Is death just another life?

[marke]

Except for the one that lasted forty years:
Hebrews 3:8-9 (NKJV) 8 Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, 9 Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years.

Notice it uses the same form “in the day”

Who told yopu that if you read one verse that uses the word "day" to signify a time period lasting years that you must interpret the term "day" in Genesis one to mean "a period of years"?

And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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.")

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Separation is the definition of death. It's not a euphemism or figure of speech.

I was simply applying my position evenly, as you said:

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

I was saying that yes, figuratively speaking, the two concepts WOULD be "dead" to each other, by separating them.

"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 the Prophet? Psalm 16 in Acts 2 - Reformed Faith & Practice

“Since [David] was a prophet,” declares Peter in his Pentecost sermon, David knew when he wrote, “you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your faithful one see the Pit” that he was not referring to himself but to a future king.[1] Thus, Peter instructs us to read Psalm 16 Messianically, as a […]

journal.rts.edu

It wasn't specifically a prophecy about Christ. But it was interpreted by Peter AS IF IT WERE a prophecy.

Dominic Enyart explains about a similar passage where there was no specific prophecy given, yet Matthew said:

Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:“A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted, Because they are no more.” - Matthew 2:17-18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew2:17-18&version=NKJV

Student Loan Debt and Non-Prophecies | KGOV.com

kgov.com

(To skip to the relevant portion of the show, jump to 18:58 in the player.)

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.

Allow me to clarify:

David was a type of christ, and many of the Psalms he wrote, while being about himself, were also about the yet to come Messiah in a prophetic way. Psalm 16 is no exception. David is writing about his faith in God, just as Christ has faith in His Father. In Psalm 16:10, David is talking about himself as being a holy (faithful, pious, etc) one (in contrast to those whom he refers to in verses 3-4) whom God will not abandon in Sheol, nor will he see corruption, while what he's saying is a prophecy about Christ the Messiah, Who as we know was not abandoned,l in Sheol, nor did He see corruption.

Peter was able to draw a parallel between what David said and what had happened with Christ.

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.

David saw corruption. You can go to David's tomb and see that.
Christ did not see corruption. Behold, the empty tomb.

David wasn't lying when he said God would not leave his soul in Sheol.
Christ (who is God) didn't abandon David and led captivity captive after descending into Hell, to set free those who were waiting in the city of refuge called Abraham's Bosom.

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",

Yes it does, Derf! Or are you calling David a liar?

David was speaking about himself in the psalms. Being a type of Christ, David's words can also apply to Christ Himself. In the sense that the psalm was talking about Christ, it has been completely fulfilled. In the sense that the psalm is about David, only the former has been fulfilled so far, but not yet the latter, as Peter points out, but as is mentioned elsewhere in scripture, it is yet to happen!

since Peter was talking about a current state of things--David being in the sepulchre at the particular time.

Referring to David's body, not David's soul.

Because death is redefined as "life",

Says who, you?

The definition I've been giving you is separation, not life.

An existence apart from one's body is physical death.
An existence apart from one's Creator is spiritual death.

so resurrection can be redefined as "passing from life to life"?

NO.

Resurrection has always meant "passing from death to life."

Resurrection always talks about the physical body in the bible.

Then why are you trying to apply it to the soul?

Paul makes that clear over and over, that if there is no resurrection, there is no use in our faith.

Agreed!

[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?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Prior to the yet future resurrection of all the dead on Judgment Day, there are four states to "be" in (These are the literal uses of the words "dead" and "alive." I can address the figurative uses later, if you need.):

1. Alive physically, alive spiritually
2. Alive physically, dead spiritually
3. Dead physically, alive spiritually
4. Dead physically, dead spiritually

Everyone experiences #1, as it describes the time from one's conception to an individual's age of accountability.

Almost everyone also experiences #2, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, thus all have died to God (spiritual death) yet remain alive (physically).

Those who get saved and are still living experience #1 again, and will experience #3, because they, through Christ, have been reconciled to their Creator, and thus, they shall be with the Lord forever.

On the other hand, those who do not get saved, and die in their unbelief, shall experience #4, where a person has passed on physically, and is not alive to God, thus, they shall await Judgement Day in Hell. This brings us to post Judgement Day:

1. Resurrected physically, dead to God
2. Resurrected physically, alive to God

Those who experienced #4 above fall into #1, here. They shall be given a new body and thrown into the Lake of Fire, where they shall spend the rest of eternity separated from the One who made them.

Those who experienced #3 above fall into #2, here. They shall be given a new glorified body, and shall spend the rest of eternity fellowshipping with one another and with God, and I believe that we shall eventually forget about those listed above who ultimately rejected God.

Then you have to wonder why God would threaten death for eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but never carry it out.

They DID die, Derf. That very day, no less!

They rebelled against God, so He kicked them out of the garden. Thus, they physically died to God, and were separated from Him, because their relationship with Him was in the physical realm. They were still alive, physically, but they could no longer have a face to face relationship with him.

If man is tripartite, then without the three parts, you don't have a man.

Sure you do!

To use Clete's tree analogy, if man's physical body is the roots, then our soul/spirit is the rest of the tree. Chop down the tree and you still have a tree, just without the roots. When a man dies physically, he's still human, just without a physical body.

Thus, when man dies, there's no need to explain what happens to other parts--there are no other parts left.

Sure there is.

When you cut down a tree, you separate the roots from the rest of the tree, but you still have a tree, just without roots.

Likewise, when a man dies (physically), his soul/spirit is separated from his body. You still have a man, just without his connection to the physical world, his body.

I'm sure it comforts you to repeat the mantra, but there are no passages that say either of those things.

Verbatim? No, but it is taught in scripture, as I have been showing you throughout this conversation.

For example:

I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. - Romans 7:9-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans7:9-11&version=NKJV

Paul says he was alive to God before he sinned (like Adam was), but then the law came (he reached the age of accountability) and he sinned, and died to God, killed by sin.

He's not saying he died physically, but spiritually.

There's another sense in which one can be dead physically, yet still alive physically (which necessitates the definition of "death" to be "separation").

Jesus, in the parable of the prodigal son, says that the father in the story said this:

for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry. - Luke 15:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke15:24&version=NKJV

Clearly, the prodigal son was alive (and very very hungry... dead people don't need to eat), but to his father, he was dead, as he had likely cut off all communication with his father, severed all ties.

Lazarus was hardly a kook or a fraud. But i agree the present day heavenly tourism movement is not to be trusted.

Agreed.

Sin only requires an alternate payment IF the man is going to be saved.

Wrong. A payment must be made regardless if the person dies saved or not.

As David writes:

Those who trust in their wealth And boast in the multitude of their riches,None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever—That he should continue to live eternally, And not see the Pit.But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, For He shall receive me. Selah - Psalm 49:6-9,15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm49:6-9,15&version=NKJV

The payment will be made one way or the other, either by the man who sinned, or by the Man who became sin for us.

Your view has the man still alive after his payment was already processed--with no need for Christ's death.

What payment?

Christ died for all, but His death isn't automatically applied to all.

Only if redemption is the goal.

It WAS the goal. From the very beginning, even before God created, prehaps, God determined that if His creation rebelled against Him, He would send His Son to redeem it.

If God chose not to redeem mankind,

God DID choose to redeem mankind.

then death/destruction of the man is sufficient payment for the man's sins.

If God didn't want redeem mankind, then there would be no need for payment. But He did, and He said He would. God keeps His promises.

If you don't buy anything while you're at the store, you aren't required to make a payment at the register, but if you do wish to buy something, then payment is needed!

The same applies to justice.

God, who is merciful, decided to buy mankind back. Thus, a payment is required

He obviously didn't make man indestructible,

Saying it doesn't make it so, Derf!

And what Jesus said in Gethsemane proves otherwise!

He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” . . . Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.” . . . So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. - Matthew 26:39,42,44 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew26:39,42,44&version=NKJV

Do you realize how important something must be if within the span of a few verses, Jesus says something not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES!?

Jesus didn't want to die on the cross if there was any other way to pay for man. But there wasn't. A payment is necessary, because there is no other way to save mankind.

* Disproving Annihilation: To avoid the infinite suffering of the cross, if expunging human beings were an option, God could have annihilated every human being the moment they sinned. The Father's love for the Son is immeasurable. And as expected, that tells explains much. The deity of Christ and eternal punishment are related doctrines. Cults that reject that Jesus is God also tend to reject the eternality of hell. If the just punishment of sin is not an eternal punishing, then God wouldn't have had to sacrifice His eternal Son to pay for Man's sin. Rather, He could have created something of sufficient worth to pay the price. And thereby He could have avoided sacrificing His infinitely worthy Son. Christ's prayer in Gethsemane did not move the Father to provide an alternative resolution for the problem of sin. That means that there is no other conceivable resolution. Jesus prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." Therefore, we can be sure that there was no other way to pay for the sins of men. Expunging them was no option. Rather, because the demands of righteousness required a full payment for sin, the penalty for sin could not be a finite prison term followed by mere annihilation. For if so, then Jesus Christ would not have had to pay with His life. And check out also Bob Enyart's related article on Should Christians Judge? and his Nicer than God Bible seminar below!

Why Hell is Forever | KGOV.com

kgov.com

since He said He could destroy him. Matt 10:28.

What does the verse say?

