Is death just another life?

Derf

Well-known member
My position is in total agreement with the bible

,the Derf position has him burying people alive
and eating taking 930 years
and unable to deal with Samuel at all
and temporary bodily resurrection with God putting them to death after.

very odd indeed

As opposed to setting up strawmen and knocking them down?
But I will deal with your points, in reverse order.
The first is God putting someone to death after He gives them life--only to give them life later on. Why is this a problem? Isn't that what He promised to Adam? And here's scriptural support: [Deu 32:39 KJV] 39 See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand.
And the souls he tells to go back to sleep: [Rev 6:11 KJV] 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.
Samuel fits right into that, as he complains that Saul had disquieted him (disturbed his rest): [1Sa 28:15 KJV] 15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me

The eating comment is not worth dealing with, and just shows your desparation.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Jesus taught that death is sleep.

John 11:1 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.
7 Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judæa again.
8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.
11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.
16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.
17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already.
18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:
19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.
20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house.
21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.
23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee.
29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him.
30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him.
31 The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.
32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,
34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.
35 Jesus wept.
36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!
37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?
38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

This is a plain straightforward story. In it Jesus very clearly and straightforwardly equates death and sleep. If anyone thinks they know more on the subject than Jesus come forward and tell us how ignorant and foolish Jesus is and how little He knows compared to you.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
My position is in total agreement with the bible

,the Derf position has him burying people alive
and eating taking 930 years
and unable to deal with Samuel at all
and temporary bodily resurrection with God putting them to death after.

very odd indeed
Yes, very odd, but since I've been such a bad girl and haven't followed this entire thread, maybe I'll see what Derf has to say.

In fact, you've piqued my interest. Maybe I can actually wade through this thing. We'll see.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
But I will deal with your points, in reverse order.
The first is God putting someone to death after He gives them life--only to give them life later on. Why is this a problem? Isn't that what He promised to Adam? And here's scriptural support: [Deu 32:39 KJV] 39 See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand.
And the souls he tells to go back to sleep: [Rev 6:11 KJV] 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.
Samuel fits right into that, as he complains that Saul had disquieted him (disturbed his rest): [1Sa 28:15 KJV] 15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me

The eating comment is not worth dealing with, and just shows your desparation.
Now, I am totally fascinated. I must look into this one. :geek:
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Jesus taught that death is sleep.



This is a plain straightforward story. In it Jesus very clearly and straightforwardly equates death and sleep. If anyone thinks they know more on the subject than Jesus come forward and tell us how ignorant and foolish Jesus is and how little He knows compared to you.
The OT fathers called it sleep, because it looks like the person is sleeping. No more no less.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
The OT fathers called it sleep, because it looks like the person is sleeping. No more no less.
So as far as you're concerned you think you know more than Jesus on the subject of death. As God He is/was far more aware of humanity than any human being as He is our Creator. Saying His knowledge is limited because all He knew was what you say OT people thought is an insult to Him because He is God. He's not just another human being.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

If Jesus ever said anything but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, John 14:6 is a lie. That makes Jesus a sinner and a sinner can not be our savior.

Ecclesiastes 9:4 ¶For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

You have said elsewhere on this thread that our soul is who we are. I agree with that. If who we are is still conscious in death then we still have emotions and know what is happening. That is in complete contradiction to the OT and to Jesus' unequivocal statement of death being sleep.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Can you at least confirm when I restate your answer?
@Clete agrees that "day" in Gen 2:4 means a time period more than 24 hours.
You are welcome to acknowledge or call me a liar.
Let me make it perfectly clear to you, Derf. Under no circumstances will I give you one single additional syllable along these lines - ever!

I don't know what sort of crazed obsession has taken over your mind but unless you can get God Himself to show up and give me a direct order to do otherwise, I've said what I'm going to say and I will NOT repeat myself to you again - period.

If you want to move on and discuss this baseless nonsensical, vaguely defined doctrine of yours further then we can do that but I will not repeat myself on this point again no matter how badly you want me to do it or how many times you ask.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
What relationship would that be if we were spiritually dead because of Adam's sin.?

Explain that "relationship" you're talking about.
One is not spiritually dead because of Adam's sin but because of our own sin.

Ezekiel 18 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:​
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,​
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?​
3 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.​
4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;​
The soul of the father​
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;​
The soul who sins shall die.
19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.​

It is truly an amazing and completely inexplicable thing that the doctrine of Original Sin exists at all. It simply cannot survive even a cursory reading of Ezekiel 18.

Then there's the book of Romans...

