Is death just another life?

[way 2 go]

Just like God said Abimelech was dead before he physically died...but it wasn't "spiritual death". Sometimes God talks about something that hasn't happened yet as if it has already happened.

God threatened Abimelech
not even close to being the same as :
Romans 7:11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me .

Romans 4:17 KJV — (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.



That concept is in the bible in numerous places, And in the place above it's immediately contiguous with God giving life to dead people! So why would you not be willing to allow use of that concept in places where scripture talks about dead people?

I could be wrong on this issue, I admit. But I'll never find out if I'm wrong unless I'm willing to look at and attempt to understand the scriptures used to bolster the other position. I'd ask you to afford me the same courtesy instead of just repeating your same talking points, which I've answered in a way that makes sense of your cited scriptures in favor with my position.

Can you do that?

your problem is explaining how there are still dead after they are resurrected

the dead are dead before they physically die and dead after they are resurrected

(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

 

[Derf]

God threatened Abimelech

So you agree that God called Abimelech "dead" even though he wasn't dead. And from your statement of it being a threat, you are affirming that it was describing a future potential condition for Abimelech, And not an actual condition, right? And that future potential condition was a physical condition, not a spiritual condition, right?

.



your problem is explaining how there are still dead after they are resurrected

the dead are dead before they physically die

You seem to have the same problem I do--explaining how a man can be dead while still alive, and you've already admitted that it's not because of some other definition of death (like "spiritual" death).

and dead after they are resurrected

(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

Here's another one:
Exodus 12:33 KJV — And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men.

Were the Egyptians saying they were spiritually dead? If not, what did they mean? They were obviously not physically dead, because they were speaking and trying to get the Hebrews to leave.

 

[way 2 go]

So you agree that God called Abimelech "dead" even though he wasn't dead.

no

And from your statement of it being a threat, you are affirming that it was describing a future potential condition for Abimelech, And not an actual condition, right? And that future potential condition was a physical condition, not a spiritual condition, right?

death threat as in yes physically dead

You seem to have the same problem I do--explaining how a man can be dead while still alive,

spiritual death \ separation from God


your problem is explaining how there are still dead after they are resurrected
(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

for me it's easy to explain
these are the spiritually dead \ separated from God.

 

[Derf]

no

Then you reject scripture?

death threat as in yes physically dead

...when he wasn't yet physically dead.

spiritual death \ separation from God

Not in Abimelech's case. And if you don't need that explanation for Abimelech, then it isn't necessary in other cases.

your problem is explaining how there are still dead after they are resurrected
(Revelation 20:12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God.

for me it's easy to explain
these are the spiritually dead \ separated from God.

Your problem is explaining how God could call Abimelech dead when he was still alive, and it wasn't spiritual death.

Not to mention how the Egyptians could call themselves dead when they were still alive, and it wasn't spiritual death.

 

[Idolater]

Does that not make you a non-catholic?

Can you clarify?

I'm not saying it's not real, just that the anointing didn't always change the person into something else. I don't see that King Saul became a sheep or that he passed from death to life. In fact, if he had indeed passed from death to life, how could he pass back to death?

idk. Could be what happened to King Saul is not what the New Testament is talking about, and what is happening to us, under the New Covenant.

Perhaps so. I was thinking of this verse:
Hebrews 8:13 KJV — In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

If it was sin from the moment of Christ's death, and more importantly His resurrection, it wasn't apparent even with Paul, who still participated in temple liturgy, as you call it. I think the attitude of the participant was important--whether they thought it necessary for salvation or not. And perhaps it's similar to thinking the new covenant liturgy is important in the same way--that if your reliance is on a ritual rather than the thing the ritual symbolizes, you are sinning according to Hebrews:
Hebrews 4:1 KJV — Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

Could very well be. Good point about Paul.

Supra, but let's acknowledge what works might be dead--any that we rely on to save us.

That's fine with me.

I don't think so, either, for the reason stated above. And ONLY for the reason stated above.

OK.

If it's used in the same way...trading the old liturgy for a new one...then I guess I am.

OK.

I'm not getting the "accidents" terminology.

Synonymous with attributes. Near-synonymous with properties. Predicates. Descriptions. It's keeping consistent with substance, substance and accidents being the language [of] Aristotelian categories.

Nor the gist of your "one-off" comment.

I meant that whatever happens in the Resurrection of the dead at the end of time or whenever that is, that it's going to be completely unique.

Do you mean that the resurrection is of less importance than the already-effected ontological change?

Definitely not.

If so, that's why I'm trying to tie them together. That already-effected ontological change is BECAUSE of the promise of the future resurrection, not that the resurrection is merely a byproduct of the change we (hope we) see here and now.

