Is death just another life?

[Derf]

A quick, and only partial reply, due to time.

You're still conflating the different kinds of death.

David was physically dead. He was separated from his physical body.

David (at the time of Acts 2) was spiritually alive. He was no longer separated from His Creator, either metaphorically or literally.

So the answer to your question is that David was both alive AND dead, in TWO VERY DIFFERENT WAYS. (Thus, the law of non-contradiction is not violated.)

And minus two points to you for your position being inconsistent with itself, and more importantly, with the Bible.

Ever heard of the term "synecdoche"?

It's a figure of speech where a portion of something is used to refer to the whole, or vice versa.

Here, because of the context of "in Bethlehem," we can easily recognize that despite "her spirit departing from her," the part of "Rachel" that was being buried was her body, but it's referred to by the whole, "Rachel." Her spirit had already departed from her. She was dead, separated from her body, and was, as far as we can gather from the text, one of the ones whom Christ led from Abraham's Bosom (now empty) during His time in Hell, and is now in the presence of her Creator, awaiting physical resurrection.

If it's as you say, then "Rachel" doesn't exist at that point, and what was buried was just a slab of meat anyways, and not the person, "Rachel." Which makes what the Bible said wrong.

Your view is inconsistent with itself and the Bible. Mine is not, especially considering the use of a synecdoche.

Peter's description addressed either two things, in your view, or one, in mine. If two, then you have to deal with the body and soul being in separate places. Here it is again for reference:
[Act 2:27, 29 KJV] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. ... Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

The two things:
1. body is dead and still buried
2. soul is still in hell

His proof is singular. David's sepulchre is where they can check it out and see if David is still in hell and if his body is still there.

Thus, according to your view, David's body being in the sepulchre means that his soul is still in hell. The two go together according to Peter--"he is both dead AND buried" (two things). Just as leaving his soul in hell and seeing corruption are two things (show me where I'm off base on this one, because it is very obvious in your view that Peter is talking about the soul being in hell, nothing to do with the body in those words).

He was comparing David's CURRENT state to Jesus, by pointing to David's sepulchre. David's state, remember, was 1. body in grave and 2. soul in hell.

If your view is correct in terms of Jesus taking everybody from Abraham's bosum up to heaven with him, then David must have been in the tormenting side of Hades, according to Peter. I don't think you really want to go there, do you? (Pun unintended, but happily retained.)

 

[JudgeRightly]

Peter's description addressed either two things, in your view, or one, in mine. If two, then you have to deal with the body and soul being in separate places.

Which my position has no problem with. "Death is separation," remember?

Here it is again for reference:
[Act 2:27, 29 KJV] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. ... Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

The two things:
1. body is dead and still buried

Agreed.

2. soul is still in hell

I don't see that anywhere in those two verses. In fact, I see the opposite: "God will not leave my soul in Hell."

"Buried" and "sepulchre" both refer to the physical. Neither have anything to do with the soul.

His proof is singular. David's sepulchre is where they can check it out and see if David is still in hell and if his body is still there.

Again, there is no indication in those two verses that David's soul is still in Hell, but rather that his soul has not been left there.

Thus, according to your view, David's body being in the sepulchre means that his soul is still in hell.

Incorrect.

It just means that David's body is in the sepulchre and His soul is not there (in the physical tomb). According to my view, David was led OUT of Hell by Christ during Christ's time in the tomb. Presently, David (His soul/spirit, but not his body) is waiting in Heaven for his resurrected and glorified body.

The two go together according to Peter--"he is both dead AND buried" (two things).

Yes, that's what you do when someone dies. You bury them. The two go together. But it says nothing about their soul.

Again, a synecdoche is being used, using "he" (the whole of David) to refer to a part of him (the physical body of David).

Just as leaving his soul in hell and seeing corruption are two things (show me where I'm off base on this one, because it is very obvious in your view that Peter is talking about the soul being in hell, nothing to do with the body in those words).

David said that God would not leave David's soul in Hell.

God didn't. He brought out the righteous dead from Hell after He was buried and before He was resurrected. David now sits next to God, waiting until He makes Christ's enemies His footstool.

The "would not see corruption" IS talking about the physical body of Christ not decaying in the tomb, which was fulfilled by Christ, and recounted by Peter here in chapter 2 and later by Paul in chapter 13:

Spoiler

Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.But God raised Him from the dead.He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people.And we declare to you glad tidings— that promise which was made to the fathers.God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’Therefore He also says in another Psalm: ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’“For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption;but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins;and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. - Acts 13:29-39 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts13:29-39&version=NKJV

"Neither did His flesh see corruption." Speaking of David: Peter says:
he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. - Acts 2:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:31&version=NKJV

The only times in scripture G1312 ("corruption") is used is in Acts 2 and Acts 13, all are dealing with the physical body.