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew10:28&version=NKJV

First, note the difference between "those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" and "Him who is able to destroy both soul and body..."

The authors of the Bible were very careful in how they worded what they said. The latter, above, does not say "Him who is able to kill both the body and the soul...," but rather "destroy" is used. Matthew could have used the same word for added emphasis, but he didn't. Why? He's making a distinction between "killing the body" and "destroying both soul and body in hell."

Second, "in hell" refers to an actual place. No, I'm not talking about the "hell" you and I are most familiar with, at least when it comes to church traditions. No, the word used in this verse is "gehenna," which refers specifically to "the Valley of Hinnom." You don't put something that you want to instantaneously destroy in something that burns forever.

Third, If "death" means "cessation of existence," then what is there to fear about being cast into the lake of fire? Sure, you cease to exist, and no one wants that, but that means that you don't experience anything. You don't exist, therefore, you aren't being punished anymore. Your punishment is, effectively, complete. There's not much to fear about that. On the other hand, being tormented (not by God, but simply due to one's rejection of his creator)

What about soul death?

I don't know what you're referring to.

It sounds like you are agreeing with Satan, "you shall not surely die. There will always be some piece of you still alive."

There's that nasty stolen concept fallacy again.

No, I'm not agreeing with Satan. Adam and Eve DID die. They died when they partook of the fruit. Not physically, but they were separated from God. They were cast out of the garden God had made for them, out of His presence.

The bible never says "the wages of sin is spiritual death."

Never said it did.

Can you see that, at least here, the doctrine goes beyond scripture?

In what way? "The wages of sin is separation from God."

No?

My position is consistent with scripture.

And you were wrong. See Matt 10:28 again.

Supra.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The verse I cited from Hebrews says “in the day” was forty days. The verse I cited from Genesis was obviously not a single day, according to the previous chapter. Just because something happened within the same 24 hours, doesn’t mean the other thing was talking about a 24 hour day. The wording God gave allows for the time period to be greater than 24 hours. It surely doesn’t have to be, but just as surely it can be, by the same words used earlier in the chapter—as you’ve acknowledged.

RSR: When Did Adam and Eve Sin? | KGOV.com

kgov.com

 

[Derf]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Separation is the definition of death. It's not a euphemism or figure of speech.

I was simply applying my position evenly, as you said:


I was saying that yes, figuratively speaking, the two concepts WOULD be "dead" to each other, by separating them.

Euphemism: an inoffensive word or phrase substituted for one considered offensive or hurtful, esp one concerned with religion, sex, death, or excreta.

Jesus used a euphemism for death when He said Lazarus slept. However, if you then say that "death = sleep", i.e., you hold to the euphemism as the reality, you deny the power of death. Jesus didn't continue to say "Lazarus is just asleep", but spoke "plainly" with the disciples, saying "Lazarus is dead."
[Jhn 11:14 KJV] Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
Calling death "sleep" was not speaking plainly to the disciples.

That was my point about the concepts not being dead to each other--the term doesn't apply, and therefore loses its usefulness. Concepts aren't in relationship to one another, but it shows the silliness when the euphemism is applied. Well...I thought it showed the silliness. I guess not.

It wasn't specifically a prophecy about Christ. But it was interpreted by Peter AS IF IT WERE a prophecy.

Dominic Enyart explains about a similar passage where there was no specific prophecy given, yet Matthew said:

Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:“A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted, Because they are no more.” - Matthew 2:17-18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew2:17-18&version=NKJV

I don't really see why this matters. I don't have a problem with David not knowing how, or even whether, his words would be prophetic, but that doesn't remove the prophetic nature of them, as Peter plainly tells us. Thus, if David, even unknowingly, spoke prophetically about Christ, and Peter tells us which words were spoken prophetically about Christ, in contrast to David's result, then it matters little what David thought about how they applied to him. That's not to say it isn't an interesting study.

Student Loan Debt and Non-Prophecies | KGOV.com

kgov.com

(To skip to the relevant portion of the show, jump to 18:58 in the player.)

Dominic's doing a great job, isn't he! I have this episode stored in my podcasts, but I haven't listened to it yet.

Allow me to clarify:

David was a type of christ, and many of the Psalms he wrote, while being about himself, were also about the yet to come Messiah in a prophetic way. Psalm 16 is no exception. David is writing about his faith in God, just as Christ has faith in His Father. In Psalm 16:10, David is talking about himself as being a holy (faithful, pious, etc) one (in contrast to those whom he refers to in verses 3-4) whom God will not abandon in Sheol, nor will he see corruption, while what he's saying is a prophecy about Christ the Messiah, Who as we know was not abandoned,l in Sheol, nor did He see corruption.

Peter was able to draw a parallel between what David said and what had happened with Christ.


David saw corruption. You can go to David's tomb and see that.
Christ did not see corruption. Behold, the empty tomb.

David wasn't lying when he said God would not leave his soul in Sheol.
Christ (who is God) didn't abandon David and led captivity captive after descending into Hell, to set free those who were waiting in the city of refuge called Abraham's Bosom.

Yes it does, Derf! Or are you calling David a liar?

David was speaking about himself in the psalms. Being a type of Christ, David's words can also apply to Christ Himself. In the sense that the psalm was talking about Christ, it has been completely fulfilled. In the sense that the psalm is about David, only the former has been fulfilled so far, but not yet the latter, as Peter points out, but as is mentioned elsewhere in scripture, it is yet to happen!

First, you just said that David DID see corruption, then you say that David wrote those words about himself. Are YOU saying David's a liar? I wasn't. I'm not sure what David's point was about his own remains and the corruption they would experience. Like I said, it would be an interesting study, but not really relevant here--BECAUSE Peter was using the prophetic nature of it, and the contrast to David's remains, to make a point about Christ's resurrection. There's nothing in the Acts 2 text that tells you how to separate one part of David's words from the other--how to apply one to David that DID happen and another to David that didn't happen (and thus the rather odd accusation about me lying when you stated two opposing things were true).

Referring to David's body, not David's soul.


Says who, you?

The definition I've been giving you is separation, not life.

An existence apart from one's body is physical death.
An existence apart from one's Creator is spiritual death.


NO.

Resurrection has always meant "passing from death to life."

Then resurrections are quite common. Every time I go visit my parents in another state, I rise from the dead again. Jesus didn't really have to die physically, did He? He could have just gone into the tomb and sealed it, then opened it again. He was separated from them, thus He was dead. Hardly any need for the theatrics in the garden.

Then why are you trying to apply it to the soul?

I'm saying that the soul without the body isn't anything. It's not a human (I'll get to your reference to Clete's tree in a minute).

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Prior to the yet future resurrection of all the dead on Judgment Day, there are four states to "be" in (These are the literal uses of the words "dead" and "alive." I can address the figurative uses later, if you need.):

1. Alive physically, alive spiritually
2. Alive physically, dead spiritually
3. Dead physically, alive spiritually
4. Dead physically, dead spiritually

Everyone experiences #1, as it describes the time from one's conception to an individual's age of accountability.

Almost everyone also experiences #2, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, thus all have died to God (spiritual death) yet remain alive (physically).

Those who get saved and are still living experience #1 again, and will experience #3, because they, through Christ, have been reconciled to their Creator, and thus, they shall be with the Lord forever.

On the other hand, those who do not get saved, and die in their unbelief, shall experience #4, where a person has passed on physically, and is not alive to God, thus, they shall await Judgement Day in Hell. This brings us to post Judgement Day:

1. Resurrected physically, dead to God
2. Resurrected physically, alive to God

Those who experienced #4 above fall into #1, here. They shall be given a new body and thrown into the Lake of Fire, where they shall spend the rest of eternity separated from the One who made them.

Those who experienced #3 above fall into #2, here. They shall be given a new glorified body, and shall spend the rest of eternity fellowshipping with one another and with God, and I believe that we shall eventually forget about those listed above who ultimately rejected God.

None of your distinctions really deal with non-euphemistic death. I will admit that "second death", which is specifically defined in the bible, is not the same as normal death (not specifically defined in the bible). I believe the reason it needs definition is because it is not the same thing as the first death. If the first death is separation, and the second death is separation; if the first death results in torment in hell-fire for unbelievers, and the second death results in torment in hell-fire for unbelievers, I'm having trouble understanding the need for one of the two. Surely only one separation into torment in hell-fire is adequate, right?

They DID die, Derf. That very day, no less!

They rebelled against God, so He kicked them out of the garden. Thus, they physically died to God, and were separated from Him, because their relationship with Him was in the physical realm. They were still alive, physically, but they could no longer have a face to face relationship with him.

No, they didn't, even with your separation definition, unless they were resurrected again a chapter later:
[Gen 4:16 KJV] And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD,
How did the dead Cain come into God's presence if death is separation from God? And if Cain was in the presence of God when he lived with his brother Abel (possibly still with their parents, but certainly not in the Garden of Eden), how did he get there if all are <spiritually> dead in their trespasses and sins unless they believe? There must have been another resurrection we didn't hear about.

Sure you do!

To use Clete's tree analogy, if man's physical body is the roots, then our soul/spirit is the rest of the tree. Chop down the tree and you still have a tree, just without the roots. When a man dies physically, he's still human, just without a physical body.

Sure there is.

When you cut down a tree, you separate the roots from the rest of the tree, but you still have a tree, just without roots.