OK.

But we might not sin because we lack a fear of death. Getting baptized is an early step in beginning to recognize that we don't need to fear death. Reading the bible helps us to understand that death need not be feared.

Yes but to use your word, the extinguishing of the fear of death is a byproduct of faith in Christ and the Gospel, what I was getting at was that it appeared you were making the end of the fear of death the point of Christian faith, and you were leaving open the door to achieving a lack of death outside of believing in Him, by not stating that you don't believe that any other path toward not fearing death is illegitimate ultimately. (I think that's a triple negative. I'm sorry.) You left open the door to attaining a lack of the fear of death through whatever means, just so long as you don't fear death anymore.

Going to mass?

New Covenant liturgy, basically.

I'm not sure what part that plays, as I'm not sure where the similaritie lie with respect to fellowshipping with the saints and devoting ourselves to the teaching of our pastoral leaders, which also are intended to remind us of what has already occurred (Christ's resurrection) so we can apply that to our own future, assured resurrection.

It's liturgy. The part it plays is that it's a part of your life as a Christian. It's not salvific, that's faith, but it is strictly speaking and officially and formally obligatory, but that's not the same as salvific. It's like not committing adultery, again, not salvific, but still a part of a Christian's life is to abstain from adultery.

And it became formulaic

Sure, by design.

, which makes it ineffective.

Ineffective at what?

The formula is always ineffective, because it is dead works. The belief is what's important.

For salvation. But there's more to being a Christian, and it has always been this way, with plenty of proof in the New Testament.

That's why we non-Catholics focus on both the baptism and communion as rites of symbology or remembrance of our salvation, not rites of salvation themselves.

idk what you mean by rites of salvation. If you mean that the work itself saves you, then neither does Catholicism believe this. Catholicism believes the Bible, that salvation is through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 

[Derf]

Can you clarify?

It was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but if you are requiring non-Catholics (those not part of YOUR group of Christians) to stop taking communion, i.e. not be allowed to be part of the catholic (universal) church, then you aren't being very universal in your Roman Catholicism.

idk. Could be what happened to King Saul is not what the New Testament is talking about, and what is happening to us, under the New Covenant.

Maybe so. But you had made a statement that the anointing of the Holy Spirit caused an ontological change, like becoming a sheep instead of a goat, or passing from death to life, even if "probationary" or "reversible". Someone that passes from death to life, then back to death, and then back to life, perhaps, doesn't seem to have really passed from death to life. This is one reason I feel like our definitions of "death" and "life" are insufficient, or perhaps insincere, if they don't address the real death and life state, but some "spiritual" death and life state.

Could very well be. Good point about Paul.

That's fine with me.

OK.

OK.

Synonymous with attributes. Near-synonymous with properties. Predicates. Descriptions. It's keeping consistent with substance, substance and accidents being the language or Aristotelian categories.

Ok, but I hadn't encountered such usage before. In today's language, "accident" is rarely ever associated with "properties".

I meant that whatever happens in the Resurrection of the dead at the end of time or whenever that is, that it's going to be completely unique.

Is it? Jesus Christ rose from the dead in a way that we expect to experience, so it isn't "completely" unique. And there are two other resurrections talked about in Revelation 20 (before and after the millenium) and by Jesus in John's gospel (unto life and unto condemnation). Daniel talked about this dichotomy of resurrection results, too, but it's unclear if his both happen at the same time.

Definitely not.

OK.

Yes but to use your word, the extinguishing of the fear of death is a byproduct of faith in Christ and the Gospel, what I was getting at was that it appeared you were making the end of the fear of death the point of Christian faith,

I am willing to agree with this idea.

and you were leaving open the door to achieving a lack of death outside of believing in Him, by not stating that you don't believe that any other path toward not fearing death is illegitimate ultimately. (I think that's a triple negative. I'm sorry.) You left open the door to attaining a lack of the fear of death through whatever means, just so long as you don't fear death anymore.

Well, you were the one who brought up that idea, and I don't think other means of attaining a lack of fear of death should be trusted--because they aren't trustworthy. None of them have shown actual success in defeating death. Jesus's has.

New Covenant liturgy, basically.

It's liturgy. The part it plays is that it's a part of your life as a Christian. It's not salvific, that's faith, but it is strictly speaking and officially and formally obligatory, but that's not the same as salvific. It's like not committing adultery, again, not salvific, but still a part of a Christian's life is to abstain from adultery.

I think I agree with you here, although "obligatory" has negative connotations. I prefer to focus on a perfection in acknowledging Him as Lord, such that we desire to do anything He wants. Thus, it might be obligatory, but it is not done because it is obligatory.

