Is death just another life?

[Clete]

Funny!
If doctrine is the reason to move them, then perhaps doctrine put them there in the first place, as the original Greek didn’t have them. Try reading it this way:
Luke 23:43 (NKJV) And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Yes, I understood the point when you first mentioned it. Every Greek scholar that has ever translated the bible seems to disagree with your desire to put the comma after 'today'. You're going to have to do more than give me a doctrinal reason to think that you're right and all the bible translators since Wyclyffe in the 1380s got it wrong.

Not that doctrinal reasons aren't valid in any situation, by the way. If it were a doctrinal difference that put God's character in question, for example, then that might be a compelling argument for moving a comma but I see no such compelling doctrinal reason. On the contrary, the normal reading of the passage is not only in keeping with the normal doctrinal position on this topic but its in keeping with all of the other biblical material that I've already presented to you that would also need explained away in order to maintain this "unconscious dormancy" definition of death.

Clete

 

[ttruscott]

Even if I grant you that a person is made up of body soul and spirit, or even body and spirit, the person would no longer be a person when one of those was missing.

You have a special insight that this true? It seems illogical to me in light of the word SOW (not: create) in Jesus own words explaining the metaphor of the parable of the weeds:
Matt 13:36 Then Jesus dismissed the crowds and went into the house. His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”

37 He replied, “The One who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil.

And...
You haven't answered how these dead people in Ps 9:17 can either return to or be turned into Sheol in their death...when you claim they cannot exist.

 

[Derf]

You haven't answered how these dead people in Ps 9:17 can either return to or be turned into Sheol in their death...when you claim they cannot exist.

I explained how they can be turned into Sheol in a post to someone else, but you missed it. Please don’t clog up the thread with your preexisting souls nonsense.

 

[Derf]

Every Greek scholar that has ever translated the bible seems to disagree with your desire to put the comma after 'today'.

Then you agree that the movement of the uninspired comma allows my position, at least for that verse?

 

[ttruscott]

I explained how they can be turned into Sheol in a post to someone else, but you missed it. Please don’t clog up the thread with your preexisting souls nonsense.

So where is it?

And, should not a theological discussion contain a scripture based rebuttal not an emotional red herring? Provide me with your favourite verse that denies the possibility of our spirits pre-existing our conception on earth or even hints at it being impossible which I will consider as both proper debating technique and theological hermeneutics.

 

[Gary K]

Jesus taught that 2 men died a rich man and a poor man. They both died and Lazarus went to where Abraham was( paradise side of Sheol)and the rich man went to the torment side of Sheol. They spoke and the rich man begged Abraham to send one who rose from the dead to his 5 brothers so they would not end up like him, but Abraham’s response was if they did not believe Moses and the prophets they would not believe even if one rose from the dead. Scripture also teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Your reading of the Lazarus and the rich man analogy is faulty. Jesus told that story in response to the byplay between He and the Pharisees which had nothing to do with the state of the dead. And neither does chapter 17. You've ripped that analogy completely out of it's context.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then you agree that the movement of the uninspired comma allows my position, at least for that verse?

The issue isn't whether or not moving the comma allows for your position. The issue is whether the grammar of the sentence allows for the comma to be moved.

It doesn't. Therefore your question is moot.

 

[Leatherneck]

Your reading of the Lazarus and the rich man analogy is faulty. Jesus told that story in response to the byplay between He and the Pharisees which had nothing to do with the state of the dead. And neither does chapter 17. You've ripped that analogy completely out of it's context.

Jesus never told fairy tales of course He told a truth that most would rather avoid because it relates to everyone’s future. Heaven or hell is where everyone is going to end up it’s your choice.

 

[Derf]

The issue isn't whether or not moving the comma allows for your position. The issue is whether the grammar of the sentence allows for the comma to be moved.

It doesn't. Therefore your question is moot.

Please explain for me why the grammar of the sentence doesn’t allow for the comma to be moved.

 

[Derf]

Jesus never told fairy tales of course He told a truth that most would rather avoid because it relates to everyone’s future. Heaven or hell is where everyone is going to end up it’s your choice.

I don’t disagree with your last sentence. But are you saying the rich man was in hell—his final destiny? Had he already been through the final judgment?

 

[Derf]

And, should not a theological discussion contain a scripture based rebuttal not an emotional red herring? Provide me with your favourite verse that denies the possibility of our spirits pre-existing our conception on earth or even hints at it being impossible which I will consider as both proper debating technique and theological hermeneutics.

Not here, it shouldn’t. That’s not what this thread is about. I moved this one here to avoid disrupting another thread, so you are welcome to do the same. You may even tag me, if you like, but it may be awhile before I respond.

 

[Leatherneck]

I don’t disagree with your last sentence. But are you saying the rich man was in hell—his final destiny? Had he already been through the final judgment?

Sheol is a place of holding those who rejected the gospel and are in holding for the final judgement.

 

[Derf]

Sheol is a place of holding those who rejected the gospel and are in holding for the final judgement.

Scripture, please?

 

[Leatherneck]

Scripture, please?