Likewise, when a man dies (physically), his soul/spirit is separated from his body. You still have a man, just without his connection to the physical world, his body.

Clete's analogy is lacking, as I'm sure you're aware. The roots are part of the physical tree. Just as one could lop off an arm or gouge out an eye and still be alive, you can cut branches off a tree and there is still a tree there. Maybe if we define a tree as the physical appearance (trunk and bark and wood) plus the life substance of the sap (kind of like blood??), plus the information in the DNA, then we can make it work. Let's now remove all of the physical part of the tree--do you still have a tree with just sap and DNA? what about if you remove all of the DNA and just have some wood-looking substance with some sap in it? Or if you have the DNA and the wood, but no sap? In any of those options, you don't have a tree--the thing you have is not alive, it's dead.

For example:

I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. - Romans 7:9-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans7:9-11&version=NKJV

Paul says he was alive to God before he sinned (like Adam was), but then the law came (he reached the age of accountability) and he sinned, and died to God, killed by sin.

He's not saying he died physically, but spiritually.

There's another sense in which one can be dead physically, yet still alive physically (which necessitates the definition of "death" to be "separation").

Paul didn't say "I was alive to God." As any other human, he was destined for death. Even little babies in the womb are destined for death. None of them are "saved" from death just because they haven't sinned yet.
[Rom 5:14 KJV] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Jesus, in the parable of the prodigal son, says that the father in the story said this:

for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry. - Luke 15:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke15:24&version=NKJV

Clearly, the prodigal son was alive (and very very hungry... dead people don't need to eat), but to his father, he was dead, as he had likely cut off all communication with his father, severed all ties.

This is a great example! Thanks for including it. You are right that "clearly the prodigal son was alive", even though his father considered him dead. But are you sure you want to say that's what God was telling Adam? "Adam, if you eat of the tree of knowledge, I will no longer recognize you--you will be dead to me, even though you will still be clearly alive."

I think what you're talking about is another figure of speech, maybe an opposite of euphemism, called hyperbole. And it is important and useful, but not when talking about the fate of a human that God loves. The parable doesn't say that the son would never die because he was "dead" already--that's not the subject of the parable. And if it's not the subject of the parable, then it's unwise to use it that way.

Wrong. A payment must be made regardless if the person dies saved or not.

As David writes:

Those who trust in their wealth And boast in the multitude of their riches,None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever—That he should continue to live eternally, And not see the Pit.But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, For He shall receive me. Selah - Psalm 49:6-9,15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm49:6-9,15&version=NKJV

The payment will be made one way or the other, either by the man who sinned, or by the Man who became sin for us.

What payment?

Christ died for all, but His death isn't automatically applied to all.


It WAS the goal. From the very beginning, even before God created, prehaps, God determined that if His creation rebelled against Him, He would send His Son to redeem it.


God DID choose to redeem mankind.


If God didn't want redeem mankind, then there would be no need for payment. But He did, and He said He would. God keeps His promises.

If you don't buy anything while you're at the store, you aren't required to make a payment at the register, but if you do wish to buy something, then payment is needed!

The same applies to justice.

God, who is merciful, decided to buy mankind back. Thus, a payment is required

I think you got my point, even if you seem like you didn't. The wages of sin is death, and in order to save man from death, there needs to be a different payment, or different payee would be a better way to say it.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Derf!

And what Jesus said in Gethsemane proves otherwise!

He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” . . . Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.” . . . So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. - Matthew 26:39,42,44 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew26:39,42,44&version=NKJV

Do you realize how important something must be if within the span of a few verses, Jesus says something not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES!?

Jesus didn't want to die on the cross if there was any other way to pay for man. But there wasn't. A payment is necessary, because there is no other way to save mankind.

Again--the agony was not required unless God wants to save mankind. He does, and therefore it is required.

To avoid the infinite suffering of the cross, if expunging human beings were an option, God could have annihilated every human being the moment they sinned. The Father's love for the Son is immeasurable. And as expected, that tells explains much. The deity of Christ and eternal punishment are related doctrines. Cults that reject that Jesus is God also tend to reject the eternality of hell. If the just punishment of sin is not an eternal punishing, then God wouldn't have had to sacrifice His eternal Son to pay for Man's sin.

This is an excerpt from your boxed text. Maybe I didn't read through enough of it, but there was certainly an option for God to expunge humans, either the moment they sinned or some other moment. Perhaps my view on the eternality of the soul is out of the ordinary, but I'm neither rejecting the eternality of hell nor the deity of Christ. I'm trying to explain why hell is necessary.
1. It isn't if death is separation, because nothing is left to separate when an unbeliever dies, in your view--it's an additional separation of things that were already separated once.
2. A final judgment (to hell) isn't necessary either, because judgment is made where the wicked go and they go to hell right away in your view. Maybe different hells, but it's hard to see the difference between one place of torment and the next.

What does the verse say?

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew10:28&version=NKJV

First, note the difference between "those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" and "Him who is able to destroy both soul and body..."

The authors of the Bible were very careful in how they worded what they said. The latter, above, does not say "Him who is able to kill both the body and the soul...," but rather "destroy" is used. Matthew could have used the same word for added emphasis, but he didn't. Why? He's making a distinction between "killing the body" and "destroying both soul and body in hell."

Second, "in hell" refers to an actual place. No, I'm not talking about the "hell" you and I are most familiar with, at least when it comes to church traditions. No, the word used in this verse is "gehenna," which refers specifically to "the Valley of Hinnom." You don't put something that you want to instantaneously destroy in something that burns forever.

So,

Third, If "death" means "cessation of existence," then what is there to fear about being cast into the lake of fire? Sure, you cease to exist, and no one wants that, but that means that you don't experience anything. You don't exist, therefore, you aren't being punished anymore. Your punishment is, effectively, complete. There's not much to fear about that. On the other hand, being tormented (not by God, but simply due to one's rejection of his creator)

Because "second death" doesn't mean "cessation of existence". It's defined as "lake of fire". Tell me, how is it that the unredeemed suddenly get these brand new bodies that can't be consumed in the lake of fire?

I don't know what you're referring to.

There's that nasty stolen concept fallacy again.

No, I'm not agreeing with Satan. Adam and Eve DID die. They died when they partook of the fruit. Not physically, but they were separated from God. They were cast out of the garden God had made for them, out of His presence.

It's not a fallacy if you're actually doing it. Satan said they would not surely die. I'm not completely confident I know all of what "surely" means, but if it means "completely", then you're in his camp.

The Young's Literal Translation says it this way
God: [Gen 2:17 YLT] and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'
Satan: [Gen 3:4 YLT] And the serpent saith unto the woman, 'Dying, ye do not die,'

So God says "dying you will die," and Satan says "dying you will not die."

In what way? "The wages of sin is separation from God."

Supra

 

[Derf]

What does the verse say?

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew10:28&version=NKJV

First, note the difference between "those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" and "Him who is able to destroy both soul and body..."

The authors of the Bible were very careful in how they worded what they said. The latter, above, does not say "Him who is able to kill both the body and the soul...," but rather "destroy" is used. Matthew could have used the same word for added emphasis, but he didn't. Why? He's making a distinction between "killing the body" and "destroying both soul and body in hell."

Second, "in hell" refers to an actual place. No, I'm not talking about the "hell" you and I are most familiar with, at least when it comes to church traditions. No, the word used in this verse is "gehenna," which refers specifically to "the Valley of Hinnom." You don't put something that you want to instantaneously destroy in something that burns forever.

Response added, because I apparently didn't write anything useful about this in my last post:
I'm not actually familiar with any sort of hell, personally.
But if you are making the distinction between Hades and Gehenna, I have a hard time distinguishing between the two. They both hurt. They both seem to be inescapable, once you're there. And it's interesting that Jesus doesn't make an appeal to believe on him for those who don't want to go there.
[Luk 16:25-26 KJV] But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

Regarding the application of "destroy both body and soul in hell", I was hesitant to include that verse, because I expected you would say this. And I agree, somewhat. My point is that if the soul is actually destroyed, along with the body, and the spirit is already dead, what's left?

You're saying that the destruction is on-going for both resurrected body and soul--they are never completely destroyed, and that it isn't a "death" in the normal sense (the word "kill" isn't used for the soul). These are wonderful points to make. But it doesn't say that God can't kill a soul--only that no one else can. And perhaps it assumes the other implication, addressed in my next paragraph.

If the destruction is everlasting, such that the body, in a lake of fire, is not really consumed, why? what kind of body is it that can survive a lake of fire? Are the unbelievers ALSO recipients of immortal bodies when they are resurrected? Maybe that's another thread topic, but it has all kinds of implications, like that Jesus' death may really be applied universally to all unbelievers, just as it is applied to believers. And now, with an incorruptible body (an indication that they benefit from Christ's salvation work) they are still thrown in hell. I think it makes some sense--that if they receive an incorruptible body, that if Jesus' sacrificed is applied to all of Adam's race, but there is still something that separates the believer from the unbeliever in terms of salvation, it seems to show that accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is an imperative, different from the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge, since from that sin all mankind has now been redeemed (body is resurrected immortally). That part can be applied whether one holds your view or mine on the state of death in between life and judgment.