Sure, by design.

Ineffective at what?

For salvation. But there's more to being a Christian, and it has always been this way, with plenty of proof in the New Testament.

idk what you mean by rites of salvation. If you mean that the work itself saves you, then neither does Catholicism believe this. Catholicism believes the Bible, that salvation is through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Some might call them "means of grace"--the things that you do, or that are done to you that "help" you to be saved. I'm not comfortable with the idea, because it seems to put the saving power of Christ's death, into which we are baptized, on a par with liturgy, as you call it. Perhaps one is having faith that the act of baptism is what saves, rather than the expression of the complete immersion in the Spirit's power and mission. I'm not sure I'm being very clear here.

 

[Gary K]

It was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but if you are requiring non-Catholics (those not part of YOUR group of Christians) to stop taking communion, i.e. not be allowed to be part of the catholic (universal) church, then you aren't being very universal in your Roman Catholicism.

Maybe so. But you had made a statement that the anointing of the Holy Spirit caused an ontological change, like becoming a sheep instead of a goat, or passing from death to life, even if "probationary" or "reversible". Someone that passes from death to life, then back to death, and then back to life, perhaps, doesn't seem to have really passed from death to life. This is one reason I feel like our definitions of "death" and "life" are insufficient, or perhaps insincere, if they don't address the real death and life state, but some "spiritual" death and life state.

Ok, but I hadn't encountered such usage before. In today's language, "accident" is rarely ever associated with "properties".

Is it? Jesus Christ rose from the dead in a way that we expect to experience, so it isn't "completely" unique. And there are two other resurrections talked about in Revelation 20 (before and after the millenium) and by Jesus in John's gospel (unto life and unto condemnation). Daniel talked about this dichotomy of resurrection results, too, but it's unclear if his both happen at the same time.

I am willing to agree with this idea.

Well, you were the one who brought up that idea, and I don't think other means of attaining a lack of fear of death should be trusted--because they aren't trustworthy. None of them have shown actual success in defeating death. Jesus's has.

God has done a lot in my life since we last talked. The number of miracles He has performed is off-the-charts.

I think I agree with you here, although "obligatory" has negative connotations. I prefer to focus on a perfection in acknowledging Him as Lord, such that we desire to do anything He wants. Thus, it might be obligatory, but it is not done because it is obligatory.

Some might call them "means of grace"--the things that you do, or that are done to you that "help" you to be saved. I'm not comfortable with the idea, because it seems to put the saving power of Christ's death, into which we are baptized, on a par with liturgy, as you call it. Perhaps one is having faith that the act of baptism is what saves, rather than the expression of the complete immersion in the Spirit's power and mission. I'm not sure I'm being very clear here.

Hi Derf,

ffreeloader here on a new account as hackers took out my laptop and I had to wait to buy a new one until I could afford one.

Glad to see you're still studying on the state of the dead. Congrats.

I owe you an apology for getting upset with you and not just giving you scriptural answers on the debate about Judas' betrayal of Jesus. If you like we can start another thread on it.

 

[Clete]

God has done a lot in my life since we last talked. The number of miracles He has performed is off-the-charts.

The exact number is ZERO.

If you claim otherwise, then define the word "miracle".

Clete

P.S. Don't read hostility into what is said above. It's just me starting a debate on the subject of miracles. Christians throw around the term "miracle" all the time and it ends up painting God in a very poor light. It seems that almost no one understand what a miracle even is.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hi Derf,

ffreeloader here on a new account as hackers took out my laptop and I had to wait to buy a new one until I could afford one.

@Sherman

 

[Derf]

God has done a lot in my life since we last talked. The number of miracles He has performed is off-the-charts.

Hi Derf,

ffreeloader here on a new account as hackers took out my laptop and I had to wait to buy a new one until I could afford one.

Glad to see you're still studying on the state of the dead. Congrats.

I owe you an apology for getting upset with you and not just giving you scriptural answers on the debate about Judas' betrayal of Jesus. If you like we can start another thread on it.

The exact number is ZERO.

If you claim otherwise, then define the word "miracle".

Clete

P.S. Don't read hostility into what is said above. It's just me starting a debate on the subject of miracles. Christians throw around the term "miracle" all the time and it ends up painting God in a very poor light. It seems that almost no one understand what a miracle even is.

I agree with both of you...the miracle topic is interesting, and it should be a different thread.

 

[Derf]

God has done a lot in my life since we last talked. The number of miracles He has performed is off-the-charts.