He was comparing David's CURRENT state to Jesus, by pointing to David's sepulchre.

What he was comparing was David's current PHYSICAL state to Jesus' current physical state. Jesus' state was resurrected. David's was not.

Again, nothing to do with their souls other than whether they have been rejoined to their bodies.

David's state, remember, was 1. body in grave and 2. soul in hell.

You have yet to establish #2 was true at the time Acts 2, let alone Acts 13.

If your view is correct in terms of Jesus taking everybody from Abraham's bosum up to heaven with him, then David must have been in the tormenting side of Hades, according to Peter.

I have repeatedly said that Jesus led the "righteous dead" from Abraham's Bosom. That includes David.

I don't think you really want to go there, do you? (Pun unintended, but happily retained.)

No, let's go there, since you're misrepresenting my position.

Abraham's Bosom ("o" not "u") is a place of refuge IN HELL.

So saying that David was freed from Hell is as true as saying that David was led from Abraham's Bosom to Heaven.

So...

then David must have been in the tormenting side of Hades, according to Peter

You''ve got some explaining to do.

 

[Derf]

Which my position has no problem with. "Death is separation," remember?



Agreed.



I don't see that anywhere in those two verses. In fact, I see the opposite: "God will not leave my soul in Hell."

"Buried" and "sepulchre" both refer to the physical. Neither have anything to do with the soul.



Again, there is no indication in those two verses that David's soul is still in Hell, but rather that his soul has not been left there.



Incorrect.

It just means that David's body is in the sepulchre and His soul is not there (in the physical tomb). According to my view, David was led OUT of Hell by Christ during Christ's time in the tomb. Presently, David (His soul/spirit, but not his body) is waiting in Heaven for his resurrected and glorified body.



Yes, that's what you do when someone dies. You bury them. The two go together. But it says nothing about their soul.

Again, a synecdoche is being used, using "he" (the whole of David) to refer to a part of him (the physical body of David).



David said that God would not leave David's soul in Hell.

God didn't. He brought out the righteous dead from Hell after He was buried and before He was resurrected. David now sits next to God, waiting until He makes Christ's enemies His footstool.

The "would not see corruption" IS talking about the physical body of Christ not decaying in the tomb, which was fulfilled by Christ, and recounted by Peter here in chapter 2 and later by Paul in chapter 13:

Spoiler

Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.But God raised Him from the dead.He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people.And we declare to you glad tidings— that promise which was made to the fathers.God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’Therefore He also says in another Psalm: ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’“For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption;but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins;and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. - Acts 13:29-39 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts13:29-39&version=NKJV

"Neither did His flesh see corruption." Speaking of David: Peter says:
he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. - Acts 2:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:31&version=NKJV

The only times in scripture G1312 ("corruption") is used is in Acts 2 and Acts 13, all are dealing with the physical body.



What he was comparing was David's current PHYSICAL state to Jesus' current physical state. Jesus' state was resurrected. David's was not.

Again, nothing to do with their souls other than whether they have been rejoined to their bodies.



You have yet to establish #2 was true at the time Acts 2, let alone Acts 13.



I have repeatedly said that Jesus led the "righteous dead" from Abraham's Bosom. That includes David.



No, let's go there, since you're misrepresenting my position.

Abraham's Bosom ("o" not "u") is a place of refuge IN HELL.

So saying that David was freed from Hell is as true as saying that David was led from Abraham's Bosom to Heaven.

So...


You''ve got some explaining to do.

I know it will be hard for you to see past your own viewpoint, but you should try for a moment.
Maybe it will help to separate the two concepts (no, that doesn't mean the concepts will be dead).

Let's deal with the "soul in hell" concept. Peter's treatment of it should stand on its own, without the "body see corruption" concept. Peter was saying that the verse about not leaving "my soul in hell" was not about David, but about Jesus, and his proof was that David's sepulchre was available to them.
[Act 2:27, 29 KJV] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, ... Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Peter explains further:
[Act 2:31 KJV] He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
"He [David]...spake of the resurrection of Christ THAT HIS SOUL WAS NOT LEFT IN HELL"
Peter explains David's words--that he was talking about the resurrection. Not ascension--that's coming up in vs 34.
That's why Peter can say that to show that David is still in his sepulchre is the same as saying that David is still in hell. (Note that I don't think David is in hell, but my view is that Peter was speaking of the grave, or state of the dead, called "hades" in the NT or "Sheol" in the OT. So it isn't a bad thing that David is still in the grave, as the resurrection of the saints had not happened yet.)