Of course, once you say that Jesus death is applied to (on behalf of) all people universally, but after judgment some are then thrown into the lake of fire forever, you have to wonder about how just it is, before judgment, for them to be tormented in fire. Is the judgment merely a dog and pony show, since the penalty was already being applied?

You might not agree with my position, but these are the kinds of questions that have led me to it. And I'm willing to chuck my position if I can find one that makes more sense of what the bible says about death, but I don't think the traditional view fits that bill.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Euphemism: an inoffensive word or phrase substituted for one considered offensive or hurtful, esp one concerned with religion, sex, death, or excreta.

Duh...

Jesus used a euphemism for death when He said Lazarus slept. However, if you then say that "death = sleep", i.e., you hold to the euphemism as the reality, you deny the power of death. Jesus didn't continue to say "Lazarus is just asleep", but spoke "plainly" with the disciples, saying "Lazarus is dead."
[Jhn 11:14 KJV] Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
Calling death "sleep" was not speaking plainly to the disciples.

Again... Duh...

That was my point about the concepts not being dead to each other--the term doesn't apply, and therefore loses its usefulness. Concepts aren't in relationship to one another, but it shows the silliness when the euphemism is applied. Well...I thought it showed the silliness. I guess not.

You said nothing about "sleep" though. You said "separation," which is the definition of death, not a euphemism for it. Separate them, and yes, the concepts WOULD be, in a figurative sense, dead to each other.

I don't really see why this matters. I don't have a problem with David not knowing how, or even whether, his words would be prophetic, but that doesn't remove the prophetic nature of them, as Peter plainly tells us. Thus, if David, even unknowingly, spoke prophetically about Christ, and Peter tells us which words were spoken prophetically about Christ, in contrast to David's result, then it matters little what David thought about how they applied to him. That's not to say it isn't an interesting study.

Hence why I gave you the article to read.

Dominic's doing a great job, isn't he! I have this episode stored in my podcasts, but I haven't listened to it yet.

What he said is somewhat relevant to this discussion.

First, you just said that David DID see corruption,

Peter says that. I'm simply agreeing with Peter.

then you say that David wrote those words about himself.

Because he did,

Are YOU saying David's a liar?

Nope.

I'm saying that what he said, in the context that he said it, has to do with his situation at the time of writing it. Which is why I gave you the article to read. Here is the link again:

David the Prophet? Psalm 16 in Acts 2 - Reformed Faith & Practice

“Since [David] was a prophet,” declares Peter in his Pentecost sermon, David knew when he wrote, “you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your faithful one see the Pit” that he was not referring to himself but to a future king.[1] Thus, Peter instructs us to read Psalm 16 Messianically, as a […]

journal.rts.edu

I wasn't. I'm not sure what David's point was about his own remains and the corruption they would experience. Like I said, it would be an interesting study, but not really relevant here--BECAUSE Peter was using the prophetic nature of it, and the contrast to David's remains, to make a point about Christ's resurrection. There's nothing in the Acts 2 text that tells you how to separate one part of David's words from the other--how to apply one to David that DID happen and another to David that didn't happen (and thus the rather odd accusation about me lying when you stated two opposing things were true).

See: Law of non-contradiction.

Then resurrections are quite common. Every time I go visit my parents in another state, I rise from the dead again. Jesus didn't really have to die physically, did He? He could have just gone into the tomb and sealed it, then opened it again. He was separated from them, thus He was dead. Hardly any need for the theatrics in the garden.

Only if you take what was said woodenly literally, which isn't a good idea.

I seem to recall stating:

Clearly, the prodigal son was alive (and very very hungry... dead people don't need to eat), but to his father, he was dead, as he had likely cut off all communication with his father, severed all ties.

Thus, it is safe to assume that what the father said was a figure of speech.

Figures of speech don't help with requirements for literal payments.

I'm saying that the soul without the body isn't anything.

Because you say so?

It's not a human (I'll get to your reference to Clete's tree in a minute).

Scripture says otherwise:

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 testimony which they held.And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed. - Revelation 6:9-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation6:9-11&version=NKJV

Clearly, they were humans who had been martyred for their faith. They didn't have physical bodies, and were awaiting justice for their deaths.

None of your distinctions really deal with non-euphemistic death.

All of those distinctions were about the literal concepts of dead and alive. None of them dealt with those being used figuratively. That may be why you're having such a hard time with this. Reread those distinctions and take them as literal, not figuratively, not euphemistically (there's a word I rarely use... lol).

So I'm not sure what you mean when you say "they didn't deal with non-euphemistic death, because that's literally what they were about.

Unless you accidentally added the "non-" into that, in which case I wasn't intending to deal with the figures of speech yet, as understanding the literal comes first, which will make it easier to understand the figurative.

I will admit that "second death", which is specifically defined in the bible, is not the same as normal death (not specifically defined in the bible). I believe the reason it needs definition is because it is not the same thing as the first death. If the first death is separation, and the second death is separation; if the first death results in torment in hell-fire for unbelievers, and the second death results in torment in hell-fire for unbelievers, I'm having trouble understanding the need for one of the two. Surely only one separation into torment in hell-fire is adequate, right?

I think a good analogy would be the procedures given in the Bible for when someone commits a crime (according to Mosaic Law (and as mentioned in the proposed criminal code which accompanies BEL's proposed Constitution), particularly for capital crimes):

“If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double.If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor’s goods. - Exodus 22:7-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus22:7-8&version=NKJV

And the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed; and so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.)Then they put him in custody, that the mind of the Lord might be shown to them. - Leviticus 24:11-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus24:11-12&version=NKJV

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died. - Numbers 15:32-36 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers15:32-36&version=NKJV

Hell is the ultimate prison. Nothing can escape it (apart from God's direct intervention or Him allowing it (as per Ephesians 4:8-9, Revelation 20:1-3, 7)). It's a holding facility to house those who have violated the law until they can be judged (which will come on Judgement Day). It's a means to separate those who are evil from society (literally cutting them off from those whom they've harmed ("cut off," especially in the Bible, means to put someone to death (which reinforces the idea that death is separation, literally cutting someone off from the world))) until a verdict can be given.

The Lake of Fire, on the other hand, is the punishment given to those who have violated the law, and who were awaiting judgement.

Someone violates the law, they are incarcerated until a verdict can be given (Hell, separation from society, first death), and then they are punished (Lake of Fire, ultimate separation from God, second death).

No, they didn't, even with your separation definition,

Adam and Eve were cut off from having a face-to-face relationship with God.

By definition (in two ways, even), they died, being physically removed from the Garden (like with the prodigal son, who was dead to the father), and spiritually dead, in need of a Savior.

unless they were resurrected again a chapter later:

Cain and Abel are not Adam and Eve, so I'm not sure what the issue is?

[Gen 4:16 KJV] And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD,
How did the dead Cain come into God's presence if death is separation from God? And if Cain was in the presence of God when he lived with his brother Abel (possibly still with their parents, but certainly not in the Garden of Eden), how did he get there if all are <spiritually> dead in their trespasses and sins unless they believe? There must have been another resurrection we didn't hear about.

The difference being that Adam and Eve were in constant fellowship with God in the Garden, at least until they sinned.

Cain and Abel were not, as the verse you stated clearly shows.

Clete's analogy is lacking, as I'm sure you're aware.

As all analogies are in some way or another.

The roots are part of the physical tree. Just as one could lop off an arm or gouge out an eye and still be alive, you can cut branches off a tree and there is still a tree there. Maybe is we define a tree as the physical appearance (trunk and bark and wood) plus the life substance of the sap (kind of like blood??), plus the information in the DNA, then we can make it work. Let's now remove all of the physical part of the tree--do you still have a tree with just sap and DNA? what about if you remove all of the DNA and just have some wood-looking substance with some sap in it? Or if you have the DNA and the wood, but no sap? In any of those options, you don't have a tree--the thing you have is not alive, it's dead.

Obviously, when you change things in the analogy, the analogy breaks. Which is why I said what I said. This is a classic instance of taking the analogy too far.

Paul didn't say "I was alive to God."

Maybe you noticed that I wasn't quoting Paul when I said "Paul said that he was alive to God." Meaning, that's what he meant when he said that, and I had quoted Paul directly just prior to that, and didn't insert "to God" into the verse.

If you want to say that he meant something else when he said "I was alive once without the law," then you need answer the following question:

In what way was 1) Paul alive, then 2) died, killed by sin if not in relation to God?

Because clearly, Paul was writing that while still physically alive.

As any other human, he was destined for death.

Yes, every person (except for those raptured) will die physically at some point. But that's clearly not what Paul is talking about, because at that point in time, Paul was speaking in past tense about dying, therefore it CANNOT mean "physical death."

Even little babies in the womb are destined for death.

Again, physical death.

None of them are "saved" from death just because they haven't sinned yet.

[Rom 5:14 KJV] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Are you referring to physical death here? or spiritual death? This is why I make the distinction.

If you mean physical death, then I agree, but it's not relevant to what Paul was saying, because again, he clearly wasn't talking about physical death, and could not be talking about physical death, as he was still physically alive, while talking about having died, killed by sin.

This is a great example! Thanks for including it. You are right that "clearly the prodigal son was alive", even though his father considered him dead. But are you sure you want to say that's what God was telling Adam? "Adam, if you eat of the tree of knowledge, I will no longer recognize you--you will be dead to me, even though you will still be clearly alive."

