, and to dust you shall return (Gen 3:19). If Adam returned to what he was before, and he didn’t exist before he was created, then how can we say he merely “separated” from his body. That means he (the part that is the essential him) did NOT return to what he was before, making God a liar.

No, it does not make God a liar. You are reading things into the scripture that are not there. Clearly, Adam was MORE than "just dust" when God created him. So God must (obviously) be talking about him physically and not completely.

 

[Derf]

If Adam was obviously highly configured dust, and upon death he would return to more randomly configured dust, rather than highly configured dust, which we are while breathing, that's also self-directed, highly configured dust; then it's disintegration of us that's death, there's the medical death where we stop breathing, and there's the complete disintegration that happens to our body, either accelerated by fire, or occurring slowly over the centuries, disintegrating completely back into randomly configured dust again.

How disintegrated are we? Did we just die, and so not that disintegrated, or have we been long dead, and we're further along the disintegration process?

God didn't tell Adam how long the disintegration back into dust would take. Abel's blood had a chance, I presume metaphorically, to cry out to God from the ground before it was fully disintegrated. Are you suggesting that the "separation" idea of death can be applied to our molecular structure as well, such that death is separation of any and every part of us from every other part of us? CS Lewis suggested something similar, but in a more social construct, in "The Great Divorce", where he described hell as a place where people could have everything they wanted, but they ended up pushing away everyone else, or being pushed away themselves, so that the things they had (houses and tangibles) were abandoned as they tried to get further away from everyone else.

In either case, yours or CS Lewis's, the separation is more a symptom rather than a definition. In fact, if Adam is "returning" to dust, then there's an aspect of rejoining all the rest of the dust he "separated" from before. Indeed, when David spoke about his and Bathsheba's first child dying, he said he would go to him--he would be joining up with him, which is not separation at all. Samuel said the same about Saul and his sons:
[1Sa 28:19 KJV] 19 Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow [shalt] thou and thy sons [be] with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.

I contend that both David and Samuel were not talking about a joyous reunion/rejoining, but that they would all be in the same state--in death.

The idea of our high configuration though, that idea always exists, even after our body disintegrates completely, the idea of its integration lives on, it's impossible for it to be destroyed. I'm just talking about the idea, or the thought, of our complete integration, when we're self-directed highly configured dust, breathing. That concept exists, not only after we die but before we live, logic doesn't grow with time, the available space is always the same, so just the idea of me, and of you, existed from the beginning of time, logically. It will exist until the end of time, whatever that means. It's certain.

The logical possibility of me and of you, existed from the beginning, whenever or whatever that was. Or, it existed forever, whichever you prefer, but the point is that it was never added to logical space, it was always there in logical space, just the idea, not that the idea would necessarily materialize, but it as an idea, existed.

I'm going to put aside the idea that our idea has always existed and always will exist for now--that broaches another subject of our eternality, but it also makes light of the specifics of God's creation, suggesting that all things have been in His mind, including all sins we have all committed or could even think of committing. I think that's repugnant to God.

However, once God had thought of us (I would suggest, since Seth was born in the image of Adam, that Seth didn't have to be a particular thought in God's mind from eternity. That being said, I appreciate that once we were conceived (which word is also used of thoughts, interestingly enough), it is God's conception of us that is our hope for life after death/resurrection. In other words, if God is the only being that can resurrect me (not just the physical part of me, but me, myself), and without that resurrection, I just remain dust, then God must retain an idea of me that He would use to resurrect me.

The idea of Jeff Bezos flying into space existed from the beginning of time as well; I'm not trying to say anything profound, but rather, trivial.

All I'm trying to say is that this trivial observation about logic, that it basically eternally 'contains' all real possibilities, might be related to or how 'the essential us' persists after bodily death. And if God can create ex Nihilo, then He can surely create another materialization of the eternally existing idea of me and of you, at some later date. And we might also have before then, some other form of materialization, or even two different other forms of the eternally unique idea of you and me, temporarily materialized in some way.