 

[Right Divider]

I know it will be hard for you to see past your own viewpoint, but you should try for a moment.

Oh... the irony.

 

[Derf]

Oh... the irony.

Actually, that's how I got where I am now. I grew up with the view you hold to.

 

[Right Divider]

Actually, that's how I got where I am now. I grew up with the view you hold to.

Even a JW or a Mormon or a CS or or an SDA or an atheist can say that. It doesn't mean a thing.

JR and Clete have shown you clear and unambiguous scripture that refutes your view. It's time for you to grow up again.

 

[Derf]

Even a JW or a Mormon or a CS or or an SDA or an atheist can say that. It doesn't mean a thing.

It might with respect to your comment on irony--regarding whether I can see past my own view (which I've done) vs whether you can (which you don't seem to be ready to do). This is the problem--that we need to see the words of the bible as relating to the bible before we see them as relating to our position. And that's why I point out in Acts, in my post which you have merely cherry-picked what you think you can use to cast shade on my view, that the passage itself tells us what Peter is saying about what David said. Please go back and re-read my post sincerely.

 

[Right Divider]

It might with respect to your comment on irony--regarding whether I can see past my own view (which I've done) vs whether you can (which you don't seem to be ready to do). This is the problem--that we need to see the words of the bible as relating to the bible before we see them as relating to our position.

Again, the irony is amazing.

JR has more the throughly shown you the error of your way and yet you are unwavering.

And that's why I point out in Acts, in my post which you have merely cherry-picked what you think you can use to cast shade on my view, that the passage itself tells us what Peter is saying about what David said. Please go back and re-read my post sincerely.

I have cherry-picked nothing. JR has shown you your errors and yet your continue on as if he has said nothing.

 

[Derf]

Again, the irony is amazing.

JR has more the throughly shown you the error of your way and yet you are unwavering.

I have cherry-picked nothing. JR has shown you your errors and yet your continue on as if he has said nothing.

Not at all. I’ve addressed many of his comments, and I’ve acknowledged that this kind of back and forth is productive, as long as both sides are responding to the other.

 

[Right Divider]

Not at all. I’ve addressed many of his comments, and I’ve acknowledged that this kind of back and forth is productive, as long as both sides are responding to the other.

You commented on his comments. Addressed.... not really.

You and JR in this discussion are kind of like the 1940 NFL Championship game and you're the Redskins.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Maybe it will help to separate the two concepts (no, that doesn't mean the concepts will be dead).

To each other, sure.

Let's deal with the "soul in hell" concept. Peter's treatment of it should stand on its own, without the "body see corruption" concept. Peter was saying that the verse about not leaving "my soul in hell" was not about David,

When David said it back in the Psalms, it was completely and unambiguously about David not being left in hell, and honestly, given that it's poetry, I'm not even 100% sure that it's referring to Sheol except figuratively speaking.

It DEFINITELY wasn't a prophecy (at least, the part about being left in Hell wasn't), but Peter was able to draw a parallel between what ALL of what David said and what happened.

but about Jesus, and his proof was that David's sepulchre was available to them.
[Act 2:27, 29 KJV] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, ... Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Peter explains further:
[Act 2:31 KJV] He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
"He [David]...spake of the resurrection of Christ THAT HIS SOUL WAS NOT LEFT IN HELL"

For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. - Acts 2:27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:27&version=NKJV

David was speaking of himself being left in Hell by God. Peter is quoting David, and drawing a parallel to Christ (Remember, David is a type of christ).

YES, IT APPLIES TO JESUS AS WELL. But the original verse was not speaking about the yet future Messiah. In fact, there's no mention in the Old Testament at all about the need for the Messiah to be put to death. Remember, no one knew that Christ had to be put to death, not even His disciples, who, even when He told them, didn't quite fully understand it. David's Psalms are no exception.

Peter explains David's words--that he was talking about the resurrection.

Supra.

Not ascension--that's coming up in vs 34.

Verse 34 doesn't help your case either.

The word "ascended" is an aorist verb. It's an action that occurred in the past. At that point in time when Peter was speaking, David had, in the past, not ascended. There's no indication that he had not, by Acts 2, ascended. And as Ephesians 4:8-9 says, Christ ascended into Heaven, leading captivity captive. He now holds the keys to Hell, and that was AFTER descending into it.

And again, Christ, being the High Priest in those times, died, which allows those hiding in the city of refuge, Abraham's Bosom, to be set free from their captivity.