This is what I mean by taking the figurative and applying it woodenly literally.

The father in the parable was using "dead" figuratively, about a physical separation. God meant it literally, about a spiritual separation from Him.

Again, this is why I make the distinction between physical and spiritual death, because while they are both death, they are different in their application.

I think what you're talking about is another figure of speech, maybe an opposite of euphemism, called hyperbole. And it is important and useful, but not when talking about the fate of a human that God loves. The parable doesn't say that the son would never die because he was "dead" already--that's not the subject of the parable. And if it's not the subject of the parable, then it's unwise to use it that way.

I think you've gone off on a tangent that I wasn't even considering...

The parable is meant to show that despite our actions, if we humbly come before God and confess our sins, he is gracious and just to forgive us. No?

What we are discussing in this thread is merely a secondary application of the parable, regarding how it applies to the meaning of death.

I think you got my point, even if you seem like you didn't. The wages of sin is death, and in order to save man from death, there needs to be a different payment, or different payee would be a better way to say it.

Ah, I see what the problem is:

If God didn't want redeem mankind, then there would be no need for payment.

"... from God." Is what I meant.

Justice still demands a payment regardless.

Again--the agony was not required unless God wants to save mankind. He does, and therefore it is required.

A payment for man's sin is required. Otherwise, the needs of justice are not fulfilled. God would still require payment from man, which he could never fully pay off, because the wages of sin is death. It's what is earned by sinning. Thus, the alternate payment is Christ's death, rather than man's death.

This is an excerpt from your boxed text. Maybe I didn't read through enough of it, but there was certainly an option for God to expunge humans,

No, there isn't. "If there be any other way," Jesus said, "let this cup pass from me. But if not, Your will be done, Father."

Clearly, there wasn't, or Jesus would have taken that route. Instead, he continued with the mission His Father gave him, and He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:8).

either the moment they sinned or some other moment.

It's not possible ever, or Christ wouldn't have gone to the cross.

Perhaps my view on the eternality of the soul is out of the ordinary, but I'm neither rejecting the eternality of hell

Hell isn't the eternal part. The Lake of Fire is.

And you do by saying that man's soul ceases to exist when he dies or is cast into the Lake of Fire.

nor the deity of Christ.

Never said you were or did. It was simply something mentioned in my quote about cults.

I'm trying to explain why hell is necessary.
1. It isn't if death is separation, because nothing is left to separate when an unbeliever dies, in your view--it's an additional separation of things that were already separated once.

Explained above.

2. A final judgment (to hell) isn't necessary either, because judgment is made where the wicked go and they go to hell right away in your view. Maybe different hells, but it's hard to see the difference between one place of torment and the next.

Hell is punishment for the sins of those who lived on earth.

The Lake of Fire is for those who went to Hell, because they ultimately rejected Him. Ultimately, it's also for those who never went to Hell but still do not want to be with God for the rest of eternity.

This includes unbelievers who survived the Great Tribulation, and children who died before the age of accountability, who were raised in Heaven and still decided they didn't want to live with God (for God is just, and not a sadist, and will respect the decision of anyone who decides they don't want to live with Him, even if they had never experienced life on earth), though I imagine that the number of people who decide not to will be very small indeed, but certainly non-zero. (This is also explained on https://kgov.com/hell-is-never-ending, in the anti-universalism segment.)

The torment is a result of the recognition that the God-shaped hole they were made with will never be filled. (The antithesis of Colossians 2:10's "complete in Him.")

So,

Because "second death" doesn't mean "cessation of existence". It's defined as "lake of fire". Tell me, how is it that the unredeemed suddenly get these brand new bodies that can't be consumed in the lake of fire?

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. - Revelation 20:11-15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation20:11-15&version=NKJV

Their bodies are resurrected and returned to the , and then they are thrown into the Lake of Fire, as was mentioned in Matthew 10:28.

The Lake of Fire is a physical place. Pain is not physical, however. The "flames" of the Lake of Fire are a description of the torment. It is not literally fire burning them, but the pain of being eternally separated from God is such that it feels like one is being burned. A fearsome place, indeed.

It's not a fallacy if you're actually doing it. Satan said they would not surely die. I'm not completely confident I know all of what "surely" means, but if it means "completely", then you're in his camp.

I'm saying they died, just not in the way you want it to mean.

That doesn't mean I'm in agreement with Satan.

The Young's Literal Translation says it this way
God: [Gen 2:17 YLT] and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'
Satan: [Gen 3:4 YLT] And the serpent saith unto the woman, 'Dying, ye do not die,'

So God says "dying you will die," and Satan says "dying you will not die."

"Dying [spiritually] you will die [physically]."

They died both spiritually when they sinned, and physically at the end of their life on earth, after God removed their access to the Tree of Life.

Does that make sense?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not actually familiar with any sort of hell, personally.
But if you are making the distinction between Hades and Gehenna, I have a hard time distinguishing between the two.

Gehenna is a real place, used as an illustration of what hell is like.

They both hurt. They both seem to be inescapable, once you're there. And it's interesting that Jesus doesn't make an appeal to believe on him for those who don't want to go there.
[Luk 16:25-26 KJV] But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

He does. Just not in that specific passage.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness.If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” - John 3:10-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John3:10-21&version=NKJV

Regarding the application of "destroy both body and soul in hell", I was hesitant to include that verse, because I expected you would say this. And I agree, somewhat. My point is that if the soul is actually destroyed, along with the body, and the spirit is already dead, what's left?

If man's soul/spirit is destroyed upon death, then obviously he would no longer exist.

But you have to establish that the soul is destroyed upon physical death. You can't just assume it. That would be begging the question, a fallacy.

You're saying that the destruction is on-going for both resurrected body and soul--they are never completely destroyed, and that it isn't a "death" in the normal sense (the word "kill" isn't used for the soul).

It isn't a "death" as in "the soul and body are separated" sense, no.

But it IS a death, in the sense that both soul and body are separated from God, and permanently, in the case of the Lake of Fire.

These are wonderful points to make.

Thank you.

But it doesn't say that God can't kill a soul--only that no one else can.

Jesus implied it by His request to the Father in Gethsemane, and then by going to the cross.

And perhaps it assumes the other implication, addressed in my next paragraph.

If the destruction is everlasting, such that the body, in a lake of fire, is not really consumed, why? what kind of body is it that can survive a lake of fire?

I don't know. The Bible isn't very specific on those details. All it says is that it's enough to withstand eternity.

I addressed this in post #166.

Are the unbelievers ALSO recipients of immortal bodies when they are resurrected?

Likely. Supra.

Maybe that's another thread topic, but it has all kinds of implications, like that Jesus' death may really be applied universally to all unbelievers, just as it is applied to believers.

Jesus' death is only applied to those who believe.

It is for all, but only applied to some.

And now, with an incorruptible body (an indication that they benefit from Christ's salvation work) they are still thrown in hell. I think it makes some sense--that if they receive an incorruptible body, that if Jesus' sacrificed is applied to all of Adam's race, but there is still something that separates the believer from the unbeliever in terms of salvation, it seems to show that accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is an imperative, different from the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge, since from that sin all mankind has now been redeemed (body is resurrected immortally). That part can be applied whether one holds your view or mine on the state of death in between life and judgment.

Of course, once you say that Jesus death is applied to (on behalf of) all people universally, but after judgment some are then thrown into the lake of fire forever, you have to wonder about how just it is, before judgment, for them to be tormented in fire. Is the judgment merely a dog and pony show, since the penalty was already being applied?

You might not agree with my position, but these are the kinds of questions that have led me to it. And I'm willing to chuck my position if I can find one that makes more sense of what the bible says about death, but I don't think the traditional view fits that bill.

Fair.

 

[Derf]

If man's soul/spirit is destroyed upon death, then obviously he would no longer exist.

But you have to establish that the soul is destroyed upon physical death. You can't just assume it. That would be begging the question, a fallacy.

You brought up the souls under the altar in Rev 6:9 before. The picture is most likely prophetic in nature, but if you take it woodenly literally, as you called it, then why do those souls need to be restrained from enjoying the benefits of heaven by being held captive under the altar?? They are told to wait, to rest a little while longer, before something else happens to set them free of their under-altar prison, though they are given a promise that things will get better when they are freed from their prison and will have a nice new robe to wear.

Since they are told to rest a while longer, it would seem like the souls (not the bodies) are "resting". Why? do souls need rest? Isn't that similar to "soul sleep"? The souls-under-the-altar seems at least as big of a problem for the souls in heaven view as for my position.

But that's one of the main responses to my position that I've encountered (the Rich Man and Lazarus, and the Thief on the Cross being the other predominant ones).

It isn't a "death" as in "the soul and body are separated" sense, no.

But it IS a death, in the sense that both soul and body are separated from God, and permanently, in the case of the Lake of Fire.

But it's a death that has already been effected. For it to be re-effected would require that it had been reversed. Since it isn't a physical death (soul and body NOT separated from each other), then the other kind is spiritual death, right? The kind Adam caused to be brought on all mankind, that could only be reversed through the sacrifice of Jesus, right? So if it was reversed once, then at least you have to consider that it was Jesus' sacrifice that allowed for it, right. If that's the case, and it applies to all human beings (all are resurrected and those that don't stay with Jesus forever are subjected to the second death--which means that they are spiritually killed, and therefore must have been spiritually alive in order to be spiritually killed again.)

