Is "soul sleep" a Scriptural doctrine?

[genuineoriginal]

changing the location of the punctuation would not be a properly accurate translation. And I'll say this also, one should NEVER start altering the bible text to make it "say what it should have said." That is a dangerous slippery slope.

The Bible has been split into verses and split with punctuation according to how the translators understood the text through the filter of their own cultural biases.
These splits can change the original message of the writer into a different message, leading to strange doctrines (doctrines the writers did not have in mind).
Some of these strange doctrines can lead a person to be blind to some of the key messages of the Bible.

If someone is determined to twist a scripture backwards and make it contradict the rest of the bible, such will always find a way. Changing the text to make it appear to say what you want or arguing against the translation is not a legitimate method. Stay true and simply insist that the scripture be read properly as it is already written, and let those that refuse to accept the scripture as it is written be in the wrong.

If the translation is flawed, why accept it?

Those that believe the bible (including Christ's words to the Sadducee) already have had it iterated dozens of times that the dead await the resurrection without knowledge and in silence, and that there is no life without benefit of that resurrection.

True.

 

[Rosenritter]

The Bible has been split into verses and split with punctuation according to how the translators understood the text through the filter of their own cultural biases. These splits can change the original message of the writer into a different message, leading to strange doctrines (doctrines the writers did not have in mind). Some of these strange doctrines can lead a person to be blind to some of the key messages of the Bible.

If the translation is flawed, why accept it?

True.

As for the division of the Bible into chapters and verse, I accept these elements of our scripture as divisions that God intended for his word, on a similar basis as I accept the inclusion of the scripture and the exclusion of extra-biblical writings, such as the Book of Jasher or the Gospel of Thomas.

The King James translation provided as well as any of the translations of the Reformation have correct grammar and punctuation in this passage. The confusion arises where some recent yet popular translations have subtlety altered the words... although leaving the punctuation intact. When the translation is without flaw, why would we seek to change it?

 

[glorydaz]

Perhaps if you learned to diagram a sentence you'd understand the grammar. But given that you'll lie about Christ's words in the gospels I don't think that intellectual ability is the issue. It's a spiritual problem of pride. If you won't hold yourself to common standards of honesty there's no point in going through motions with someone that is only pretending. I'll leave you alone and you may continue to believe whatever it is you wish.

I know how to diagram sentences quite well. Sentence diagraming was my gift in school. :banana:

I'm not lying about Christ's words in the gospels. It's too bad you think so highly or yourself and your soul sleep nonsense that you twist what Jesus said to fit your own thinking.

Rather, you lack the basic spiritual discernment to understand what it means that God is the God of the living and not the dead. You do err....exactly as Jesus told the Jews who were seeking to trap Him.

 

[glorydaz]

I don't agree with substituting a paraphrase in an attempt to combat ignorance. A lack of understanding can be cured in an honest individual.

You don't want to combat your own ignorance. You are trying to convince people that the cult belief of soul sleep is true. Just be honest and admit it. I'll be more than happy to give you another chance.

 

[glorydaz]

Why? I don't talk to visions.

"Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, 'Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.'" (Matthew 17:9)

You don't talk to visions? Jesus did. :chuckle:

We don't have to go far in the Bible to show you how foolish that is. Visions are how those in the spiritual realm appear to us. Talk to them? You bet.

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Genesis 46:2 And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said, Here am I.

Numbers 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

Numbers 24:4 He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open:​

The Risen Lord appeared as a "vision" and spoke to men. They spoke back. Angels (visions) appeared to the women at the Lord's place of burial. They spoke, and the women bowed to them.

Acts 9:10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

Luke 24:4-5 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: 5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

Luke 24:23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.​

 

[glorydaz]

Wow, what the gospels repeats three times in no uncertain language you come out and say the opposite, and then have the brazenness to say "I believe what is said in the Gospels." Not enough honesty to overcome your ego to admit you were wrong in that statement. Where Jesus says "as touching the dead, that they rise" you say Jesus was wrong in all three accounts and that he was not speaking of the resurrection of the dead.