Hi Derf,

ffreeloader here on a new account as hackers took out my laptop and I had to wait to buy a new one until I could afford one.

Glad to see you're still studying on the state of the dead. Congrats.

I owe you an apology for getting upset with you and not just giving you scriptural answers on the debate about Judas' betrayal of Jesus. If you like we can start another thread on it.

Hey Gary, good to hear from you. Sorry about the laptop.

Please don't feel bad about being passionate for your view of something, just turn that passion into rational arguments, and follow up with scripture.

I don't remember where we were with the Jesus/Judas conversation. If you can find it and reply to it, I'm happy to revisit. Or start a new one in it and tag me.

 

[Sherman]

@Sherman

I merged all of the content from the freeloader account into the new account. The hacker now does not have access to it. It's yours again @Gary K

 

[Gary K]

The exact number is ZERO.

If you claim otherwise, then define the word "miracle".

Clete

P.S. Don't read hostility into what is said above. It's just me starting a debate on the subject of miracles. Christians throw around the term "miracle" all the time and it ends up painting God in a very poor light. It seems that almost no one understand what a miracle even is.

Hi Clete, Long time no see.

God has healed an infection in the big toe on my right foot for which I was taking 1000 milligrams of qugmentin a day and all that was doing was keeping it from spreading. In a diabetic that's a big deal as it means the loss of a foot or leg if it spreads.

The laptop I'm typing on is a miracle too. I messed up when I went to register it and had to remove the battery and in so doing inadvertently shorted out the motherboard. God fixed that when my wife and I prayed about it as we couldn't afford another new laptop. God also healed my diabetess a couple of months qago. And He healed my twisted intestine that happened when I fell. Plus he has completelychange my life. That's the biggest miracle of all. I've been 9impatient with anyone close to me because of the abuse I went through as a kid. Plus I hated my oled man because of how he treated me. I no lnger hate his memory. (I still call him my old man because of force of habit but I have no more bad feelings towards him.

Is that enough for you? I cantell you about other changes He has made in my life but I figure these were enough to make my point.

 

[Gary K]

Hey Gary, good to hear from you. Sorry about the laptop.

Please don't feel bad about being passionate for your view of something, just turn that passion into rational arguments, and follow up with scripture.

I don't remember where we were with the Jesus/Judas conversation. If you can find it and reply to it, I'm happy to revisit. Or start a new one in it and tag me.

Ok. Will do. I don't have the time right now but will start another thread soon.

 

[Gary K]

I merged all of the content from the freeloader account into the new account. The hacker now does not have access to it. It's yours again @Gary K

Thank you, Sherman. I appreciate that. That's going above and beyond anything I expected.

 

[Clete]

Hi Clete, Long time no see.

God has healed an infection in the big toe on my right foot for which I was taking 1000 milligrams of qugmentin a day and all that was doing was keeping it from spreading. In a diabetic that's a big deal as it means the loss of a foot or leg if it spreads.

So, one moment your toe was infected, the next it wasn't. Is that what you're claiming happened?

Is the cause of the condition (i.e. the diabetes) still present, or is just the toe that God performed a miracle on?

The laptop I'm typing on is a miracle too. I messed up when I went to register it and had to remove the battery and in so doing inadvertently shorted out the motherboard. God fixed that when my wife and I prayed about it as we couldn't afford another new laptop.

Can you provide any evidence that the mother board was shorted out?
I trying to think through how it is even physically possible for such a short to occur by removing a battery. Both the battery and the battery housing are specifically designed to prevent such an occurrence for fear of the manufacturer getting sued over a shorted out, uncontrolled rechargeable battery discharge.

God also healed my diabetes a couple of months ago.

"a couple of months ago"?

Any evidence?

And He healed my twisted intestine that happened when I fell.

Any evidence that it was actually twisted or that it didn't simply untwist on its own?

Plus he has completely changed my life. That's the biggest miracle of all. I've been 9impatient with anyone close to me because of the abuse I went through as a kid. Plus I hated my oled man because of how he treated me. I no lnger hate his memory. (I still call him my old man because of force of habit but I have no more bad feelings towards him.

"old man" is not typically meant as a derogatory, is it?

Regardless, a change of your attitude is NOT a miracle of any kind - period. If you're relying on the same power that "healed your big toe" to maintain your attitude, it could change back just as easily and quickly.

Is that enough for you? I cantell you about other changes He has made in my life but I figure these were enough to make my point.

No, it isn't even remotely close to being enough!

First of all, I want you to give me a specific definition of what the word "miracle" means and I want you to explain how anyone other than the person who experiences the miracle is supposed to be able to know whether the person making the claim is telling the truth or is confused or is just flat-out lying or whatever.