As I pointed out above, if the idea of everything we do was with God from all eternity, then we are all eternal. I don't see the necessity of such a concept, because it makes our first birth a resurrection, too. And the bible doesn't seem to talk in those terms.

But I appreciate your putting forward your ideas so cogently, Idolater.

 

[Derf]

No, it does not make God a liar. You are reading things into the scripture that are not there. Clearly, Adam was MORE than "just dust" when God created him. So God must (obviously) be talking about him physically and not completely.

Of course he was more than just dust after he was created. That's why he had to "return" to dust--because he wasn't currently dust when God said that. But if there's any part of him that doesn't "return" to dust, then God isn't being accurate, is He? And His threat is not true, if we just enter another kind of life after we die. With the resurrection factored in, then the threat of "death" (returning to dust) was real--and actually occurred in Adam and all since Adam--but would be reversed at some point still in the future.

And if "Adam was MORE than 'just dust'" after he was supposed to have returned to dust, then he wasn't "dust", and God wasn't accurate. Parts of us are returning to dust while we're living--skin cells flake off and become part of dust bunnies, for instance--but WE are not dead, since the bulk of ourselves remain alive, breathing, functioning. If we go to heaven when we die, without the resurrection, and without any space of time in between, then the bulk of ourselves is still alive--it never died (stopped functioning), and therefore no resurrection is possible--we just need to get a new body. Then WE aren't resurrected, just that cast off part of us, like the skin cells that are constantly returning to dust, has to be regenerated.

 

[Right Divider]

Of course he was more than just dust after he was created. That's why he had to "return" to dust--because he wasn't currently dust when God said that. But if there's any part of him that doesn't "return" to dust, then God isn't being accurate, is He? And His threat is not true, if we just enter another kind of life after we die. With the resurrection factored in, then the threat of "death" (returning to dust) was real--and actually occurred in Adam and all since Adam--but would be reversed at some point still in the future.

And if "Adam was MORE than 'just dust'" after he was supposed to have returned to dust, then he wasn't "dust", and God wasn't accurate. Parts of us are returning to dust while we're living--skin cells flake off and become part of dust bunnies, for instance--but WE are not dead, since the bulk of ourselves remain alive, breathing, functioning. If we go to heaven when we die, without the resurrection, and without any space of time in between, then the bulk of ourselves is still alive--it never died (stopped functioning), and therefore no resurrection is possible--we just need to get a new body. Then WE aren't resurrected, just that cast off part of us, like the skin cells that are constantly returning to dust, has to be regenerated.

You're way out there on this one.

 

[Derf]

This youtube video was quite interesting:

The beginning had me reconsidering my thread concept. If there are experiences that point to a life outside our bodies, then my conjecture is shown to be false, right? And they gave several examples of things that point to a life outside our bodies, specifically that during near death experiences, people learn things about what's going on around them even though they couldn't know those things.

I don't have near enough understanding of what those experiences are to say they aren't real, or that they aren't "out of the body" experiences. And I do think that such information could derail my conjecture, depending on the details. But after having a sinking feeling that my conjecture was being thrown out the window, the participants in the panel started describing much having to do with powers outside of the people they were talking about. "Extra Sensory Perception", and speaking with dead people (even if recently dead), and memories from other people that have been dead for years. I'm convinced that at least some of these things are relayed by spirits, either angelic or demonic, and not by the spirits of the people they try to represent.

There appeared to be a majority that felt that their NDEs resulted in being more comfortable with dying. That sounds like a great result, until we think that MOST people don't know Christ, and their deaths ought to be terrifying, I would think. At least the Christian view of them would be. SO either the Christian view is wrong (that unsaved people go to hell immediately after the physical body dies), or the experiences are not accurately portraying death.

Instead, I would think that if someone is not a believer, a good NDE (though maybe not comfortable for them at the time), would result in their seeking out someone to tell them about Christ, not just becoming comfortable with dying.