That's why Peter can say that to show that David is still in his sepulchre is the same as saying that David is still in hell.

Supra.

(Note that I don't think David is in hell, but my view is that Peter was speaking of the grave, or state of the dead, called "hades" in the NT or "Sheol" in the OT. So it isn't a bad thing that David is still in the grave, as the resurrection of the saints had not happened yet.)

David's body is still in the grave. And the resurrection of the saints has not happened yet. It's not a resurrection that we're talking about (except maybe a figurative one, where one is "resurrected" from hell to be with his Creator, but the physical body has nothing to do with that).

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ephesians 4:8-9 says, Christ ascended

By the way, this is ALSO in the aorist tense.

 

[Derf]

You commented on his comments. Addressed.... not really.

You and JR in this discussion are kind of like the 1940 NFL Championship game and you're the Redskins.

You mean the aorist Redskins. They didn’t win in the past that one time.

 

[Derf]

To each other, sure.

Which gives it the power of euphemism. Once you euphemize death, it is no longer death, it's still life. That's my point. Satan said the same thing: "You will not surely die." (I.e., "God's just using a euphemism.")

When David said it back in the Psalms, it was completely and unambiguously about David not being left in hell, and honestly, given that it's poetry, I'm not even 100% sure that it's referring to Sheol except figuratively speaking.

It DEFINITELY wasn't a prophecy (at least, the part about being left in Hell wasn't), but Peter was able to draw a parallel between what ALL of what David said and what happened.

"It DEFINITELY wasn't a prophecy"
vs
[Act 2:30-31 KJV] Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

David, "seeing this before", "being a prophet", "spake of the resurrection of Christ" about what? "that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption.

I don't understand how you get "It definitely wasn't a prophecy" out of that--including the part about not being left in hell, since it was included by Peter in the stuff David prophesied about.

For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. - Acts 2:27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:27&version=NKJV

David was speaking of himself being left in Hell by God. Peter is quoting David, and drawing a parallel to Christ (Remember, David is a type of christ).

YES, IT APPLIES TO JESUS AS WELL. But the original verse was not speaking about the yet future Messiah. In fact, there's no mention in the Old Testament at all about the need for the Messiah to be put to death. Remember, no one knew that Christ had to be put to death, not even His disciples, who, even when He told them, didn't quite fully understand it. David's Psalms are no exception.

So if it applies to both Jesus and David, but Peter shows where it doesn't apply to David yet (he's still in his sepulchre), then what conclusion is left to make, but that David is also still in hell.

Verse 34 doesn't help your case either.

The word "ascended" is an aorist verb. It's an action that occurred in the past. At that point in time when Peter was speaking, David had, in the past, not ascended. There's no indication that he had not, by Acts 2, ascended. And as Ephesians 4:8-9 says, Christ ascended into Heaven, leading captivity captive. He now holds the keys to Hell, and that was AFTER descending into it.

And again, Christ, being the High Priest in those times, died, which allows those hiding in the city of refuge, Abraham's Bosom, to be set free from their captivity.

Neither a past lack of ascension nor the negative "not leave my soul in hell" gives you any room for "David's soul is in heaven", since Peter was talking about a current state of things--David being in the sepulchre at the particular time.

David's body is still in the grave. And the resurrection of the saints has not happened yet. It's not a resurrection that we're talking about (except maybe a figurative one, where one is "resurrected" from hell to be with his Creator, but the physical body has nothing to do with that).

Because death is redefined as "life", so resurrection can be redefined as "passing from life to life"? Resurrection always talks about the physical body in the bible. Paul makes that clear over and over, that if there is no resurrection, there is no use in our faith.
[1Co 15:42 KJV] So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
[1Co 15:44 KJV] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
What is the antecedent of "it"?
[1Co 15:35 KJV] But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

Aren't you saying that even without the resurrection, we are still in a wonderful position forever with Christ? Isn't that antithetical to Paul?

 

[way 2 go]

There are multiple uses of "dead" here, as a dead person can't bury anyone.

a spiritually dead person can bury a physically dead person.