Also, I predict that you will fail to provide a scintilla of evidence that any of these so called "miracles" happened at all. Call it a prophecy, if you like. It isn't one but I bet it would qualify as a miracle by your definition of the word.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Also, I predict that you will fail to provide a scintilla of evidence that any of these so called "miracles" happened at all. Call it a prophecy, if you like. It isn't one but I bet it would qualify as a miracle by your definition of the word.

It'd be a miracle if he did!

 

[Derf]

So, one moment your toe was infected, the next it wasn't. Is that what you're claiming happened?

Is the cause of the condition (i.e. the diabetes) still present, or is just the toe that God performed a miracle on?


Can you provide any evidence that the mother board was shorted out?
I trying to think through how it is even physically possible for such a short to occur by removing a battery. Both the battery and the battery housing are specifically designed to prevent such an occurrence for fear of the manufacturer getting sued over a shorted out, uncontrolled rechargeable battery discharge.


"a couple of months ago"?

Any evidence?


Any evidence that it was actually twisted or that it didn't simply untwist on its own?


"old man" is not typically meant as a derogatory, is it?

Regardless, a change of your attitude is NOT a miracle of any kind - period. If you're relying on the same power that "healed your big toe" to maintain your attitude, it could change back just as easily and quickly.


No, it isn't even remotely close to being enough!

First of all, I want you to give me a specific definition of what the word "miracle" means and I want you to explain how anyone other than the person who experiences the miracle is supposed to be able to know whether the person making the claim is telling the truth or is confused or is just flat-out lying or whatever.

Also, I predict that you will fail to provide a scintilla of evidence that any of these so called "miracles" happened at all. Call it a prophecy, if you like. It isn't one but I bet it would qualify as a miracle by your definition of the word.

Clete

You would agree, though, that if the Holy Spirit transforms us by the renewing of our minds, it's a supernatural event, right?

Indeed, anything the Spirit does is supernatural, isn't it?

 

[Clete]

It'd be a miracle if he did!

All joking aside...

How is it even possible that people have such a low view of God that they are willing to present such silly things as miracles performed by the God who died and rose from the dead on their behalf?

It seems to me that a belief that Zeus throws lightening bolts would be a more emotionally satisfying belief to hold. A child's belief that a fat man dressed in red delivers gifts on Christmas morning offers more benefit AND less harm to the believer than does a doctrine that leads people into believing in false miracles that always seem to happen in ways that are completely impossible to confirm and that are thus unfalsifiable and therefore definitely untrue. Which miracle recorded in scripture fits this sort of description?

What's going to happen to Gary when he fails to maintain his altered diet, like nearly all type II diabetics do, and his insulin resistance returns and his poor blood circulation to his feet returns, et al? What's going to happen to Gary when he figures out that his type II diabetes has come back?

Note, by the way, the implied premise of that question. I do not doubt for one second that Gary believes these things are miracles. I know more than one person who believes in such miracles and they are very definitely true believers. I do not believe that Gary is lying in the sense that he is intentionally saying things that he knows are false. He believes what he's saying! I just can't figure out why he believes it or why he'd want to believe it. I mean, how low a bar do you have to set for God before its just insulting even to your own intellect, never mind injurious to God's reputation?

Clete

 

[Derf]

All joking aside...

How is it even possible that people have such a low view of God that they are willing to present such silly things as miracles performed by the God who died and rose from the dead on their behalf?

It seems to me that a belief that Zeus throws lightening bolts would be a more emotionally satisfying belief to hold. A child's belief that a fat man dressed in red delivers gifts on Christmas morning offers more benefit AND less harm to the believer than does a doctrine that leads people into believing in false miracles that always seem to happen in ways that are completely impossible to confirm and that are thus unfalsifiable and therefore definitely untrue. Which miracle recorded in scripture fits this sort of description?

What's going to happen to Gary when he fails to maintain his altered diet, like nearly all type II diabetics do, and his insulin resistance returns and his poor blood circulation to his feet returns, et al? What's going to happen to Gary when he figures out that his type II diabetes has come back?

Note, by the way, the implied premise of that question. I do not doubt for one second that Gary believes these things are miracles. I know more than one person who believes in such miracles and they are very definitely true believers. I do not believe that Gary is lying in the sense that he is intentionally saying things that he knows are false. He believes what he's saying! I just can't figure out why he believes it or why he'd want to believe it. I mean, how low are bar do you have to set for God before its just insulting even to your own intellect, never mind injurious to God's reputation?

Clete

As far as we know, Lazarus died again after Jesus raised him from the dead.