glorydaz
Well-known member
Don't forget the flood. If you're saying sea means those who were drowned.
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
Don't forget the flood. If you're saying sea means those who were drowned.
Derf
Well-known member
I think so, too, though the prospect is uncomfortable for OSAS proponents for one reason, and closed theists for another. In Exodus and Rev 3, when taken alone, it always seems to be that the act of blotting out coincides with (and thus is a metaphor for) the act of causing them to die, in my mind. It's only when I look at Rev 20:12,15, Rev 17:8, and the like, that there's a hint of an actual book that needs to be referenced to decide whom to kill (2nd death) and whom not to, as well as the idea that the names were written in permanently a long time ago (which is uncomfortable for open theists).
(btw, I altered some of your references to make the popups work)
I think the fact that it might have an end is of little consolation, if the torment continues for a long time. Nor does it help your argument that the people and Satan are consumed like normal flesh and normal fire, if the consumption takes an inordinate amount of time compared to how fire works on flesh today. Makes it seem like either 1. it's not a normal fire, or 2. they aren't made of normal flesh. Or maybe both.
I have a hard time seeing how the heavens can be burnt up and much of the earth, perhaps, in fervent heat (which I think is greater heat than normal heat from normal fire), but the bodies aren't fully burned away?
That's why I mentioned my exercise of chronology with Evil.Eye (here). The text for those several chapters doesn't really allow for jumping back and forth much. If it's not chronological, then Satan is thrown into the fire for ever and ever before he is bound for a thousand years and then loosed, or some such nonsense.
So, again, if the day and night continue for much time at all, then can we really treat the fire as real fire and the flesh as real flesh?
This is a new wrinkle. You think the beast and false prophet (and/or those they represent) are consumed by fire, the same lake of fire that consumes permanently in Rev 20:15, but then they are resurrected and judged again, possibly with the same fate, but maybe they are repentant?
What then is the difference? seems like the possibility for more resurrections would be endless, if the lake of fire, whatever it is, doesn't have to be permanent. i thought that was the whole argument for annihilation--that it was a final judgment with never-ending death as a consequence?
Does God then just resurrect people every so often when He feels the need to torment somebody, re-judge them, and re-destroy them? Maybe that's how annihilationists can get around the idea that the more heinous offenders seem to be left off easy by just being tossed into the fire once and consumed quickly like the least offenders.
Rosenritter
New member
I think you're misunderstanding me just a little. This is much simpler than you're making it out to be. Just a couple clarifications:
1) There's no need to console the devil. He has been actively working to destroy and corrupt mankind from the beginning. The torment of judgment is an inevitable consequence that would be impossible to avoid. Besides,it does not say that the devil is tormented by fire, I see where he is thrown into the fire and tormented. I don't think the fire torments the devil directly, but rather what the fire is destroying (the chaff, the wicked, his seed) that constitutes the torment.
2) The amount of time needed for consumption by fire is irrelevant. Even if it took a couple hours to reduce a corpse to ash, you can be assured that the person themselves perished long before that.
Additionally, there's no need to think that this fire works in any differently than today. I acknowledge that the devil will have to be changed so that he can be destroyed by fire, but unless this was at the end of judgment, how would the kings of the earth be able to see him brought low (as told in Ezekiel and Isaiah?)
I imagine that even the weapons used by the world against Jesus when he returns will burnt up the elements and heavens in fervent heat. Have you seen what single megaton weapons used long ago do to cities? Regardless, the corpses you're referring to aren't even there to be burnt up until after the judgment, which is 1000+ years later. No, they don't have any special surviving power.
Regardless of the destruction that happens as a consequence of Christ's return, there's going to have to be a rebuilding for there to be anything to rule over for the new thousand years. Prophecies speak of animals that are no longer vicious, "the child shall die one hundred years old" and the like. That hasn't happened yet, therefore that must be future.
Yes. The reason for the old world to even persist that point is for the reason of the judgment. If you are really judging everyone that ever lived, that judgment is going to take a long time. The fire persists during that time because it is continually being given more things to burn, not because the original fuel never burns up.