Romans 7:9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.​
"I was alive once..." - (note the past tense that Paul uses here) - I can't image how it could be any clearer than that! I honestly am quite flabbergasted by the near universal acceptance of "Original Sin" throughout Christianity. You, in a previous post, seemed to suggest that its a Catholic thing, and it is but it isn't just the Catholics that believe this nonsense, it's virtually the whole of the Christian church that teaches it in one form or another. Calvinists call it "Total Hereditary Depravity" but it's virtually the exact same doctrine.

So, no it hasn't anything to do with Adam's sin, at least not directly. When Adam sinned, he didn't just die spiritually but something about his very nature was altered. This altered nature is what Paul referred to as "the flesh" and this "fleshly nature" is passed from one generation to the next through the father. Jesus then, having been born of a virgin and without an earthly father was born without "the flesh" and was, being without spot or blemish, qualified to be the sacrifice for sin.

The fact remains, however, that we regular people have "the flesh" to deal with because we do have earthly fathers who are descended from fallen Adam and so our instinct is to rebel. We are, however, alive to God in spite of this fleshly condition and are only cut off from God when we choose to rebel against Him and sin (Romans 7:9).

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)​
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Adam's sin had consequences that needed dealt with and God did deal with them at Calvary. Thus, to whatever extent death is passed from father to son, Christ fixed that with His own death. Therefore, God, knowing that Calvary was coming, only ever held / holds people accountable for THEIR OWN SIN (Ezekiel 18), not Adam's.

Pot kettle
No, not at all!
I have no issue with insults when they are earned. You whine like a seven year old about being insulted and act like I'm sort of awful person because I am not afraid to point out stupidity when I see it and then you turn around and do the very thing that you condemn me for doing.

Hypocrisy is a sin, glorydaz, or don't you care about that?

So stop one or the other! Either stop with the vapid insults that are obviously based in nothing more substantive than your emotions or shut up about my insulting you when you say things that any third grader and see are incoherent nonsense.

Clete
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
Let me make it perfectly clear to you, Derf. Under no circumstances will I give you one single additional syllable along these lines - ever!

I don't know what sort of crazed obsession has taken over your mind but unless you can get God Himself to show up and give me a direct order to do otherwise, I've said what I'm going to say and I will NOT repeat myself to you again - period.

If you want to move on and discuss this baseless nonsensical, vaguely defined doctrine of yours further then we can do that but I will not repeat myself on this point again no matter how badly you want me to do it or how many times you ask.
I will move on with an assumption of your answer, based on your one, rather ambiguous, post, and your many, rather childish, posts complaining about having to clarify. I understand if you feel like you've been caught in a trap, but I would prefer that you have an honest conversation with me--and it's not a trap; it's the word of God, that we always want to deal with open-heartedly, so that we can learn from it.

Remember that the question, which you answered as in agreement with JudgeRightly's post answering "probably" when I asked if you agreed with the question, which was whether "day" in Gen 2:4 means something more than 24 hours. Your answer was:
Yes, of course I do. I've never denied the existence of figures of speech. What I've denied is that it took more than 144 hours for God to create the Heavens, the Earth and everything in them (Exodus 20:11 & Exodus 31:17).

Clete
Since the phrase "in the day" in Gen 2:4 means something more than a day, though not specific as to how long a time it is, then "in the day" in Gen 2:17 can also mean something more than a day, though not specific as to how long a time it is.

Here are both verses for reference:
[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,
[Gen 2:17 KJV] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And if Gen 2:17 can mean something more than a day, then it is talking about an "era", like "the creation era" in 2:4 (7 days), or a judgment era ("in the day of my wrath"), then Adam might take over 900 years to die, and still be considered to have died "in the day" he ate of the tree. I agree that it could also be a single, 24-hour day, but when it is used as the primary reason for defining "death" as "separation", the reasoning excludes the longer time period, a priori. And that means the doctrine is driving the interpretation, rather than the text driving the doctrine. This isn't reason, by itself, for rejecting the doctrine of death = separation, but it forces us to rely on much less substantial texts to support it, texts that are also usually interpreted based on the presupposition of death = separation.

So we'll take Clete's rather blurry admission, along with @JudgeRightly's, that both Gen 2:4 and 2:17 refer to an unspecified length of a period of time, and that they agree that Adam's death could have been 900 years after he ate the fruit, yet still count as "in the day", and move on to other topics.

[As an aside, the reference to a day being 24 hours is circular--an hour is defined as 1/24th of a day, so turning around and defining a day as 24 hours is meaningless, except as a figure of speech to mean a fixed and small amount of time compared to eras or something else big.]
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Hmmm. I thought souls were immortal.

"The soul that sins shall die."

"The soul that sins shall [be cut off/separated from God]."

Souls don't cease to exist. But they can die.

This is what I'm talking about in post 292.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This is well stated, JR.