Jesus implied it by His request to the Father in Gethsemane, and then by going to the cross.

Again, what Jesus was asking to have taken away from Him was the suffering and dying, which was needed to redeem mankind, but wasn't necessary if mankind wasn't going to be redeemed. So if the possibility of humans not being redeemed existed at one time (Jesus and/or the Father could have decided not to go this route somewhere back in eternity), then it suggests that the souls could be killed--like animals.

I would suggest that at some point in time the possibility went away. There are a few possibilities I can think of for when that happened.

1. When God first decided to create mankind--because He also foresaw the need for redemption and His love for His creation would drive the need for redemption.
2. When God first created mankind--because He also foresaw the need for redemption and His love for His creation would drive the need for redemption.
3. When God promised redemption to mankind, because He wouldn't go back on a promise
4. When Jesus became a man--because it was a permanent change in God the Son, and to change His mind at that point would leave Jesus as a man forever, with no benefit (the fellowship of other men).
5. When Jesus had resisted Satan's temptations--maybe even in the Garden of Gethsemane--the scene we're discussing. Because before then the possibility existed that Jesus might not be the perfect sacrifice (this seems of low likelihood because of the character of God)

If the redemption achieved by Jesus' sacrifice is the mechanism for the resurrection of even unbelievers into immortal bodies, which is what I'm suggesting, then it suggests that the possibility of soul death existed at one time and that possibility was retracted. All of the options above tend to go back to the original decision to create a being that could fall, necessitating first the possible killing of the soul, then the foreseen act of redemption (Jesus' sacrifice), which then brought eternal life. But if the act of redemption was necessary to effectuate the immortality of the soul, then the alternative ways for Jesus to escape the agony and death may have been decided before, but the actual act was the turning point when souls were assured to eventually be revived. Jesus, while on the earth, talked as if the souls were immortal, but by then He was already well on His way to effectuating their immortality.

 

[way 2 go]

so day means = 1 rotation of the earth unless otherwise stipulatedWe could go back and forth all day on this, but I don’t see the point.

the point is you have no reason to believe in the day in this instance has any other meaning than

1 rotation of the earth

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

The verse I cited from Hebrews says “in the day” was forty days.

yes
so day means = 1 rotation of the earth unless otherwise stipulated

The verse I cited from Genesis was obviously not a single day,

yes
so day means = 1 rotation of the earth unless otherwise stipulated

according to the previous chapter. Just because something happened within the same 24 hours, doesn’t mean the other thing was talking about a 24 hour day.

you need to prove "in the day that" means something other than 1 rotation of the earth if not then
then it means
1 rotation of the earth
each instance of "in the day that" has it's own meaning and is not transferable to another instance
which is what you are trying to do

The wording God gave allows for the time period to be greater than 24 hours.

yes
but not here
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

It surely doesn’t have to be, but just as surely it can be, by the same words used earlier in the chapter—as you’ve acknowledged. Why do you still argue against what you’ve already said was possible? That’s self contradictory—which means your logic has failed you. But if you don’t want to see your failure in logic, that’s up to you.

each instance of "in the day that" has it's own meaning and is not transferable to another instance
which is what you are trying to do

 

[Derf]

the point is you have no reason to believe in the day in this instance has any other meaning than

1 rotation of the earth

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Sure I do.
Genesis 5:5 (NKJV) So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

yes
but not here
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Neither do you here
Genesis 2:4 (NKJV) This [is] the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

 

[way 2 go]

Sure I do.
Genesis 5:5 (NKJV) So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

so it took them 930 years to eat of the tree because that is the thing that determined the length of the day

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

 

[Derf]

so it took them 930 years to eat of the tree because that is the thing that determined the length of the day

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

No, it doesn’t say you will eat of it in the day you eat of it. It says you will die in the day you eat if it. Two things have to happen in that day: eating and dying. Just like God made two greater things in the day He created the heavens and the earth.

And just as there were two things that happened in the wilderness—they tested God and He punished them (that generation died in the wilderness).

 

[way 2 go]

No, it doesn’t say you will eat of it in the day you eat of it. It says you will die in the day you eat if it. Two things have to happen in that day: eating and dying.

Two things happend in that day eat , die

Just like God made two greater things in the day He created the heavens and the earth.

And just as there were two things that happened in the wilderness—they tested God and He punished them (that generation died in the wilderness).

what does this have to do with eat & die only taking a day?

"in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

in the day that you eat = 1 day




Eze 28:13 You have been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the ruby, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the turquoise, and the emerald, and gold. The workmanship of your tambourines and of your flutes was prepared in you in the day that you were created.
Eze 28:14 You were the anointed cherub that covers, and I had put you in the holy height of God where you were; you have walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

in the day that you were created. = 1 day

 

[Derf]

Two things happend in that day eat , die

what does this have to do with eat & die only taking a day?

"in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

in the day that you eat = 1 day




Eze 28:13 You have been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the ruby, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the turquoise, and the emerald, and gold. The workmanship of your tambourines and of your flutes was prepared in you in the day that you were created.
Eze 28:14 You were the anointed cherub that covers, and I had put you in the holy height of God where you were; you have walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

in the day that you were created. = 1 day

It’s sad that you have to ignore what I post and try to post something that you think helps your argument more. I’m not saying it can’t be a 24 hour day, but it CAN be longer, as my examples show. Offering examples to show it can be just 24 hours doesn’t really help your argument.

I’ve answered you by showing scripture telling how long it took Adam to die, since death was the threat. And I’ve offered you scripture that shows “in that day” doesn’t always mean 24 hours. Instead, you want to cling to an interpretation that requires redefinition of words to be viable. You probably realize this is the same tactic Calvinists use when cornered on their redefinitions or claims of anthropomorphisms.

By the way, isn’t it odd that Ezekiel 28:13 speaks of musical instruments in Eden that nobody played until much later? (Much more than 24 hours later!)
Genesis 4:21 (NKJV) His brother’s name [was] Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute.

 

[way 2 go]

It’s sad that you have to ignore what I post and try to post something that you think helps your argument more. I’m not saying it can’t be a 24 hour day, but it CAN be longer, as my examples show. Offering examples to show it can be just 24 hours doesn’t really help your argument.

never said "it can be just 24 hours" although if it is more than 24 hours you have to have some thing that indicates that it is

I’ve answered you by showing scripture telling how long it took Adam to die,

930 years to physically die, but only one day to spiritually die when they ate from the tree

since death was the threat.

promise not a threat

And I’ve offered you scripture that shows “in that day” doesn’t always mean 24 hours.

yes you have offered verses that within the context of those verses more than 24 hours
like I asked you: how did you know 40 years Hebrews 3:8-9 , because the verse told you (#137)

Instead, you want to cling to an interpretation that requires redefinition of words to be viable. You probably realize this is the same tactic Calvinists use when cornered on their redefinitions or claims of anthropomorphisms.

I want you to hold fast to what is true,
so far you want to hold to a false belief of
"they are dead--there's no life in them or any part of them, and they cease to function in any way and in any place, until they are resurrected."

to avoid the truth of spirits \ souls existence after death
you have souls under the alter and Moses temporarily resurrected clearly not a biblical teaching

not so nice rescue device "the temporary resurrection" , is that the regular human body resurrection like Lazarus?
the souls under the alter are not souls but temporary resurrected bodies ?
dose that make God a murder when he kills them ?

do you have Samuel digging his way up out of the ground or a spirit but not Samuel ?
what lie do you believe so you can hold onto your precious .

1Sa 28:14 And he said to her, What is his form? And she said, An old man comes up, and he is covered with a cloak. And Saul saw that it was Samuel, and he bowed his face to the ground, and prostrated himself.

By the way, isn’t it odd that Ezekiel 28:13 speaks of musical instruments in Eden that nobody played until much later? (Much more than 24 hours later!)
Genesis 4:21 (NKJV) His brother’s name [was] Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute.

trying to miss the point

in context this
"in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
is 24 hours

in context this
"in the day that you were created."
is 24 hours

 

[Derf]

930 years to physically die, but only one day to spiritually die when they ate from the tree

Begging the question.

yes you have offered verses that within the context of those verses more than 24 hours
like I asked you: how did you know 40 years Hebrews 3:8-9 , because the verse told you (#137)

how do you know it was a spiritual death? It’s not in the context. My context, a couple chapters later, is closer than your context.

I want you to hold fast to what is true,
so far you want to hold to a false belief of
"they are dead--there's no life in them or any part of them, and they cease to function in any way and in any place, until they are resurrected."

to avoid the truth of spirits \ souls existence after death
you have souls under the alter and Moses temporarily resurrected clearly not a biblical teaching

You have nothing indicating Moses was just a bodiless soul.

not so nice rescue device "the temporary resurrection" , is that the regular human body resurrection like Lazarus?
the souls under the alter are not souls but temporary resurrected bodies ?
dose that make God a murder when he kills them ?

do you have Samuel digging his way up out of the ground or a spirit but not Samuel ?

I agree I’m not too happy about my “rescue device”, as you call it. The best I can say is that I have no idea what happened to Samuel or Moses afterwards, just like I have no idea what happened to Elijah. Moses wasn’t in some obviously different state from Elijah. Elijah had a body (never died).
God can’t commit murder against His creation. He made us, He can do what He wants with us.

