Nah.
God was still with them outside of the garden, and God was still with them after they had children.
Is death just another life?
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
God was still with them outside of the garden, and God was still with them after they had children.
Derf
Well-known member
Not always:
[Jhn 11:13 KJV] Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
The term "soul sleep" seems to produce some emotional response. I don't like it, personally, because it suggests there's an actual piece of spiritual material somewhere that is sleeping. That's why I gravitate toward "cease to exist", but that's not a very good phrase, either, BECAUSE of the many verses that talk about death as a "sleep".
If, as I am proposing, "death" is final and actual cessation of function, but through Jesus Christ that final and actual cessation of function will be reversed, then "sleep" can be used faithfully to represent the state of dead, because there is a "waking" (a restarting of function) that's going to occur.
The "death = separation" narrative is absolutely necessary without that cessation of function, because real death (cessation of function) is never encountered in humans.
Derf
Well-known member
All people are made in God's image. Jesus tells us that means we belong to God. If God decides to kill someone, that's His choice, because He has full authority over us, just like we have over a plant, or a picture on our wall. So God can't "murder" any normal human.
The same works for some other commandments, by the way. God can't steal, because He made everything, so it belongs to Him.
He might be able to bear false witness, so we see a number of statements saying He doesn't do that--He's assuring His people they can trust what He says.
Samuel didn't need to dig his way out. There were angels that went and got him. Angels seem to be able to manipulate physical things, and still leave them looking as they were before:
[Act 5:18 NIV] They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail.
[Act 5:19 NIV] But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out.
[Act 5:23 NIV] "We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside."
You're right that I can't answer because it sounds absurd. You should stop proposing absurd things.
Derf
Well-known member
What kind of rest does one need in heaven? There's no night there...I kind of thought that meant we wouldn't need to sleep. Physical sleep helps our bodies to rejuvenate and our minds to calm down and sort things out, and I imagine that's not necessary in heaven. I could be wrong.
Personally, I think that whole scene is metaphorical, since it is telling us there are more that will be killed before the killing is done, and there will be final justice for those already killed. It's like Abel's blood crying out from the ground. I don't think that means the blood actually made some kind of noise. But that passage in Revelation wasn't written for the dead, it was written for live people so they would have hope of 2 things:
1. That their deaths (when they died due to the persecution) would not go unpunished.
2. That they would receive a reward for their faithfulness through the persecution.
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
True, but the disciples didn't know he had actually died. They also used the term sleep for being asleep. It's like the word "gone". They might have left the building or they were dead.
Well, we know that the soul is the person himself. Who he is. I would think that the person could sleep while waiting for the resurrection. Especially before Christ died on the cross. But, Jesus didn't tell the us about Abraham's bosom for no reason.
Paul refers to our body as a tent, and to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I think it just means waiting....being patient.
True about Abel's blood. However, things will be going on in heaven. I'm sorry, what passage in Revelation are you talking about?
Derf
Well-known member
Elvis?
Of course you are correct, but no doubt there's a reason why He used "sleep" first, then "dead", more than just that He happened to notice they didn't understand the first term's use.
And some reason why He never, ever mentioned Abraham's bosom outside of that story.
That passage is one we will all need to discuss in this thread, as it is particularly referenced in regard to this topic.
Maybe, but go back to [Jhn 11:13 KJV] Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
Notice they thought of "taking rest in sleep"? I may be inserting too much into the Revelation passage, but I don't think so.
[Rev 6:9 KJV] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
[Rev 6:10 KJV] And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
[Rev 6:11 KJV] 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.
Derf
Well-known member
If what you've written below is supposed to explain this statement, I'm still not getting it. But see what I respond with below to determine if we're at least communicating on the same plane.
I contend that your definition is made in order to rectify a supposed inconsistency, that Adam DIDN'T die in the day he ate the fruit, and without that supposed inconsistency, there's no need to redefine death. It will be difficult for you to see it this way, as you are both content and accustomed to your definition. However, it is inconsistent with all other uses of death in our language, which means it is a "redefinition", not a "definition".
Adam wasn't told he would "die when he ate the fruit", but that he would die "in the day he ate the fruit". That difference is subtle, but necessary to point out. Satan didn't say Adam wouldn't die in the day, he said he would NEVER die. Are you suggesting that I'm in agreement that Adam would NEVER die? I'd like to see how you get that from my posts.
Not if put in opposition to what Satan said, which is that Adam would NEVER die. If Adam understood God, and we should believe God was able to program Adam with language to be able understand the most significant command He ever gave to any man, then that is the most important thing regarding the phrase in chapter 2, even if we need chapter 5 to understand it fully.
And we already have the different use of "day" IN THE SAME CHAPTER.
This is similar, but less asinine, than the suggestion from way 2 go that the eating has to continue until Adam dies.