You are clearly deluded.

He was speaking of the dead being alive. Just as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive though their bodies were in the grave. If you weren't so stubborn and set in your error, you might be able to see exactly what our Lord was saying.

 

[glorydaz]

Wow, what the gospels repeats three times in no uncertain language you come out and say the opposite, and then have the brazenness to say "I believe what is said in the Gospels." Not enough honesty to overcome your ego to admit you were wrong in that statement. Where Jesus says "as touching the dead, that they rise" you say Jesus was wrong in all three accounts and that he was not speaking of the resurrection of the dead.

You are clearly deluded.

One more thing....

Concerning the Gospel accounts of God being the God of the living...... My point to Rosenritter was that the scope was larger than he/she claims so adamantly, as it concerns the whole of where the Sadducees erred. The fact that there is a parenthetical concerning their belief about the resurrection does not mean they were even asking about the resurrection itself. They were questioning the very afterlife, and whose wife the woman would be. Note the parenthetical...

Mark 12:18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,​

Rosenritter wants it to be only about the resurrection from the dead which was clearly not true as proven by our Lord's response. This is why her explanation of God being the God of the living is filled with error.

I found this little tidbit concerning these verses which addresses exactly what I said.

They were also disliked because of their theology. The Sadducees were extreme literalists in their interpretation of Scripture. All they accepted as truly authoritative was the Pentateuch, or the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. They believed that one could not base doctrine on what the prophets or the other Old Testament writers said. The doctrine that caused them the most trouble with the people was their denial of all things supernatural.

They believed in the existence of God, but they rejected everything else that was of a supernatural nature. They did not believe in demons, angels or the devil, they did not believe in miracles. They did not believe in Heaven or Hell. They did not believe in a future judgment. They did not believe in life after death, nor did they believe in the resurrection of the dead. That’s why they were “Sad-you-see”. They could not find these doctrines in their reading of the Pentateuch, so they rejected them out of hand.

http://www.sermonnotebook.org/mark/Mark 59 - Mark 12_18-27.htm​

It's very important to pay attention to who was being addressed. Their denial of the resurrection of the dead was only a minor part of their error. They did not believe in the spiritual realm at all....including angels and heaven and hell. This is critical when reading this portion of scripture. Which is why, I might add, that Jesus made such a point of saying the God of Abraham etc. was the God of the LIVING not the dead.

Rosenritter is exactly like the Sadducees in her ignorance of the spiritual realm. This could be addressed to him/her.

Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?​

 

[Rosenritter]

So besides the scripture saying that he did actually die, you haven't answered the problem that you don't believe Jesus actually bore the full penalty for our sins. If you don't understand what I mean by this, I will explain what you have stated you believe is the penalty of sin, compared to what I have stated I believe is the penalty of sin.

You need to stop doing this. I can't help it if you misread what I've stated. Nor can I help it if it's beyond your ability to understand. Try to state your questions without these ridiculous assumptions.

That is not a ridiculous assumption. If you do not think that assessment is correct, would you please state what you believe the full penalty for our sins is, if there was no forgiveness and no sacrifice to bear our transgressions?

 

[Rosenritter]

I know how to diagram sentences quite well. Sentence diagraming was my gift in school. :banana:

I'm not lying about Christ's words in the gospels. ...

I apologize for saying you were lying. I was so taken back by your statement that "Jesus wasn't attempting to prove the resurrection' that I wasn't sure what to think. I want to make sure I understand what you mean and why here:

Mark 12:26 KJV
(26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Those boldfaced words there, "And as touching the dead, that they rise" ... when speaking to an audience that denied the resurrection and had just attempted to mock the resurrection, how can that phrase "And as touching the dead, that they rise" be interpreted in any manner other than a statement than to prove the resurrection?