1Sa 28:14 And he said to her, What is his form? And she said, An old man comes up, and he is covered with a cloak. And Saul saw that it was Samuel, and he bowed his face to the ground, and prostrated himself.

Our bodiless souls are old and wear recognizable clothing??

in context this
"in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
is 24 hours

Begging the question

in context this
"in the day that you were created."
is 24 hours

So?

 

[way 2 go]

Begging the question.

not a question

never said "it can be just 24 hours" although if it is more than 24 hours you have to have some thing that indicates that it is
and you don't

how do you know it was a spiritual death?

I know because God said the would die when the ate.
Gen 2:17 ... "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

You have nothing indicating Moses was just a bodiless soul.

no such thing as "the temporary resurrection"

I agree I’m not too happy about my “rescue device”, as you call it. The best I can say is that I have no idea what happened to Samuel or Moses afterwards, just like I have no idea what happened to Elijah. Moses wasn’t in some obviously different state from Elijah. Elijah had a body (never died).

Samuel obviously was a spirit but you have physical body digging his way up from the grave and then you have no idea


so either the woman could see through the dirt a physical body digging his way up before Saul could which is what you believe
or Samuel was a spirit ,

1Sa 28:14 And he said to her, What is his form? And she said, An old man comes up, and he is covered with a cloak. And Saul saw that it was Samuel, and he bowed his face to the ground, and prostrated himself.

Our bodiless souls are old and wear recognizable clothing??

for Samuel ,yes obviously Saul recognized Samuel
1Sa 28:14 ... "And Saul saw that it was Samuel, and he bowed his face to the ground"

Begging the question

again , not a question

in context this
"in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
is 24 hours

 

[JudgeRightly]

You brought up the souls under the altar in Rev 6:9 before. The picture is most likely prophetic in nature, but if you take it woodenly literally,

Prophetic yes. And yes, there were literal souls under the altar.

as you called it,

"Woodenly literal" is at the opposite end of "figurative."

then why do those souls need to be restrained from enjoying the benefits of heaven by being held captive under the altar?? They are told to wait, to rest a little while longer, before something else happens to set them free of their under-altar prison,

Prison?

though they are given a promise that things will get better when they are freed from their prison and will have a nice new robe to wear.

Since they are told to rest a while longer, it would seem like the souls (not the bodies) are "resting". Why? do souls need rest? Isn't that similar to "soul sleep"? The souls-under-the-altar seems at least as big of a problem for the souls in heaven view as for my position.

I believe Matthew 28 is relevant here.

But that's one of the main responses to my position that I've encountered (the Rich Man and Lazarus, and the Thief on the Cross being the other predominant ones).

But it's a death that has already been effected. For it to be re-effected would require that it had been reversed. Since it isn't a physical death (soul and body NOT separated from each other), then the other kind is spiritual death, right? The kind Adam caused to be brought on all mankind, that could only be reversed through the sacrifice of Jesus, right? So if it was reversed once, then at least you have to consider that it was Jesus' sacrifice that allowed for it, right. If that's the case, and it applies to all human beings (all are resurrected and those that don't stay with Jesus forever are subjected to the second death--which means that they are spiritually killed, and therefore must have been spiritually alive in order to be spiritually killed again.)

Again, what Jesus was asking to have taken away from Him was the suffering and dying, which was needed to redeem mankind, but wasn't necessary if mankind wasn't going to be redeemed.

It was completely necessary. That's all that needs to be said.

AND BECAUSE IT WAS NECESSARY, therefore, there was no other option BUT to go to the cross.

So if the possibility of humans not being redeemed existed at one time (Jesus and/or the Father could have decided not to go this route somewhere back in eternity), then it suggests that the souls could be killed--like animals.

I would suggest that at some point in time the possibility went away. There are a few possibilities I can think of for when that happened.

1. When God first decided to create mankind--because He also foresaw the need for redemption and His love for His creation would drive the need for redemption.

1. 
   
   The only time it would have been possible for man to have been annihilated would have been prior to the point where God decided to make man an eternal being.
   
   Once He decided to make mankind able to exist forever, in some form or other, and created him in such a way, then it would no longer have been possible for God to destroy man.
   
   

   [*]When God first created mankind--because He also foresaw the need for redemption and His love for His creation would drive the need for redemption.
   [*]When God promised redemption to mankind, because He wouldn't go back on a promise
   [*]When Jesus became a man--because it was a permanent change in God the Son, and to change His mind at that point would leave Jesus as a man forever, with no benefit (the fellowship of other men).
   [*]When Jesus had resisted Satan's temptations--maybe even in the Garden of Gethsemane--the scene we're discussing. Because before then the possibility existed that Jesus might not be the perfect sacrifice (this seems of low likelihood because of the character of God)

None of those are possible, simply because God designed man to be able to exist forever.

You can't destroy something that is designed to last forever. That would be irrational. God cannot do the irrational.

If the redemption achieved by Jesus' sacrifice is the mechanism for the resurrection of even unbelievers into immortal bodies,

It's not. It has nothing to do with Christ's sacrifice.

which is what I'm suggesting, then it suggests that the possibility of soul death existed at one time and that possibility was retracted.

It didn't, except prior to the creation of mankind.

All of the options above tend to go back to the original decision to create a being that could fall, necessitating first the possible killing of the soul, then the foreseen act of redemption (Jesus' sacrifice), which then brought eternal life. But if the act of redemption was necessary to effectuate the immortality of the soul,

The human soul/spirit is immortal. Period. That has been true since God created man. And by immortal, I mean, it is unable to cease existing. It cannot be destroyed.

then the alternative ways for Jesus to escape the agony and death may have been decided before, but the actual act was the turning point when souls were assured to eventually be revived. Jesus, while on the earth, talked as if the souls were immortal,

Because they are.

but by then He was already well on His way to effectuating their immortality.

The point of the Bible is this:

God created man to be able to exist forever, to live with Him forever in the world He had created for him. God also created a way out of that existence with Him, called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and He placed it at the very center of the Garden (so that man would have no room to accuse God of hiding the way out, for God is not cruel nor evil, He will not prevent someone who is unwilling to stay with Him from leaving). God told that man that if he takes that way out, he would be separated from God, and die. God had planned before creating anything that if man took that way out, that He would provide a way to save man, a way back in, so to speak. Man would be free to either choose to come back to God, or to remain separated from Him. (Ezekiel 18, 1 Peter 3:9)

Man sinned, and thus took the way out from existing with God. So God, as described throughout the Bible, sent His Son, Someone of infinite value, to die, to redeem mankind, and provide for him a way back into having a relationship with Him. Those who take Him up on His offer, shall have everlasting life. (Romans 6:4, 8:11) Those who do not, will suffer the consequences of choosing an existence apart from God that will last all of eternity.

 

[Derf]

As promised, though somewhat later than I had hoped, here's my reply to @Clete's post in the other thread.
Clete, I didn't bring my quotes that you were answering, so sometimes the gist gets lost without it. If you think I've gone off on a tangent from what you meant, please let me know.

There is no such thing as a real Christian who denies the death of Jesus Christ nor is there any such thing as a real Christian who believes that Jesus ever ceased to exist.

Also, there are Christians who believe all sorts of wacky things because they are taught to believe them and don't care whether they make any sense or whether they contradict each other or whether they can even be biblical defended, much less established so I really don't care AT ALL about how many Christian believe it.

I agree with both of these statements--that no real Christian denies the death of Jesus Christ, and that there are Christians who believe all sorts of wacky things.
My intention here is to look into one of those wacky things. The problem can be that "wacky" is in the eye of the beholder, and if we're used to a particular doctrine, it doesn't seem wacky to us, just like to any Christian that believes a wacky thing--to him it isn't wacky, or he wouldn't believe it. I'll offer up the contrast between settled and open theism as an example. Most people are content with what they've been told that all things are settled, and they would say open theism is wacky--even though you and I would see settled theism as contradicting the bible (and therefore wacky).

This discussion is probably not as important nor as clear in the bible, but the reason there is a difference of opinion is that we are translating (or understanding) the bible differently. See your next comment for how you see it. Of course you believe your belief of what the bible says. But that doesn't make it the correct understanding of what the bible says ("biblical").

And besides that, "the way I described" is biblical! I didn't write the bible, Derf! I just read it and base what I believe on what it clearly teaches. There is no preconceived notions that I are brought to the bible that require straining the definition of "death" in a manner that conforms it to those a-priori beliefs. The concept of death being a separation is itself a purely biblical construct as I have already shown and can establish further.

Not only did Jesus cry out loud when He and the Father were separated while He was still on the cross but Jesus told one of the criminals being executed along with Him that they would be together that day in paradise (Luke 23:43). Then, three days later, He took up His life again (John 10:17) and then He told Mary not to cling to Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17). This is one of the ways we can know for a fact that "Paradise" was not Heaven but was rather the place of the righteous dead, also known as "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke 16:22). None of which is possible if He ceased to exist or even lost consciousness, for that matter.