We recognize that we do have a dying process that can be visibly or physically observed. For instance, I have much more grey hair now than I did 10 years ago. I'm am closer to death than I was then, therefore in dying I shall die. Or I will continue dying until I'm fully dead, at which time, the loss of existence is complete, whereas until it is complete, first I lose hair, then I lose memory, then I lose kidney function, then...
My admission was regarding what happens AFTER the definition is changed. But that changing of definition is quite significant--we really don't want to use a different dictionary than God does when God tells us something. Then "murder" is not really murder, and "adultery" is not really adultery...it allows for all kinds of things God didn't intend.
Definitions are part of the truth. It really does matter what "is" means.
Last edited:
way 2 go
Well-known member
no.
if a person is divorced and they talk to their ex , are they then no longer divorced ?
or are they still separated ?
way 2 go
Well-known member
explain ?
chapter & verse
God talks with Cain.
way 2 go
Well-known member
which proves not spiritually separated how ?
if a person is divorced and they talk to their ex , are they then no longer divorced ?
Derf
Well-known member
Can you then define spiritually separated?
They don't have to be married to care about each other and still have a relationship with each other.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Apples and oranges.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I know one thing, the Gospel is the Power of God unto salvation. Clearly sinners can hear and respond to the Gospel.
The lifting up of Christ on the Cross is a spiritual message. Another thing I know, it seems to be very common that any particular person is at a place in their life when they are ready....open to hear.
Derf
Well-known member
You mean death is not the same as separation?
I just do not understand how you think this argument proves me wrong. Are you really arguing here that Adam and Eve and their children and all of the prophets and anyone else that God has spoken to over the centuries were all sinless people and who's relationship with God was all hunky dory? That their relationship with God wasn't just as broken by the sin they committed as everyone else's is? I swear, it's like talking to a rebellious teenager. It's just so completely frustrating, trying to discuss complex issues with people who cannot think through their own ideas before shooting their mouth off as though they've cracked the case!
Let's say you were with someone who said to you that when a traffic light turns red, it means traffic from that direction is to stop and not enter the intersection. Would you then start chirping about how right turns are allowed at most red lights and begin to strut around acting like your counter example has proven the person wrong? That's, at most, all you've done here.
Physical death is not the only consequence to Adam's sin and anyone who thinks otherwise is preaching doctrine that is so unorthodox as to be unrecognizable as Christianity!
Jesus is God too! He had relationships with people all over the place for three decades before He died for them all because they were all sinful and needed to be reconciled to God - right? Was that sinful condition entirely physical?
II Corinthians 5:16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not [d]imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Have we been reconciled to God, physically? No! It is our specifically our flesh that has NOT yet been redeemed!
Romans 7: 21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
There's actually quite a lot more than can be said here but I'm totally out of time.
Nah.
I don't even think you are sinless, but I think you have a relationship with the Lord.
Derf
Well-known member
On the passage that seems to say, "Absent from the body is present with the Lord."
Here's the passage, with context.
[2Co 5:1 KJV] For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
[2Co 5:2 KJV] For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
[2Co 5:3 KJV] If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
[2Co 5:4 KJV] For we that are in [this] tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
[2Co 5:5 KJV] Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [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, 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, and to be present with the Lord.
[2Co 5:9 KJV] Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may 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.
Vs 1 sets the stage for the conversation. Paul is talking about death of the body, "if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved". It's a contingent clause in a contingent clause. This clause is contingent on the next one, which is "we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." Since the topic is the physical body, it seems obvious to me that the replacement for a dissolved earthly house is a heavenly house. This is not talking about an abode, but a body, and we can compare it to Paul's lecture about the resurrection in 1 Cor 15.
[1Co 15:37 KJV] And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]:
[1Co 15:38 KJV] But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
So it is clear, to me at least, that the topic of the passage is the resurrection of the body into an incorruptible body.
The next verses say that we groan for this future, promised body, "earnestly desiring to be clothed...", "that being clothed we shall not be found naked", "not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon". Why? "That mortality might be swallowed up of life." (Vs 4b). These verse all present two concepts, stated in a few different ways:
1. dissolving house vs permanent house
2. groaning while clothed vs clothed with house from heaven
3. mortality vs life.
Notice my #2 doesn't say "clothed vs unclothed". That's because "unclothed" doesn't fit in Paul's comparison, and he tells us that--we don't look to be unclothed. That doesn't mean there is not an "unclothed" state. There is, but we don't long for it. We don't tell people, "Yay! My loved one is now unclothed in heaven." And I believe the reason for that is because Paul, when he says "unclothed", means "dead", and we don't desire to be dead--we desire to be resurrected.
So we can add to our list above with this third state
1. dissolving house vs dissolved house vs permanent house
2. groaning while clothed vs unclothed vs clothed with house from heaven
3. mortal (ability to die) vs dead vs life (no ability to die)
Now let's apply these three states to the verse in question (vs. 8). It talks about "absent from the body" and "present from the Lord", two states. And the third state is obvious: "We are". In other words, in our present state (existence/mortal life), we don't long to be in the in-between state (dead), but we are willing to die, because it doesn't mean we will stay unclothed (dead), but will be resurrected (with the Lord). The previous verse is so very important, even though it is in parentheses: For we walk by faith and not by sight. Faith in what? Being unclothed? No, but being clothed and with the Lord--resurrected.