Why ? You would twist the meaning to fit your false narrative. Where do you think Lazarus ,Abraham, and the rich man was in the scriptural I already gave you ? In case you missed it they were all in Sheol.

 

[Derf]

Why ? You would twist the meaning to fit your false narrative. Where do you think Lazarus ,Abraham, and the rich man was in the scriptural I already gave you ? In case you missed it they were all in Sheol.

In case you missed it, the rich man was already suffering punishment. How could that be unless he had already been judged?
And in case you missed it, only the rich man was said to be in Hades. That doesn’t mean Lazarus wasn’t, but it is inferred, not explicit. So who’s twisting scripture to fit their false narrative? I don’t think such accusations are helpful, at least at this point so early in the discussion.

Also, the angels came for Lazarus and took him to Abraham’s bosom. You can assume it’s the same place, but the best we have to go on, unless you want to use tradition, is what’s provided—that the rich man was in torment in hades, and Lazarus was with Abraham, wherever Abraham was, and there was a great gulf between them.

 

[Leatherneck]

In case you missed it, the rich man was already suffering punishment. How could that be unless he had already been judged?
And in case you missed it, only the rich man was said to be in Hades. That doesn’t mean Lazarus wasn’t, but it is inferred, not explicit. So who’s twisting scripture to fit their false narrative? I don’t think such accusations are helpful, at least at this point so early in the discussion.

Also, the angels came for Lazarus and took him to Abraham’s bosom. You can assume it’s the same place, but the best we have to go on, unless you want to use tradition, is what’s provided—that the rich man was is torment in hades, and Lazarus was with Abraham, wherever Abraham was, and there was a great gulf between them.

The rich man is suffering while he awaits final judgement. We don’t make the rules God does.Is that why the rich man asked Lazarus to dip his finger in water and place it on his tongue because he was tormented in the flames ? Why then if it is only inferred that Lazarus wasn’t in torment did the rich man ask for his help ? You might want to read and study the scripture references about Sheol then you will not be so confused.

 

[way 2 go]

I don’t disagree with your last sentence. But are you saying the rich man was in hell—his final destiny? Had he already been through the final judgment?

is there only one meaning for Dead\death in the bible ?

(death is a place in rev20:13)

to answer you question
the rich man was judged and placed in hell awaiting the final judgement
where he and the place he is are both thrown into the lake of fire
Heb_9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,



Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In case you missed it, the rich man was already suffering punishment. How could that be unless he had already been judged?

He died without having placed his faith in God. That puts him in Hell to await final judgement.

And in case you missed it, only the rich man was said to be in Hades. That doesn’t mean Lazarus wasn’t, but it is inferred, not explicit.

Abraham's Bosom was a chamber in Hell reserved for the righteous dead, a "city of refuge," so to speak.

Also, the angels came for Lazarus and took him to Abraham’s bosom. You can assume it’s the same place, but the best we have to go on, unless you want to use tradition, is what’s provided—that the rich man was is torment in hades, and Lazarus was with Abraham, wherever Abraham was, and there was a great gulf between them.

Again, City of Refuge is a biblical term, mentioned in Numbers and Joshua, where someone who had accidentally killed someone would go until the death of the current High Priest (a clear reference to Christ).

Spoiler

“Now among the cities which you will give to the Levites you shall appoint six cities of refuge, to which a manslayer may flee. And to these you shall add forty-two cities.Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan,then you shall appoint cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person accidentally may flee there.They shall be cities of refuge for you from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation in judgment.And of the cities which you give, you shall have six cities of refuge.You shall appoint three cities on this side of the Jordan, and three cities you shall appoint in the land of Canaan, which will be cities of refuge.These six cities shall be for refuge for the children of Israel, for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills a person accidentally may flee there.‘However, if he pushes him suddenly without enmity, or throws anything at him without lying in wait,or uses a stone, by which a man could die, throwing it at him without seeing him, so that he dies, while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm,then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood according to these judgments.So the congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall return him to the city of refuge where he had fled, and he shall remain there until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.But if the manslayer at any time goes outside the limits of the city of refuge where he fled,and the avenger of blood finds him outside the limits of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood,because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. But after the death of the high priest the manslayer may return to the land of his possession. - Numbers 35:6,9-15,22-28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers35:6,9-15,22-28&version=NKJV

Abraham's Bosom is a "city of refuge" for the righteous dead, where they waited for the death of the One who is High Priest.

Recommend listening to https://kgov.com/cities-of-refuge when you have time.

 

[Clete]

Then you agree that the movement of the uninspired comma allows my position, at least for that verse?

No. I grant you no unearned ground. Establish that such a change is warranted by something other than your desire to move it or else it's just fantacy land, pretend theology where anything goes so long as we like it.

 

[Clete]

Your reading of the Lazarus and the rich man analogy is faulty. Jesus told that story in response to the byplay between He and the Pharisees which had nothing to do with the state of the dead. And neither does chapter 17. You've ripped that analogy completely out of it's context.

Which of the two, the rich man or Lazarus, wasn't dead?