In addition to William Tyndale (bible translator and martyr) discussed previously, let's let a few others weigh in here. As I have access to a few commentaries whose overall belief of the state of the dead matches yours, I bring these to emphasize that even a "hostile witness" in interpretation admits that Christ's statement clearly said that he was about to prove the resurrection of the dead.

John Gill - Mar 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise,.... For the proof of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead,
Matthew Hebrew - Mark 12:26 Upon the whole matter, he concludes, Ye therefore do greatly err. Those that deny the resurrection, greatly err, and ought to be told so.
Albert Barnes: Mat_22:31, Mat_22:32 As touching ... - That is, in proof that the dead are raised.

(and because the notes sometimes are a little different on the parallel passages...)

John Gill - Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead,.... In proof of that doctrine, and which will greatly serve to confirm and establish it, and that it may appear that the dead are, or will be raised, and to put it out of all doubt,
Matthew Henry - Mat 22:31 - Christ's argument to confirm this great truth of the resurrection and a future state; the matters being of great concern, he did not think it enough (as in some other disputes) to discover the fallacy and sophistry of the objection, but backed the truth with a solid argument; for Christ brings forth judgment to truth as well as victory, and enables his followers to give a reason of the hope that is in them. Now observe,

I don't understand how you can possibly diagram that phrase in that context to make it say anything different, to where you could say "Jesus wasn't attempting to prove the resurrection."

 

[glorydaz]

That is not a ridiculous assumption. If you do not think that assessment is correct, would you please state what you believe the full penalty for our sins is, if there was no forgiveness and no sacrifice to bear our transgressions?

I'm not sure where your confusion is. If it's about my statement that Jesus died in the flesh, then you should agree with me. You seem to understand that Jesus was both God and man.

And how you came up with idea that I don't believe Jesus paid the full penalty for our sins or that there is no forgiveness for our sins, I have no clue. Perhaps if you explained where you're getting that idea, I'd be able to figure out what you're asking.

 

[glorydaz]

I apologize for saying you were lying. I was so taken back by your statement that "Jesus wasn't attempting to prove the resurrection' that I wasn't sure what to think. I want to make sure I understand what you mean and why here:

Mark 12:26 KJV
(26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Let's look at what the Sadducees actually asked.

Luke 12:19-25 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. 21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. 22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. 23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.​

Jesus was explaining that death is not what they think at all.... that there will be no such passions or need of marriage in the spiritual world. He is actually talking about the state of the dead...what it will be like after we go to the grave. We don't stay there. We enter the spiritual realm. "Have you not read," Exodus 3:6, 3:16, He says, they are ignorant of those very scriptures they professed to hold sacred. Those words are what I was referring to. God IS THE GOD of the LIVING, and those men named are LIVING. Your argument was based on those very words and you claimed Abraham, etc. were not LIVING.

 

[glorydaz]

I apologize for saying you were lying.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am attempting to deceive no one. My goal is to support the statement that God is the God of the living and not the dead.

Those boldfaced words there, "And as touching the dead, that they rise" ... when speaking to an audience that denied the resurrection and had just attempted to mock the resurrection, how can that phrase "And as touching the dead, that they rise" be interpreted in any manner other than a statement than to prove the resurrection?

I don't agree they were attempting to mock the resurrection. They were mocking the idea of an afterlife. They were mocking the idea of heaven.

I don't understand how you can possibly diagram that phrase in that context to make it say anything different, to where you could say "Jesus wasn't attempting to prove the resurrection."

I don't understand how you can miss the point of the entire text. That God is the God of the living and not the dead. That Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are were living when Moses spoke to God.

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm not sure where your confusion is. If it's about my statement that Jesus died in the flesh, then you should agree with me. You seem to understand that Jesus was both God and man.

And how you came up with idea that I don't believe Jesus paid the full penalty for our sins or that there is no forgiveness for our sins, I have no clue. Perhaps if you explained where you're getting that idea, I'd be able to figure out what you're asking.