Let's suppose for a moment that were a member of the military. Perhaps you were serving part of mandatory military service of South Korea or Switzerland, maybe you were drafted into the army due to a declared national crisis, maybe you were a career officer. When your army attacks Jesus Christ God Almighty returning to the earth, you are part of that beast and false prophet and its armies that will be counter-destroyed.
It isn't personal, this isn't the final judgment, and God has destroyed people by fire before. (2 Kings 1:10-12, Luke 9:54). You'd get the same benefit of judgment that anyone else would when they are raised. God can raise people destroyed by fire, no matter where they were destroyed, or how hot the fire was. The only thing that matters is IF he will raise those dead. There's nothing special about the location or the fire itself.
Nothing mystical about the fire. God could have chosen acid or feeding the bodies to fishes or even winking them out of existence, but fire is the fitting symbol for the the finality of the act, something that everyone on earth can relate to. and it isn't as if anyone else has the ability to resurrect the dead again.
I think that the saints that understand love as God is love wouldn't desire that the dead be restored multiple times for the purpose of suffering. If they are truly unrepentant, then once they are finally gone for good, that is sufficient.
I appreciate that you are taking the time to ask questions. Even if one were to disagree, it's a good idea to understand what one is disagreeing with. Perhaps too often people argue out of reflex.
1) There's no need to console the devil. He has been actively working to destroy and corrupt mankind from the beginning. The torment of judgment is an inevitable consequence that would be impossible to avoid. Besides,it does not say that the devil is tormented by fire, I see where he is thrown into the fire and tormented. I don't think the fire torments the devil directly, but rather what the fire is destroying (the chaff, the wicked, his seed) that constitutes the torment.
2) The amount of time needed for consumption by fire is irrelevant. Even if it took a couple hours to reduce a corpse to ash, you can be assured that the person themselves perished long before that.
Additionally, there's no need to think that this fire works in any differently than today. I acknowledge that the devil will have to be changed so that he can be destroyed by fire, but unless this was at the end of judgment, how would the kings of the earth be able to see him brought low (as told in Ezekiel and Isaiah?)
I imagine that even the weapons used by the world against Jesus when he returns will burnt up the elements and heavens in fervent heat. Have you seen what single megaton weapons used long ago do to cities? Regardless, the corpses you're referring to aren't even there to be burnt up until after the judgment, which is 1000+ years later. No, they don't have any special surviving power.
Regardless of the destruction that happens as a consequence of Christ's return, there's going to have to be a rebuilding for there to be anything to rule over for the new thousand years. Prophecies speak of animals that are no longer vicious, "the child shall die one hundred years old" and the like. That hasn't happened yet, therefore that must be future.
Yes. The reason for the old world to even persist that point is for the reason of the judgment. If you are really judging everyone that ever lived, that judgment is going to take a long time. The fire persists during that time because it is continually being given more things to burn, not because the original fuel never burns up.
Let's suppose for a moment that were a member of the military. Perhaps you were serving part of mandatory military service of South Korea or Switzerland, maybe you were drafted into the army due to a declared national crisis, maybe you were a career officer. When your army attacks Jesus Christ God Almighty returning to the earth, you are part of that beast and false prophet and its armies that will be counter-destroyed.
It isn't personal, this isn't the final judgment, and God has destroyed people by fire before. (2 Kings 1:10-12, Luke 9:54). You'd get the same benefit of judgment that anyone else would when they are raised. God can raise people destroyed by fire, no matter where they were destroyed, or how hot the fire was. The only thing that matters is IF he will raise those dead. There's nothing special about the location or the fire itself.
Nothing mystical about the fire. God could have chosen acid or feeding the bodies to fishes or even winking them out of existence, but fire is the fitting symbol for the the finality of the act, something that everyone on earth can relate to. and it isn't as if anyone else has the ability to resurrect the dead again.
I think that the saints that understand love as God is love wouldn't desire that the dead be restored multiple times for the purpose of suffering. If they are truly unrepentant, then once they are finally gone for good, that is sufficient.
I appreciate that you are taking the time to ask questions. Even if one were to disagree, it's a good idea to understand what one is disagreeing with. Perhaps too often people argue out of reflex.
Rosenritter
New member
Good point. I reckon a couple people probably died in the flood too.
What else do you need?
Revelation 20:10New King James Version (NKJV)
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Revelation 20:10New King James Version (NKJV)
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Rosenritter
New member
God has said that souls die, and the soul that sinneth, it shall die, and as early as the first chapters of Genesis the soul is comprised of God's breath (spirit) and physical body (dust.)
The flaw in your flaw being that it is not the philosophical argument of what God "can" or "cannot" do, but what he has said he will do. We are told that when God takes back his spirit, the living things die, and that that spirit returns to God who gave it. Not "their spirit" but "his spirit." Even if one were to argue that the pronoun were incorrect, returning to God can hardly be made to construe a state of torment.
The flaw in your flaw being that it is not the philosophical argument of what God "can" or "cannot" do, but what he has said he will do. We are told that when God takes back his spirit, the living things die, and that that spirit returns to God who gave it. Not "their spirit" but "his spirit." Even if one were to argue that the pronoun were incorrect, returning to God can hardly be made to construe a state of torment.
Rosenritter
New member
Hello Raven,
Since you wish to enter the discussion, I'll ask you a few questions:
1) Your NKJV reads differently from the classic Reformation translation (including the KJV). Specifically, a "they" has now appeared in your quotation, and it changes the subject of the torment from "the devil" to the the beast and the false prophet and the devil." It's a different meaning, so this cannot be ignored. Can you show me what Greek source text you have that includes a "they" in the latter part of the passage?
Revelation 20:10 Tyndale
(10) and the devyll that desceaved them was cast into a lake of fyre and brymstone where the beest and the falce prophet were and shalbe tormented daye and nyght for ever more.
Revelation 20:10 Geneva
(10) And the deuill that deceiued them, was cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, where that beast and that false prophet are, and shall be tormented euen day and night for euermore.
Revelation 20:10 KJV
(10) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
2) Is the devil immortal, or was this something you merely assumed? What does the scripture say about whether the devil ultimately has life without without end or perishes? Does the bible say anything about who has immortality?
3) What is the intended scope of "for ever and ever" within the scene of judgment in Revelation 20:10? Does it say that this torment of the devil will last beyond when day and night shall cease? Does "for ever" ever continue for longer than the duration of its subject's lifespan?
4) Do you believe that Revelation should be read out of context of other inspired scripture? What should be used as our base assumptions upon which to interpret this book, the prophets of the Old Testament, or current pop theology?
Thank you,
-Rosenritter
1. What are you considering as reformation translations?
2. Is the devil immortal? If you mean will He live forever the answer is yes.
3. My understanding of for ever and ever is eternity.
4. I believe that Revelation should be read in context with the entirety of scripture. Current "Pop Theology" has nothing to do with it. The question is, does it align with the context of the whole of scripture. I do not believe it is out of context with the rest of scripture.
Conundrum and the real reason 22:10 is a poor proof text...
Revelation 22:5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
Sincerely recognizing both sides of the argument,
- EE
Rosenritter
New member
I am referring to the group including Tyndale's translation, the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible. They all use the same source text, and I have also found the meaning and translation fairly consistent as well (with only tiny differences). These are the translations that fueled the Reformation.
I differentiate these from the group including the Revised Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, etc. The New King James is not a true King James Bible, as it does make changes in content. When you use the hover-over-hyperlinks in this site it is going to show you the NKJV, not the KJV.
Regardless, I am challenging the validity of inserting "they" into the passage in Revelation 20:10. Such a change obviously favors a certain doctrinal slant, but is it merited by the source text? There's not even a word for "are" (or "were") but English requires a placeholder for grammatical purposes. I'm fairly certain that there's no Greek "they" there.
Here's the Greek Textus Receptus that I have for the passage. The "και is translated as the English "and."
Once we have established that we are in agreement on the actual scripture text itself, I would point out that just because the beast and false prophet were destroyed by fire at that location before does not necessarily mean that they were fireproof or continued to survive over the previous one thousand years. That would bring the subject of this conversation back to the devil himself.
Ah, but I also asked, "What does the scripture say about whether the devil ultimately has life without without end or perishes? Does the bible say anything about who has immortality?"
Do you have anything to support your assertion that the devil is immortal?