 

[Derf]

You're way out there on this one.

Thanks for the confirmation that you don't have anything to refute it. But keep studying scripture and let me know what you find.

 

[Right Divider]

Thanks for the confirmation that you don't have anything to refute it. But keep studying scripture and let me know what you find.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What about the dust aspect of death? Dust you are, and to dust you shall return (Gen 3:19). If Adam returned to what he was before, and he didn’t exist before he was created, then how can we say he merely “separated” from his body. That means he (the part that is the essential him) did NOT return to what he was before, making God a liar.

God is not a liar. That's a given.

You fully acknowledge that man has a physical aspect to him, and in your question you, at least for the sake of the question being asked, concede the possibility that there is a "non-physical" aspect to man.

"Dust" is, as you would likely agree, physical. Not "non-physical."

Therefore, "dust you are, and to dust you shall return," is only talking about the physical part of man, and not the "non-physical" part: the physical human body.

Something else to note:

Information, intelligence, thought, are not physical, therefore they cannot be dust, and thus cannot "return to dust."

 

[Derf]

God is not a liar. That's a given.

Agreed, God is not a liar.

You fully acknowledge that man has a physical aspect to him, and in your question you, at least for the sake of the question being asked, concede the possibility that there is a "non-physical" aspect to man.

I fully acknowledge that man is more than physical. Man is also relational, at a minimum.

"Dust" is, as you would likely agree, physical. Not "non-physical."

Therefore, "dust you are, and to dust you shall return," is only talking about the physical part of man, and not the "non-physical" part: the physical human body.

Dust is physical, as you say, and does not display the non-physical characteristics of man, thus is not "non-physical". However, if God is talking about "Adam", and not just a part of Adam, then it is conceivable, I hope you will agree, that when Adam returns to dust, the dust can no longer relate, either to other men or to God. Thus, the relational aspect of man ceases when death occurs.

Other aspects of man might not fit in the "relational" category, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we need to consider each part of man as a separate entity. For instance, the "spirit" of man, as used in the bible, can be seen as an aspect of either
1. the breath of God or possibly "life force", [Ecc 12:7 KJV] 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (And we know God breathed life into man in Gen 2:7, but if the spirit of man in the traditional Christian sense always returns to God who gave it, then that means even the wicked are alive spiritually after death--no longer separated from God. This use of "spirit" seems to correspond to the breath God breathed into man.)
2. the will or heart of the man, [1Co 2:11 KJV] 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

The key here, in my mind, is the phrase "dust you are". Obviously Adam was not then just dust, otherwise he would not need to "return to dust", he would already be dust. Thus, when God says "dust you are", He is saying that you are made from dust, and you became something greater than dust (more than the sum of the dust particles), but you will go back to being just dust.

Something else to note:

Information, intelligence, thought, are not physical, therefore they cannot be dust, and thus cannot "return to dust."

Information requires intelligence to create it, but it can exist outside of the creator of it. The intelligence does not in any way we can tell either once the person goes to be in God's presence or if he just ceases to exist. We can see this in a book written by a deceased author. That author is no longer the holder of that information, nor is his intelligence at work creating more information. Whether his soul is still alive in heaven/hell or not, the effect of his death is that his creative intelligence has ceased as far as we can tell. So your example fits my conjecture as well as the traditional view.

 

[Derf]

Let’s talk about 1Thes 4:13-18.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (KJV) 13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Starting with the last verse, Paul gives an admonition to his readers on how to comfort those whose loved ones had died before Christ came back. The one thing he did NOT say to them is the exact thing we always hear in funerals. “He is in a better place, now.” Or “she’s with Jesus now.” Or something similar.

I admit that these normal words are comforting, and they seem to echo what Jesus told the thief on the cross. Why then would Paul say to use other words that only give hope for a union with Christ at His coming, and not now? Why did Paul not say, “All believers go straight into the presence of Jesus”?