Vs 9 goes back to 2 states, "whether present or absent", which tells us that there are two options that are precursors to some event (the event presented in vs 10--the judgment). Now, IF "absent from the body" means "present with the Lord", vs. 9 doesn't make any sense, because Paul distinguishes between the two. And if Paul distinguishes between states "present" and "absent", we CAN'T use that verse to say we are present with the Lord when we are absent from the body--unless Paul has shifted meanings of one or the other. I'm going to throw a lifeline to those I disagree with here, and say that I believe Paul HAS shifted meanings, and his new meaning of "present" is "in the body". Here's an addition to my list:
4. present in the body (alive but mortal) vs absent from the body (dead) vs present with the Lord (eternal life in resurrected/incorruptible body)
You can see that "present with the Lord" can't be the same "present" in vs 9, because there is still a possibility that we will not be accepted:
Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
And if "absent from the body" = "present with the Lord", but we might not be accepted of Him in the judgment of vs 10, how secure are we in our presence with Him? How likely is it that we die, our souls go to heaven, but then when we are judged (vs 10), we are found not acceptable and removed from His presence?
Here's the passage, with context.
[2Co 5:1 KJV] For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
[2Co 5:2 KJV] For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
[2Co 5:3 KJV] If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
[2Co 5:4 KJV] For we that are in [this] tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
[2Co 5:5 KJV] Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [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, 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, and to be present with the Lord.
[2Co 5:9 KJV] Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may 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.
Vs 1 sets the stage for the conversation. Paul is talking about death of the body, "if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved". It's a contingent clause in a contingent clause. This clause is contingent on the next one, which is "we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." Since the topic is the physical body, it seems obvious to me that the replacement for a dissolved earthly house is a heavenly house. This is not talking about an abode, but a body, and we can compare it to Paul's lecture about the resurrection in 1 Cor 15.
[1Co 15:37 KJV] And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]:
[1Co 15:38 KJV] But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
So it is clear, to me at least, that the topic of the passage is the resurrection of the body into an incorruptible body.
The next verses say that we groan for this future, promised body, "earnestly desiring to be clothed...", "that being clothed we shall not be found naked", "not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon". Why? "That mortality might be swallowed up of life." (Vs 4b). These verse all present two concepts, stated in a few different ways:
1. dissolving house vs permanent house
2. groaning while clothed vs clothed with house from heaven
3. mortality vs life.
Notice my #2 doesn't say "clothed vs unclothed". That's because "unclothed" doesn't fit in Paul's comparison, and he tells us that--we don't look to be unclothed. That doesn't mean there is not an "unclothed" state. There is, but we don't long for it. We don't tell people, "Yay! My loved one is now unclothed in heaven." And I believe the reason for that is because Paul, when he says "unclothed", means "dead", and we don't desire to be dead--we desire to be resurrected.
So we can add to our list above with this third state
1. dissolving house vs dissolved house vs permanent house
2. groaning while clothed vs unclothed vs clothed with house from heaven
3. mortal (ability to die) vs dead vs life (no ability to die)
Now let's apply these three states to the verse in question (vs. 8). It talks about "absent from the body" and "present from the Lord", two states. And the third state is obvious: "We are". In other words, in our present state (existence/mortal life), we don't long to be in the in-between state (dead), but we are willing to die, because it doesn't mean we will stay unclothed (dead), but will be resurrected (with the Lord). The previous verse is so very important, even though it is in parentheses: For we walk by faith and not by sight. Faith in what? Being unclothed? No, but being clothed and with the Lord--resurrected.
Vs 9 goes back to 2 states, "whether present or absent", which tells us that there are two options that are precursors to some event (the event presented in vs 10--the judgment). Now, IF "absent from the body" means "present with the Lord", vs. 9 doesn't make any sense, because Paul distinguishes between the two. And if Paul distinguishes between states "present" and "absent", we CAN'T use that verse to say we are present with the Lord when we are absent from the body--unless Paul has shifted meanings of one or the other. I'm going to throw a lifeline to those I disagree with here, and say that I believe Paul HAS shifted meanings, and his new meaning of "present" is "in the body". Here's an addition to my list:
4. present in the body (alive but mortal) vs absent from the body (dead) vs present with the Lord (eternal life in resurrected/incorruptible body)
You can see that "present with the Lord" can't be the same "present" in vs 9, because there is still a possibility that we will not be accepted:
Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
And if "absent from the body" = "present with the Lord", but we might not be accepted of Him in the judgment of vs 10, how secure are we in our presence with Him? How likely is it that we die, our souls go to heaven, but then when we are judged (vs 10), we are found not acceptable and removed from His presence?
Last edited: