Is death just another life?

[Right Divider]

And vice versa.

Nope. He listened just fine. Your story had many problems that you refused to hear.

 

[Derf]

Nope. He listened just fine. Your story had many problems that you refused to hear.

And vice versa.

 

[Clete]

And vice versa.

You're delusional.

 

[Derf]

You're delusional.

And vice versa.

 

[Right Divider]

And vice versa.

Nope. Clete makes perfect sense with perfectly good arguments. You on the other hand... not so much.

 

[Derf]

Nope. Clete makes perfect sense with perfectly good arguments. You on the other hand... not so much.

Nor would I expect you to agree with me over him and your traditional understanding. But hopefully it makes others think a little.

 

[Right Divider]

Nor would I expect you to agree with me over him and your traditional understanding. But hopefully it makes others think a little.

Of course I agree with him over you. He's correct and you are incorrect.

So cute that you seem to think that all "traditional understandings" are incorrect.

It makes others think that you don't know how to think correctly.

 

[Derf]

Of course I agree with him over you. He's correct and you are incorrect.

So cute that you seem to think that all "traditional understandings" are incorrect.

Not all. But some, just like you.

It makes others think that you don't know how to think correctly.

That's a comfort coming from you.

 

[Idolater]

I don't like the phrase "ceasing to exist", but I don't know of a better term. If God says to Adam, "You are dust, and to dust you will return," what else can you make of it. If God putting breath of life into the lump of clay made a "living soul", wouldn't removing it make a lump of clay again?

But the lump of clay still exists, why wouldn't the breath of life continue to exist as well? And if ontologically, you're suggesting that it's somehow literally God in the "breath of life" that gives us our life, then what is the distinction between us and God?

There's no promise of existing in death at that point in scripture. And if we make one up, why? Just to bolster a presupposition? Let's at least try to check out our presuppositions instead of letting them drive our interpretations.

I don't think my position is making anything up.

My point is that if death is assured, then sometimes people are called "dead" before they are actually dead. This corresponds, imo, to what Paul talks about when he says "you were dead in your trespasses and sins." Because of sin, we are assured of death. Then once we believe in Jesus, we are assured of life, i.e., we have eternal life (even though we may die first).

I think you've made your point clear. I just think there is something to life which distinguishes us believers from nonbelievers here and now, and it isn't just because we have a ticket which we will punch at some time in the future, but it changes us today, rn, irl. That is the life and the death which Paul is talking about, at least in these allusions. It's not just that you're dead because you're going to die in your body, but you're dead in another way too, and faith is going to correspond with some categorical or qualitative change in you, and Paul goes on in many places to discuss that this change corresponds to changes in our morals. This is how life manifests itself in us, even before our bodily death and our bodily resurrection happen. That's how I read it anyway.

Is there death that looks different somehow associated with Enoch and Elijah?

Yes. Incorruptible bodies are not affected by the first death, so they need a second kind of death.

I don't know how to describe death in someone who hasn't died (Enoch and Elijah).

I guess I was thinking about assumptions that might have happened after death for some reason ... never mind. Apologies for the distraction.

No. Some souls descend into the sea. That's why both the sea and hell have to "give up the dead".
[Rev 20:13 KJV] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

I thought the sea was a metaphor for Gentile non-Hebrew pagans basically. That's why it was so important that in Heaven there is no sea. So I just figured these are the Gentile non-Hebrew pagan dead, or something like that.

I think we most often think of "souls" as some part of the human, rather than the human himself.

I think usually we don't distinguish between soul or self and body. I don't ever tell someone that I will do something, and that my body will also do it with me. Sometimes, I do say, something like, "I don't want to do it but I'll do it anyway," or something like that.

So in that case, my body is doing something that my ... mind I guess, doesn't prefer, or even approve of perhaps, or at least it's conflicted about my body doing it. But my body does it, and my self or soul or mind doesn't quite endorse it.

When we're thinking, while alive, we don't really wonder about how it's happening, but what about when we're dead? Do we still think? And what is the relationship between how we think here, rn, and when we're dead? Scientists have shown that thinking is a physical, physiological process ---- what does that prove? if anything?

But most of the time, when I feel like I want some blueberries (for a trivial example), I plan to go to the store, to the produce section, and intend to buy some blueberries, and there's zero conflicts and my mind and body act in complete unison. I think this is the commonest experience of people. I could be wrong. But in such a case, when the mind and body act in unison without conflict or dispute, then the concept of some distinction between body and soul seems like it only can lead to confusion, and not clarity.

If the body dies, and the soul (person) descends into hell, what is actually going on? Did Christ, in some spirit form, descend into a spiritual realm? Or was He buried, descending into the grave? Hades (one word the KJV translates as "hell") and "Sheol" (another word the KJV translates as "hell") are both also used to refer to "the grave" in the KJV.

Isn't it, then, your presupposition that there are two aspects of death, the soul and the body, and what that means? But Genesis describes a single death that affects both--that the living soul doesn't exist when the body returns to dust, because the body was part of the soul.

I think 1st Peter 3:19 occurred from Good Friday evening until Easter dawn

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

I don't think this is a presupposition, it's just how I read that passage.

 

[Idolater]

Of course I agree with him over you. He's correct and you are incorrect.

So cute that you seem to think that all "traditional understandings" are incorrect.

It makes others think that you don't know how to think correctly.

All traditional understandings are Catholic.

 

[Clete]

Nor would I expect you to agree with me over him and your traditional understanding. But hopefully it makes others think a little.

Derf, it isn't about agreeing with me over you. This isn't a personality contest! You're "arguments" are OBJECTIVELY faulty and ridiculously so! They really aren't even arguments. They amount to you simply repeating your position. If the way you treat scripture was acceptable, then no doctrine could ever be refuted with scripture! You simply are not allowed to START with some doctrine and then go to the scripture looking for a way to force it to fit. That's what the David Koreshes of the world do. That's the sort of thing you hear from preachers like Creflo Dollar and Joel Olsteen. It's as if you learned how to do theology from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. If you want to understand why your "arguments" aren't convincing anyone, just turn on TBN for a couple of hours and see if you get convinced to send them your money. When you find that you aren't convinced, ask yourself why. Then apply the answer to that question to the way you've been "arguing" on this thread. It's a different topic but the same meathod of doing doctrine. You start with a conclusion, then figure out what premises you need to support that conclusion, then you go to the bible and "find" your premises and say, "See! The bible agrees with me!"

The mere fact that you are willing to allow the idea that simply quoting scripture is question begging is proof positive that you aren't really trying to figure out whether your doctrine is right or wrong but that you love your doctrine more than God's word. And for what? You still haven't, and never will, give anyone any good reason why anyone should want to believe that death equals non-existence. It is not a concept taught in the bible, it has never ever been a doctrine taught by any sect of the Christian church that I've ever heard of and it has no utility in terms of Christian theology or daily practice. It is nothing more than your own personal pet peeve! And based on that, and that alone, we are somehow supposed to accept your reinterpretation of whole passages of scripture, as well as what happened to Christ at Calvary, as valid arguments? Ridiculous!

 

[Derf]

All traditional understandings are Catholic.

catholic, little "c"

 

[Derf]

But the lump of clay still exists, why wouldn't the breath of life continue to exist as well? And if ontologically, you're suggesting that it's somehow literally God in the "breath of life" that gives us our life, then what is the distinction between us and God?

I don't think my position is making anything up.

I think you've made your point clear. I just think there is something to life which distinguishes us believers from nonbelievers here and now, and it isn't just because we have a ticket which we will punch at some time in the future, but it changes us today, rn, irl.

Like having His Spirit in us?
1 John 3:24 KJV — And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

That is the life and the death which Paul is talking about, at least in these allusions. It's not just that you're dead because you're going to die in your body, but you're dead in another way too, and faith is going to correspond with some categorical or qualitative change in you, and Paul goes on in many places to discuss that this change corresponds to changes in our morals. This is how life manifests itself in us, even before our bodily death and our bodily resurrection happen. That's how I read it anyway.

I guess I was thinking about assumptions that might have happened after death for some reason ... never mind. Apologies for the distraction.

No problem.

I thought the sea was a metaphor for Gentile non-Hebrew pagans basically.

If so, then why does this sea of gentiles need to give up the dead that are in it, like Hades (a Greek term for hell)?

That's why it was so important that in Heaven there is no sea. So I just figured these are the Gentile non-Hebrew pagan dead, or something like that.

I think usually we don't distinguish between soul or self and body. I don't ever tell someone that I will do something, and that my body will also do it with me. Sometimes, I do say, something like, "I don't want to do it but I'll do it anyway," or something like that.

So in that case, my body is doing something that my ... mind I guess, doesn't prefer, or even approve of perhaps, or at least it's conflicted about my body doing it. But my body does it, and my self or soul or mind doesn't quite endorse it.

When we're thinking, while alive, we don't really wonder about how it's happening, but what about when we're dead? Do we still think?

Can we think if we don't know anything?
Ecclesiastes 9:5 KJV — For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

And what is the relationship between how we think here, rn, and when we're dead? Scientists have shown that thinking is a physical, physiological process ---- what does that prove? if anything?

But most of the time, when I feel like I want some blueberries (for a trivial example), I plan to go to the store, to the produce section, and intend to buy some blueberries, and there's zero conflicts and my mind and body act in complete unison. I think this is the commonest experience of people. I could be wrong. But in such a case, when the mind and body act in unison without conflict or dispute, then the concept of some distinction between body and soul seems like it only can lead to confusion, and not clarity.

I think 1st Peter 3:19 occurred from Good Friday evening until Easter dawn

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

I don't think this is a presupposition, it's just how I read that passage.

I'll write more later.

 

[Derf]

But the lump of clay still exists, why wouldn't the breath of life continue to exist as well?

The lump of clay doesn't stay in the form of a man. It corrupts. It becomes part of the earth again. The breath goes back to God. I dont know what that breath thing is, but if it is the power of animation, then the power is no longer with the clay, so the clay has no life. If the clay was man before it was given life, then man is no more than a lump of clay after life is removed.

And if ontologically, you're suggesting that it's somehow literally God in the "breath of life" that gives us our life, then what is the distinction between us and God?

I'm not suggesting that God is somehow in the breath, but He gives it, and He can take it away. And it's the thing that makes the clay into "a living soul." I dont see why further distinction from God is necessary.

But the lump of clay still exists, why wouldn't the breath of life continue to exist as well? And if ontologically, you're suggesting that it's somehow literally God in the "breath of life" that gives us our life, then what is the distinction between us and God?

I don't think my position is making anything up.

I think you've made your point clear. I just think there is something to life which distinguishes us believers from nonbelievers here and now, and it isn't just because we have a ticket which we will punch at some time in the future, but it changes us today, rn, irl. That is the life and the death which Paul is talking about, at least in these allusions. It's not just that you're dead because you're going to die in your body, but you're dead in another way too,

Would you describe that other kind of death, and why you think it fits the normal, English definition of death?

and faith is going to correspond with some categorical or qualitative change in you, and Paul goes on in many places to discuss that this change corresponds to changes in our morals. This is how life manifests itself in us, even before our bodily death and our bodily resurrection happen. That's how I read it anyway.

I suggested a reason for the change previously: that we are no longer fearful of death. I can add another: that we are thankful for salvation.

I think usually we don't distinguish between soul or self and body. I don't ever tell someone that I will do something, and that my body will also do it with me. Sometimes, I do say, something like, "I don't want to do it but I'll do it anyway," or something like that.

So in that case, my body is doing something that my ... mind I guess, doesn't prefer, or even approve of perhaps, or at least it's conflicted about my body doing it. But my body does it, and my self or soul or mind doesn't quite endorse it.

When we're thinking, while alive, we don't really wonder about how it's happening, but what about when we're dead? Do we still think? And what is the relationship between how we think here, rn, and when we're dead? Scientists have shown that thinking is a physical, physiological process ---- what does that prove? if anything?

But most of the time, when I feel like I want some blueberries (for a trivial example), I plan to go to the store, to the produce section, and intend to buy some blueberries, and there's zero conflicts and my mind and body act in complete unison. I think this is the commonest experience of people. I could be wrong. But in such a case, when the mind and body act in unison without conflict or dispute, then the concept of some distinction between body and soul seems like it only can lead to confusion, and not clarity.