It sounded like you just stated that full penalty for our sins is to die in the flesh. If this is what you mean then I would fully agree, but this agreement would be possible for me because I have said there is no other life for humanity outside of the flesh, unless we are changed and given immortality.

But unless you have changed your understanding of the nature of death and man, I suspect you believe that the wages of sin are something more than the death and total destruction of our physical form, the dissolution of our soul and spirit into nothingness, a lack of being. If you do believe there is something more, I am trying to get you to come out and say so.

Did Jesus pay the full penalty for our sins through his death? How you can answer depends on what you believe the full penalty actually is. If the dead are not really dead but still alive and if the penalty for sins is never-ending torment and suffering, Jesus certainly did not endure never-ending torment and suffering, and as such he couldn't possibly have paid the full penalty for any particular sinner.

I think I've beat this horse into the ground. Do you understand my question now? It wasn't meant as an accusation, but rather to demonstrate that you are likely holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time. When two items contradict only one can actually be true, and the other needs reconsideration.

 

[Rosenritter]

Let's look at what the Sadducees actually asked.

Luke 12:19-25 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. 21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. 22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. 23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.​

Jesus was explaining that death is not what they think at all.... that there will be no such passions or need of marriage in the spiritual world. He is actually talking about the state of the dead...what it will be like after we go to the grave.

Spoiler

We don't stay there. We enter the spiritual realm. "Have you not read," Exodus 3:6, 3:16, He says, they are ignorant of those very scriptures they professed to hold sacred. Those words are what I was referring to. God IS THE GOD of the LIVING, and those men named are LIVING. Your argument was based on those very words and you claimed Abraham, etc. were not LIVING.

Glory, Jesus didn't give an answer of what would happen to the men and the one wife while they were dead. He only answered as to their state in the resurrection. Your explanation would require an entirely different text than what we are told happened. Read this again (please!) because your mind seems to be substituting its own meaning in spite of what the words say...

Question: "In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife."

Answer: "Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."

That's the same text you supplied above. Read it again:

FOR WHEN THEY SHALL RISE FROM THE DEAD....
... THEY NEITHER MARRY NOR ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE;
... BUT ARE AS THE ANGELS WHICH ARE IN HEAVEN.

Absolutely nothing about anything before a resurrection was said here at all. How did you manage to read that as if it said "BEFORE they rise from the dead?"

 

[Rosenritter]

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am attempting to deceive no one. My goal is to support the statement that God is the God of the living and not the dead.

I don't agree they were attempting to mock the resurrection. They were mocking the idea of an afterlife. They were mocking the idea of heaven.

I don't understand how you can miss the point of the entire text. That God is the God of the living and not the dead. That Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are were living when Moses spoke to God.

If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were living when God spoke to Moses, then Jesus could not have used "I am the God of Abraham..." to prove that Abraham would be resurrected.

Glory, try Googling "Saduccees mock the resurrection" and I think it will become apparent that everyone almost universally understands that the Sadducees were mocking the resurrection in that passage. This is not a fringe interpretation, it is the common accepted understanding by casual reader and bible student and commentator alike.

Matthew 22:23-33 - The Sadducees question Jesus: Background on ...
jesusisgod316.blogspot.com/2014/06/matthew-2223-33-sadducees-question.html
Jun 26, 2014 - The Sadducees attempt to mock Jesus with the idea of the resurrection. 1. Now there were with us seven brothers: The Sadducees asked Jesus ..

The Sadducees and the Resurrection - The Gift of Revelation
www.the-gift-of-revelation.com/resurrection-sadducees.html
Those who experience the resurrection from the dead are more like the ... The Sadducees had thought to subject Jesus to the withering influence of ridicule, ...