I haven't found much to show internal inconsistency. The best I've found is what I pointed out about what Satan said: "You won't surely die." Satan is subtle, and he mixes truth with lies. If the person never really dies (immortality of the soul is one phrase describing it), and we call something else death that isn't really death, it sure looks a whole lot like "you won't surely die." But that's not internal inconsistency, though it is inconsistent with what God meant, if what He meant was "you will die and there won't be anything left of you."

The problem is that even with this, you're not being consistent with your definition of death.

Death = separation

God said that if man eats of the fruit, he will die. Adam ate of the fruit. And OUR POSITION is consistent with scripture: Adam died to God the moment he ate of the fruit.

Thus, What God said is true: Man did die when he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. NOT PHYSICALLY, but spiritually, similar to how the prodigal son was "dead" to his father before returning. Adam was separated from his Creator, and kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Adam's soul really did die... He was separated from his Creator. Which makes what Satan said false.

If we define death as "cessation of existence" as you believe, Derf, then Adam did not actually die when he ate the fruit, which is in line with what Satan said: "You shall not surely [cease to exist]."

Do you see the problem yet? No word play, just a matter of how one defines death. Our definition is consistent with what God said, yours is consistent with what Satan said.

The reason we went off on the part of the conversation about whether Adam died "in the day" he ate the fruit is related to that topic. When I've researched why people say "death is separation" it invariably leads back to that passage, and the logic given is "since Adam didn't die physically that day, we must assume that God meant some other kind of death."

What I'm seeing, and trying to get across to you and others, is that such word play is not necessary. But once one starts with the presupposition that death = separation, I tend to agree that there aren't many (any?) internal inconsistencies. But that doesn't mean that the premise/presupposition is correct.

Again, the problem is consistency across your position.

If death = cessation of existence, and "day" means an unspecified amount of time (at least in chapter 2), then it renders what God said as unspecific at best, and false at worse.

Someone pointed out that the phrase used in 2:16 translates literally as "dying you shall die." It's actually a good point, and adds a bit more meaning that is seemingly lost if the phrase is simply "you shall surely die."

"Dying you shall die" shows that there are two kinds of dying involved with the action of eating the fruit, and at least one of them CANNOT mean cessation of existence.

My hot take on the phrase? "Dying" refers to the process of our bodies breaking down due to entropy (Note: I don't think this refers to entropy itself, but that the point at which one were to eat of the tree would be the point at which man's body would "break" and begin to break down.), and "you shall die" refers to the soul being cut off from God, separated from Him.

If the former, "dying," meant cessation of existence, then it wouldn't make any sense, as one either exists or does not exist, there's no in between, which is what the word suggests, and if the latter, "you shall die," meant cessation of existence," then it wouldn't be consistent with other uses of the phrase "in the day," such as in verse 4.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
What I'm seeing, and trying to get across to you and others, is that such word play is not necessary.

Continuing from my previous post:

In other words, there's nothing wrong with experimenting with definitions to see what is most consistent, for truth is consistent with itself.

As you fully admit, there are very few, if any, inconsistencies in our position if death means separation. In my previous post, I showed you at least two with yours, both with scripture and with your position itself.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
To be spiritually dead simply means that your relationship with God has been cut off. It doesn't mean your non-existent, dormant, or otherwise unconscious.
Then Adam & Eve were not spiritually dead when they ate the fruit.
Because they still had a relationship with God as God sought them out and clothed them.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I will move on with an assumption of your answer,
No you won't!

There is no assumption needed! I answered your question!

Now, you will either acknowledge that or you've wasted you time with whatever else was written in this post because I won't read it until you do.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Then Adam & Eve were not spiritually dead when they ate the fruit.
Because they still had a relationship with God as God sought them out and clothed them.
They died that day, Tambora.

When they were removed from the Garden of Eden, they were removed from the presence of God and were thus spiritually dead.

Sheesh! You people are thick!
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
They died that day, Tambora.

When they were removed from the Garden of Eden, they were removed from the presence of God and were thus spiritually dead.

Sheesh! You people are thick!
Saying it doesn't make it so, Clete.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
So as far as you're concerned you think you know more than Jesus on the subject of death. As God He is/was far more aware of humanity than any human being as He is our Creator. Saying His knowledge is limited because all He knew was what you say OT people thought is an insult to Him because He is God. He's not just another human being.



If Jesus ever said anything but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, John 14:6 is a lie. That makes Jesus a sinner and a sinner can not be our savior.



You have said elsewhere on this thread that our soul is who we are. I agree with that. If who we are is still conscious in death then we still have emotions and know what is happening. That is in complete contradiction to the OT and to Jesus' unequivocal statement of death being sleep.
Ah, so you believe in soul sleep because death was called sleep back in the day? Jesus wasn't lying, He was speaking to people who knew what "sleep" meant.
 
Top