I think we're in agreement here, but if our "soul" is anything in the traditional view, it should be in control of our body. In other words, we are fully culpable for our sins, mind and body, before salvation. After, however, there's something added...the new man/new nature. The old man, despite being passed away, still seems to have some sway in our decisions, according to Paul, such that it must be "put away" even though it is dead "crucified with Christ." At some point, the old man is completely gone, occurring at the death of the body. Your points about mind/soul and body are valid here. It isnt just our body that comprises the old man, but some part of our mind that still wants to do wrong, too.

This is all resolved at physical death, which makes me think the earlier death was a metaphorical or symbolic one, looking forward to the completely new man, just like the Spirit's filling is an earnest of that time...after resurrection.

I think 1st Peter 3:19 occurred from Good Friday evening until Easter dawn

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Which spirits?

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

So Christ didn't preach to the spirits of the old testament saints?

I don't think this is a presupposition, it's just how I read that passage.

More later.

 

[Derf]

I don't think my position is making anything up.

This was about whether death meant something more in Gen 3 than just returning to the dust. If you put all other scripture from your mind and just read Gen 2 and 3, do you get some other kind of death?

What kind, and what scripture?

I don't think this is a presupposition, it's just how I read that passage.

And from that passage, 1Per 3:19, you read that Jesus, while He was dead, went into hell and preached to all the people who had died, between creation and Jesus' death, in a righteous enough condition to be in Abraham's bosom?

If so, can you show me where you get those things from the text? If not, can you tell me how you know it isnt being read with presuppositions?

(I think I'm finished with my response.)

 

[Hoping]

This was about whether death meant something more in Gen 3 than just returning to the dust. If you put all other scripture from your mind and just read Gen 2 and 3, do you get some other kind of death?

What kind, and what scripture?

And from that passage, 1Per 3:19, you read that Jesus, while He was dead, went into hell and preached to all the people who had died, between creation and Jesus' death, in a righteous enough condition to be in Abraham's bosom?

If so, can you show me where you get those things from the text? If not, can you tell me how you know it isnt being read with presuppositions?

(I think I'm finished with my response.)

Seeing as you are finished, lets talk about the real interp' of1 Peter 3:19.
18"... being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient,..."

The subject there is the Spirit, by which he had previously preached to the now long dead.
He didn't do it during the three days He was dead.
He did it while they were still alive.
1 Peter 1:10-11..."Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

The Spirit of Christ taught the future coming of Christ through the prophets of the past, in the past.

 

[Derf]

Seeing as you are finished, lets talk about the real interp' of1 Peter 3:19.
18"... being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient,..."

The subject there is the Spirit, by which he had previously preached to the now long dead.
He didn't do it during the three days He was dead.
He did it while they were still alive.
1 Peter 1:10-11..."Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

The Spirit of Christ taught the future coming of Christ through the prophets of the past, in the past.

That's a good explanation, though I'm not sure it handles the spirits in prison because of what happened with the flood.

 

[Hoping]

That's a good explanation, though I'm not sure it handles the spirits in prison because of what happened with the flood.

The "spirits of the prisoners" are in their graves.
They rejected the teachings of the prophets who taught with the Spirit of Christ, during their lives, including Noah.

 

[Derf]

The "spirits of the prisoners" are in their graves.
They rejected the teachings of the prophets who taught with the Spirit of Christ, during their lives, including Noah.

That could be, but it leaves us to assume it somehow applied to everone after the flood, rather than speaking about some group that is different. I think it's probably talking about the angels that left their first estate, and are now in chains under darkness reserved for judgment, Jude 6

 

[Hoping]

That could be, but it leaves us to assume it somehow applied to everyone after the flood,

It does apply to everyone taught by the prophets after the flood...who is in a grave-prison.

rather than speaking about some group that is different. I think it's probably talking about the angels that left their first estate, and are now in chains under darkness reserved for judgment, Jude 6

Why would the Spirit of Jesus teach fallen angels ?
They have no hope of a resurrection at the return of Christ.
For that matter, nobody has any chance of suddenly "getting right" with God after their death.
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man taught us that.