Commentator Adam Clarke on Matthew 22:23 (parallel gospel account):
The same day - Malice is ever active; let it be defeated ever so often, it returns to the charge. Jesus and his Gospel give no quarter to vice; the vicious will give no quarter to him or it. The Sadducees - For an account of these see on Mat_16:1 (note).

Commentator John Gill on Matthew 22:23 (parallel gospel account):
Mat 22:23 These understanding that the former had not succeeded, came with a knotty question, with which they had often puzzled the Pharisees, and hoped they should nonplus Christ with it, showing the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection, an article which they denied; as it follows,

You say that "I don't understand how you can miss the point of the entire text." These are also my thoughts for you, so perhaps we may at least be sympathetic to each other's frustration here. If you feel frustrated then you also know how I feel. But I changed my mind on giving up so I am going to keep trying.

The entire point is the resurrection of the dead. The Saduccees asked their question about the resurrection, Christ answers their question only with relation to the resurrection, and then proceeds to provide one statement only as a proof of the resurrection. It's resurrection, resurrection, and resurrection through and through.

 

[glorydaz]

It sounded like you just stated that full penalty for our sins is to die in the flesh. If this is what you mean then I would fully agree, but this agreement would be possible for me because I have said there is no other life for humanity outside of the flesh, unless we are changed and given immortality.

Changed? What do you mean by "changed"? If you mean what Paul does here, then I'd agree with you. I don't think that's what you mean, though, is it?

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

Jesus came to obey the law perfectly in the flesh. That the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us......who walk not after the flesh. We don't have to leave this world to have that accomplished in us.

But unless you have changed your understanding of the nature of death and man, I suspect you believe that the wages of sin are something more than the death and total destruction of our physical form, the dissolution of our soul and spirit into nothingness, a lack of being. If you do believe there is something more, I am trying to get you to come out and say so.

You're trying to get me to come out and say so? Seriously? I'm saying what I've always said. Man is more than just a body of flesh. I know, and am fully persuaded that when I am absent from this body of flesh, I will be present with the Lord.

Did Jesus pay the full penalty for our sins through his death? How you can answer depends on what you believe the full penalty actually is. If the dead are not really dead but still alive and if the penalty for sins is never-ending torment and suffering, Jesus certainly did not endure never-ending torment and suffering, and as such he couldn't possibly have paid the full penalty for any particular sinner.

AH, I see. You're worried about those who may suffer in hell for all eternity. The opposite, of course is eternal life. AND, there is a judgment.

As far as the full payment. The blood was shed, but it must be applied by faith in order for it to be effectual.

Romans 5:8-9 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.​

I think I've beat this horse into the ground. Do you understand my question now? It wasn't meant as an accusation, but rather to demonstrate that you are likely holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time. When two items contradict only one can actually be true, and the other needs reconsideration.

Hmmm. Could it possibly be that you are the one with contradictory beliefs?

Let's say there is a prison (SIN) that we all enter when we choose sin.
When Christ died on the cross, the prison door was opened. (Grace)
God's enmity with man is healed.
Those who believe...they hear the lock being turned... walk freely out into eternal life.
Those who refuse to believe stay locked in a prison cell with an open door.

So, jump on that dead horse and ride, or let it lay there and draw flies.
Or...see what else you can come up with.

 

[glorydaz]

Glory, Jesus didn't give an answer of what would happen to the men and the one wife while they were dead. He only answered as to their state in the resurrection. Your explanation would require an entirely different text than what we are told happened. Read this again (please!) because your mind seems to be substituting its own meaning in spite of what the words say...

Question: "In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife."

Answer: "Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."

That's the same text you supplied above. Read it again:

FOR WHEN THEY SHALL RISE FROM THE DEAD....
... THEY NEITHER MARRY NOR ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE;
... BUT ARE AS THE ANGELS WHICH ARE IN HEAVEN.

Absolutely nothing about anything before a resurrection was said here at all. How did you manage to read that as if it said "BEFORE they rise from the dead?"