So if the bury-ers are dead, but not dead, then the bury-ee can be just as dead but not dead. My evidence is better than yours.

how illogical of you
whats the word for some one who is close to death but not dead , oh yeah dying , Jesus didn't say dying

you bury physically dead , not spiritually dead people

Not an assumption--it's in the text. He was talking to those who didn't believe in the resurrection. He was talking about resurrection.

the question was whose wife will she be?
Jesus made the distinction between the 7 brothers and Abraham Isaac and Jacob
as living and dead while all 10 are dead physically

Abraham Isaac and Jacob are living and will be with the living in heaven after the resurrection
the seven are dead and will still be called dead even after they are resurrected


people will be resurrected but still considered dead
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.

if you are trying to convince me of your position , you have to do better

Definition of resurrect​

transitive verb
1: to raise from the dead
You can't raise someone from the dead who is not dead.

this people here would disagree
Rev_6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.
Rev 6:10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

you didn't address this , these people are dead physically but alive and crying out.

This is the confusion the death is just another life doctrine causes.

your the only one confused by it . no contradictions with spiritual death and still existing

But if Jesus was talking about a future resurrection,

everyone will be resurrected

then God is the God of the living, because God will raise them from the dead.

you missed the point
Jesus made the distinction between the 7 brothers and Abraham Isaac and Jacob
as living and dead while all 10 are dead physically

It's an expression of the power of God to resurrect people, which was the subject of the passage. Are you saying God doesn't have that kind of power? That He can only resurrect live people?

everyone will be resurrected, but some
people will be resurrected but still considered dead
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.

I'm not understanding your point. I said David was dead at the time Peter was talking, and he had not yet ascended to heaven. Perhaps you're saying that David didn't immediately ascend into heaven. But he was still dead, right? Or was he never dead? if he was alive when Peter was preaching, then when was he dead?

As an aside, this second verse seems to indicate that David is not in heaven, right? even though Jesus had already led captivity captive by this point in time. David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. [Act 2:34 KJV] For David is not ascended into the heavens:

David has not ascend into heaven bodily like Jesus did

No, there were a number of others. The widow-woman's son Elijah brought back to life. The poor couple's son Elisha brought back to life. Lazarus, etc. Lazarus was already decomposing.

and all of them are dead physically

Jesus is the first resurrected with new body

1Co 15:50 But this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruptibility.

Moses wouldn't be that difficult. They weren't resurrected into glorified bodies, like Jesus.

would make Moses the first resurrected which he is not

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jesus is the first resurrected with new body

This is exactly what "firstborn of the dead" refers to.

Colossians 1:17-18
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

 

[Derf]

a spiritually dead person can bury a physically dead person.

Sure. And a spiritually dead person can ask to bury an old spiritually dead person who isn’t yet physically dead. If you allow for “dead” to mean still alive in one case, you have to allow for it in the other.

the question was whose wife will she be?

Jesus understood their question quite well, and restated it for them:

Mark 12:26 (NKJV) But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the [burning] bush [passage,] how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I [am] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ ?
So His answer was about the dead rising, and that’s why God calls Himself the Gid of the living—because it is talking about the resurrection.

Jesus made the distinction between the 7 brothers and Abraham Isaac and Jacob
as living and dead while all 10 are dead physically

No, He didn’t. He said the seven would rise and be like the angels in heaven.
Mark 12:25 (NKJV) “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

There’s no indication in the story of the spiritual state of the brothers, whether they were believers or not. Why would you assume “not”?

people will be resurrected but still considered dead

I agree. They will be called “the dead”, even though they have been physically resurrected. Thus your point about the man burying his father is moot.

Rev_6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.
Rev 6:10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

you didn't address this , these people are dead

Not only dead, but awakened from some kind of rest temporarily, and then returned to that rest. Sounds a bit like Moses, yes?

would make Moses the first resurrected which he is not

Just like Lazarus, who was resurrected before Christ. Are you saying Lazarus wasn’t really resurrected by Jesus?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The problem you face is how long God originally intended for man to exist.

Would you agree or disagree that God designed man in such a way that man would exist in some form or another for eternity?



Here's a similar example, but it makes our point better than it makes yours:

And so it was, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni; but his father called him Benjamin.So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem). - Genesis 35:18-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis35:18-19&version=NKJV

When she died, her soul was separated from her body (remember, our position is that death is separation, physical death is separation of body and soul/spirit). This verse shows quite clearly that separating a soul/spirit from a body results in the person's physical death.

I agree that God designed man to live forever

And what does that imply, do you know?

It means that whatever form man takes must be able to last forever, without degrading, even with the Tree of LIfe.

Agree or disagree?

Still waiting on an answer for this.

 

[Right Divider]

Just like Lazarus, who was resurrected before Christ. Are you saying Lazarus wasn’t really resurrected by Jesus?

Lazarus died again. Not so with Christ. So they are clearly different types of resurrection.

 

[Derf]

Still waiting on an answer for this.

Well, it was in the same sentence.

but then Adam sinned, and that plan had to change, at least for a time.