I addressed the reference to the thief on the cross and his eventual (at the time) residence in paradise with the possibility of moving a comma. But here's a little more:
What is Paradise? why is it associated with Abraham's bosom (@JudgeRightly, thanks for the spelling correction on another post--I've messed that one up before). There may be some traditional sources we can point to, but the ONLY reference to Paradise being related to Abraham's Bosom is when this story and the story of Lazarus and the rich man are joined together. Otherwise, Paradise means "garden", and is translated that way in the whole Old Testament (the Greek word παράδεισον is used in the Septuagint in Gen 2:4 of the Garden of Eden, and numerous other places not talking about the Garden of Eden.) In fact, a more common reference is "the King's garden (παράδεισον)". Jesus' reference on the cross didn't have the possessive attached (although that seems like a reasonable association--Jesus the King's Garden). Was Abraham's Bosom a Garden?

I am not "suggesting" it. That is what the bible teaches. You act like I'm making this stuff up as I go.

Because Jesus is not the Father nor is He the Holy Spirit. There are not three Gods, there is one triune God. In some sense they are quite separate. In another sense they are one. While some theologians teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a manner that is self-contradictory, the bible itself does not. There are details we are not taught and so there's plenty of room for confusion but if we simply stick with what the bible itself says there is no contradiction inherent in the idea that the singular God is triune in nature.

These comments were related to the idea that God and Jesus were "separated" right before Jesus died physically. My thought was that if Jesus, who is the one true God, and the Father, who is the one true God were separated, it means something about the nature of God's triunity that is not readily understandable (I know: "duh!"). But if it's not readiliy understandable, we need to put more thought into understanding it, if we can at all.

Jesus was fully human and He died in exactly the same sense in which any other human being has ever died and went to the same place that all the other righteous dead went. The difference is that He was also God who, by the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8), was able to take His life back up again, reuniting Himself both with His physical body and with the Father.

If He was able to take His life back up again, then there was something about Jesus that was much different from any human ever (despite some Greek mythology about escaping Hades to the contrary). So we have to be careful about how much we say is the same. I admit I don't know where to draw the line, except at the human side of things.

I'm not disputing that he went to the same "place" as humans, but what that place was. Was it just the grave? Or was it some repository for bodiless spirits/souls?

This is not relevant for several reasons, one of the most important of which is the fact that the curtain of SEPARATION was split in two when Jesus died. I don't have the time to go into the details of the significance of the symbolism behind the split of that which separated us from God but, for the purposes of this discussion, there is no need to do so. Put simply Jesus death was life to the whole world (Romans 5). Therefore, Paul tells us elsewhere that to be SEPARATE from the body (i.e physically dead) is to be present with the Lord (II Cor. 5-6-8). Thus, no one during the present dispensation is sent to "Abraham's Bosom" precisely because that which separated us from Him has been removed by virtue of Christ's having died in our place.


So, if death isn't a separation then what is it? What do you mean when you say that Jesus died and rose from the dead?

Here's II Cor 5:6 Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
What you are saying is that Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, is spiritually dead while he is still in his body. Are you sure you want to say that? The "we" is distinct from the body in your view. After all, if separation is death, then--you do the math.

Are you suggesting here that we do not have actual spirits but that what we call our "spirit" is some sort of undefined "life force"?

I'm not saying you ARE suggesting that, by the way. It's a real question. Is that what you mean by what you said here?

What I'm suggesting is that our spirits are not a distinct part of us that survives our physical death. One option is that the spirit could be the "life force" that God puts in us at conception (or Adam when He breathed into him the breath of life).

נְשָׁמָה H5397 Transliteration: nᵊšāmâ Pronunciation: nesh-aw-maw' Part of Speech: feminine noun Root Word (Etymology) From נָשַׁם (H5395) The KJV translates Strong's H5397 in the following manner: breath (17x), blast (3x), spirit (2x), inspiration (1x), souls (1x). Outline of Biblical Usage [?] breath, spirit breath (of God) breath (of man) every breathing thing spirit (of man)

Another is that the spirit is our "will", like what David talked about: [Psa 51:10 KJV] Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

 

[Clete]

As promised, though somewhat later than I had hoped, here's my reply to @Clete's post in the other thread.
Clete, I didn't bring my quotes that you were answering, so sometimes the gist gets lost without it. If you think I've gone off on a tangent from what you meant, please let me know.

I agree with both of these statements--that no real Christian denies the death of Jesus Christ, and that there are Christians who believe all sorts of wacky things.
My intention here is to look into one of those wacky things. The problem can be that "wacky" is in the eye of the beholder, and if we're used to a particular doctrine, it doesn't seem wacky to us, just like to any Christian that believes a wacky thing--to him it isn't wacky, or he wouldn't believe it. I'll offer up the contrast between settled and open theism as an example. Most people are content with what they've been told that all things are settled, and they would say open theism is wacky--even though you and I would see settled theism as contradicting the bible (and therefore wacky).

This discussion is probably not as important nor as clear in the bible, but the reason there is a difference of opinion is that we are translating (or understanding) the bible differently. See your next comment for how you see it. Of course you believe your belief of what the bible says. But that doesn't make it the correct understanding of what the bible says ("biblical").

Yes, well I suppose some "wacky" doctrines may boil down to mere differences of opinion but usually not. Not in the way I am meaning it, anyway. There are lots of doctrines that absolutely do not make any sense and not even those who believe in them think that they make any sense. They don't care that they don't make sense. In fact, they like the fact that they don't make sense! The fact that they don't make sense, they say, is where "faith" comes in and their willingness to believe the doctrine in spite of its "wackiness" is considered by them to be piety. The entire charismatic movement is aggressively anti-intellectual for precisely this reason as are many Calvinists, especially in regards to reconciling God's righteous character with the idea that He's predestined that thousands of toddlers a year would be sold as sex slaves (just to name one of a million atrocities that Calvinists believe God not only predestined but is causing to happen).

I addressed the reference to the thief on the cross and his eventual (at the time) residence in paradise with the possibility of moving a comma. But here's a little more:
What is Paradise? why is it associated with Abraham's bosom (@JudgeRightly, thanks for the spelling correction on another post--I've messed that one up before). There may be some traditional sources we can point to, but the ONLY reference to Paradise being related to Abraham's Bosom is when this story and the story of Lazarus and the rich man are joined together. Otherwise, Paradise means "garden", and is translated that way in the whole Old Testament (the Greek word παράδεισον is used in the Septuagint in Gen 2:4 of the Garden of Eden, and numerous other places not talking about the Garden of Eden.) In fact, a more common reference is "the King's garden (παράδεισον)". Jesus' reference on the cross didn't have the possessive attached (although that seems like a reasonable association--Jesus the King's Garden). Was Abraham's Bosom a Garden?

Yes, it was a garden. Why is that so surprising?

And the association between the Paradise mentioned by Christ with Abraham's bosom makes perfect sense not only because both are discussing a place where righteous dead people are but also because if they aren't the same place then one has to ask just how many places are there where dead people go?

These comments were related to the idea that God and Jesus were "separated" right before Jesus died physically. My thought was that if Jesus, who is the one true God, and the Father, who is the one true God were separated, it means something about the nature of God's triunity that is not readily understandable (I know: "duh!"). But if it's not readiliy understandable, we need to put more thought into understanding it, if we can at all.

No argument there.

If He was able to take His life back up again, then there was something about Jesus that was much different from any human ever (despite some Greek mythology about escaping Hades to the contrary). So we have to be careful about how much we say is the same. I admit I don't know where to draw the line, except at the human side of things.

The difference between Jesus and every other human being was / is the fact that He is also God. He was able to take His life up again, not because He was human but because He is God.

I'm not disputing that he went to the same "place" as humans, but what that place was. Was it just the grave? Or was it some repository for bodiless spirits/souls?

Depending on the context, I'd say that the grave is a repository for disembodied spirits/souls.

Here's II Cor 5:6 Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
What you are saying is that Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, is spiritually dead while he is still in his body. Are you sure you want to say that? The "we" is distinct from the body in your view. After all, if separation is death, then--you do the math.

You can't ingore the context. Paul here is simply saying that while we are physically alive then we aren't in Heaven with Christ. He wasn't saying that we don't have the Spirit of Christ with (within) us. In other words, Heaven is an actual location and this Earth isn't it and we mere humans can't be in more than one place at a time.

What I'm suggesting is that our spirits are not a distinct part of us that survives our physical death.

What I still cannot grasp is why you believe this!

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.​

Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:​

​

1 Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.​

Thus, we see then that the spirit of man is distinct both from his body and his soul.

One option is that the spirit could be the "life force" that God puts in us at conception (or Adam when He breathed into him the breath of life).

נְשָׁמָה H5397 Transliteration: nᵊšāmâ Pronunciation: nesh-aw-maw' Part of Speech: feminine noun Root Word (Etymology) From נָשַׁם (H5395) The KJV translates Strong's H5397 in the following manner: breath (17x), blast (3x), spirit (2x), inspiration (1x), souls (1x). Outline of Biblical Usage [?] breath, spirit breath (of God) breath (of man) every breathing thing spirit (of man)

Another is that the spirit is our "will", like what David talked about: [Psa 51:10 KJV] Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Nothing of the above would require the rejection of any of my doctrine regarding the nature of the spirit or the soul, either one. Nor would it interfere with the belief that death is a separation of one's spirit from either one's body or from God (or both).

So my question to you remains the same. Just what is it about the idea that death is a separation of one's spirit from one's body and / or from God (i.e. the Father) that makes you not like the idea? It seems like there must be a logical consequence of that belief that you see as problematic. If you could articulate what that is, I'd be very interested to read it.

Clete