The whole idea of a resurrection is referring to the afterlife....the spiritual realm. I know the aside about the Sadducees not believing in the resurrection has caused you to focus solely on that. But of course they were asking about the so-called life after death, and heaven, and what the law had said about marriage in heaven. Jesus even mentions marriage in His answer.

Here we see it spelled out. They didn't believe in the resurrection, or angels, nor spirit. You want to focus on the resurrection as if that means Abraham etc. were among the "dead" instead of the living. Yet here we see Paul is defending His interaction with the RISEN LORD as he'd met him on the road to Damascus. Are you claiming our Lord was dead when He spoke to Paul? There's the word resurrection just like before.

Acts 23:7-9 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. 9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.​

 

[glorydaz]

If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were living when God spoke to Moses, then Jesus could not have used "I am the God of Abraham..." to prove that Abraham would be resurrected.

Jesus was proving that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were LIVING....even though they cannot be seen with the human eye. He didn't say they will be living after the resurrection. He didn't say they were dead and would be resurrected into life. He said what He said clearly and distinctly. They had been dead (physically) for over 300 years yet God is their God because they are living.

Of course if you recognized Luke 16 as Jesus speaking truth about the afterlife, you'd see this for yourself.

Luke 16:25-26 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. 26 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.​

Glory, try Googling "Saduccees mock the resurrection" and I think it will become apparent that everyone almost universally understands that the Sadducees were mocking the resurrection in that passage. This is not a fringe interpretation, it is the common accepted understanding by casual reader and bible student and commentator alike.

I've googled enough. Everyone universally understands that the Sadducees didn't believe a whole list of things that can be summed up under the "resurrection". It refers to the afterlife....which they didn't believe in. They didn't believe in the afterlife of heaven and hell. They didn't believe in the spiritual realm at all.

The entire point is the resurrection of the dead. The Saduccees asked their question about the resurrection, Christ answers their question only with relation to the resurrection, and then proceeds to provide one statement only as a proof of the resurrection. It's resurrection, resurrection, and resurrection through and through.

No, it was NOT only with relation to the resurrection, angels, and heaven. It was in relation to Abraham etc. being among the LIVING at the time Moses was alive. In fact, that is the point you seem to want to overlook. The God of the LIVING.

Exodus 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.​

Speaking of Moses.

Mark 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.​

 

[Rosenritter]

Changed? What do you mean by "changed"? If you mean what Paul does here, then I'd agree with you. I don't think that's what you mean, though, is it?

Sorry, I thought you would automatically recognize the reference to "changed." It's a very specific term with reserved meaning as Paul speaks to the Corinthians about immortality through the resurrection of the dead. The term means "to put on immortality."

1 Corinthians 15:51-53 KJV
(51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

I don't think you're going to find a passage more applicable concerning when we put on immortality with regard to being changed.

Jesus came to obey the law perfectly in the flesh. That the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us......who walk not after the flesh. We don't have to leave this world to have that accomplished in us.

I disagree your the first sentence above in bold. I think you are reciting what other people have said, rather than taking that directly from scripture. I am not disputing that Jesus did obey the law perfectly but that wasn't the reason why he came. I cannot recall there being a direct statement that "he came to obey the law" but Jesus did directly say that he came for other reason(s).

John 10:10 KJV
(10) The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

Luke 4:18-19 KJV
(18) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
(19) To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

John 9:39 KJV
(39) And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

John 12:46-47 KJV
(46) I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
(47) And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 12:32-33 KJV
(32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
(33) This he said, signifying what death he should die.

None of those sound like they are alternate terms for "I came to obey the law perfectly." Did Jesus obey the law perfectly? Yes, but that wasn't the reason why he came... or at least I cannot think of a passage that would make that direct statement. Did you have one in mind?

You're trying to get me to come out and say so? Seriously? I'm saying what I've always said. Man is more than just a body of flesh. I know, and am fully persuaded that when I am absent from this body of flesh, I will be present with the Lord.

AH, I see. You're worried about those who may suffer in hell for all eternity. The opposite, of course is eternal life. AND, there is a judgment.

No, not quite correct Glory. The opposite of life is not suffering as you imply, but rather the absence of life. Therefore, the opposite of eternal life is an eternal destruction to a state of non-life, not an eternal life of suffering or torment.

And yes, the point is that Jesus did not suffer an unending death-life of torment. If that truly is the full penalty for sin, then Jesus did not pay that price. But if the full wages of sin is death (I think there's a scripture to that effect somewhere) then Jesus did pay that price.

As far as the full payment. The blood was shed, but it must be applied by faith in order for it to be effectual.

Hmmm. Could it possibly be that you are the one with contradictory beliefs?

We have no disagreement in that we must receive Christ in faith unto his blood for salvation. The point is that under your definition of the "full penalty of sin" Christ did not pay the full penalty. Under my understanding "the wages of sin is death" Romans 6:23 he did pay the full penalty in his blood.

Let's say there is a prison (SIN) that we all enter when we choose sin.
When Christ died on the cross, the prison door was opened. (Grace)
God's enmity with man is healed.
Those who believe...they hear the lock being turned... walk freely out into eternal life.
Those who refuse to believe stay locked in a prison cell with an open door.

All of that has no bearing on the point in question: did Jesus die on the cross for our transgressions to pay the full penalty of our transgressions, or does it say that he was tormented after the cross for an eternity to bear the full penalty of our sin? Are the wages for sin death? Or an eternal life in torment? What does the scripture actually say Glory?

Colossians 1:20 KJV(20) And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Hebrews 12:2 KJV
(2) Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

How did we drift here? Because your presumption that man does not ever really die also bears with it the problem (even besides others) that God becomes the agent of the preservation of all evil for eternity. But if death is truly death, then the resurrection has meaning, and when he says he will destroy the wicked and all things will be made new it also means that this will be fulfilled most literally.

 

[glorydaz]

Sorry, I thought you would automatically recognize the reference to "changed." It's a very specific term with reserved meaning as Paul speaks to the Corinthians about immortality through the resurrection of the dead. The term means "to put on immortality."

1 Corinthians 15:51-53 KJV
(51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

I don't think you're going to find a passage more applicable concerning when we put on immortality with regard to being changed.

I did recognize it, but you should be able to see Paul is talking about those who are not in the grave, but will be "changed" at the Lord's coming. The RESURRECTION refers to the body, but Paul then turns to the mystery of our being changed while still in the body.

I disagree your the first sentence above in bold. I think you are reciting what other people have said, rather than taking that directly from scripture. I am not disputing that Jesus did obey the law perfectly but that wasn't the reason why he came. I cannot recall there being a direct statement that "he came to obey the law" but Jesus did directly say that he came for other reason(s).

I'm pretty sure I was referring to Paul's teaching...not what Jesus said Himself, nor was I "reciting what other people have said". I was simply trying to explain to you what Paul was saying in that portion of Romans 8. Paul refers to the same thing many many times. Here's just one example. Point of fact - Jesus could not be without sin unless He kept the law.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.​

Spoiler

John 10:10 KJV
(10) The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

Luke 4:18-19 KJV
(18) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
(19) To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

John 9:39 KJV
(39) And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

John 12:46-47 KJV
(46) I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
(47) And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 12:32-33 KJV
(32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
(33) This he said, signifying what death he should die.

None of those sound like they are alternate terms for "I came to obey the law perfectly." Did Jesus obey the law perfectly? Yes, but that wasn't the reason why he came... or at least I cannot think of a passage that would make that direct statement. Did you have one in mind?

Really? So, do you think if Jesus hadn't kept the law perfectly, it wouldn't have mattered? I'd be interested to hear how that would work out.

I'll have to deal with the remainder of your post separately. This one is too long already.