Is "eternity" the intended scope when applied to finite being, or a setting with limited scope? Is this servant serving that same master eternally?
Which brings us back to question two: why did you assume the devil was immortal?
If Revelation is meant to align with the whole of scripture, there's a start of what we should have for background. The devil isn't immortal, he lives for as long as God wills him to live. God has stated that the time is coming when he will completely destroy that rebellion angel. Similar mention is made to this same judgment of Revelation 20:10 in Isaiah 14, that famous passage where the devil is called by the familiar name of Lucifer.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Spoiler
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Sorry....."for ever and ever" is not implied in the Greek.
Sorry....."for ever and ever" is not implied in the Greek.
We've already gone over the meaning of 'aion' and its derivatives.....it does not mean 'eternity'....but means 'age'...a period of time. See here for video lessons and articles that prove it.
----------0
And the devil who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] both the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for the ages of ages.
- Darby
and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages
- Young's
------------0
See Gary Amirault's article below. If you can refute his analysis on the translation issues on the greek word aion, aionon, aionas, etc...by all means do so. Otherwise this simply confirms that any dispensation of divine judgment, punishments or rewards are meted out in periodic ages (eons). There is no divine judgment or decree of everlasting unquenchable punishment or torment which is consonant with the character of God.
Why Can't Aionas Ton Aionon Mean Eternity?
Sorry....."for ever and ever" is not implied in the Greek.
We've already gone over the meaning of 'aion' and its derivatives.....it does not mean 'eternity'....but means 'age'...a period of time. See here for video lessons and articles that prove it.
----------0
And the devil who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] both the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for the ages of ages.
- Darby
and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages
- Young's
------------0
See Gary Amirault's article below. If you can refute his analysis on the translation issues on the greek word aion, aionon, aionas, etc...by all means do so. Otherwise this simply confirms that any dispensation of divine judgment, punishments or rewards are meted out in periodic ages (eons). There is no divine judgment or decree of everlasting unquenchable punishment or torment which is consonant with the character of God.
Why Can't Aionas Ton Aionon Mean Eternity?
Rosenritter
New member
I think "for ever and ever" could mean eternity, when applied to a subject of infinite existence. If you speak of God, that is without beginning or end of days, nor end of life, and say that his reign shall continue for ever and ever, then "eternity" would be a good approximation.
glorydaz
Well-known member
No, Genesis doesn't say the soul is comprised of anything. God breathed the breath of life into man (composed of body, soul, and spirit) and he became a living soul. Even animals have the breath of life. So man is a living soul, and he has a soul. Seven souls lost at sea (for example), and triune composed of (body soul and spirit)
Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
It seems the flaw is your thinking the spirit is God's rather than man's.
The spirit of man returns to God who then sends it where He will. Be it Hades to wait for the Judgment or with Him to await the resurrection of our body. Before the cross, of course, the saints were kept in Abraham's Bosom.
Ecclesiastes 12:7
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Ecclesiastes 12:7Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
7 the dust returns to earth, as it was,
and the spirit returns to God, who gave it!
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Ecclesiastes 12:7Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
7 the dust returns to earth, as it was,
and the spirit returns to God, who gave it!
Rosenritter
New member
I am using the same scriptures as you here:
Genesis 2:7 KJV
(7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.
So to form man, God 1) formed together dust, 2) breathed breath of life, which thus became 3) a living soul. Here's how this looks as an equation:
Dust + breath of life = living soul
For dissolution, we break the formation like as referenced in James, "for as the body without the spirit is dead..." Spirit and "breath of life" should be interchangeable in this context.
Job 27:3 KJV
(3) All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;
Job 33:4 KJV
(4) The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Job 34:12-15 KJV
(12) Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.
(13) Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?
(14) If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
(15) All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.
Also in Isaiah, we can see that "breath of God" and "spirit" are used in parallel, and it is a spirit (singular) that belongs to God rather than speaking of spirits.
Isaiah 42:5 KJV
(5) Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
I do see the Ecclesiastes verse that tells us that the spirit returns to God who gave it. It doesn't say he creates this spirit, but that he gave it, as if it belongs to him. What I don't see is that God then sends this spirit anywhere.
This all is exactly what I would expect if our physical form is animated (made living) by God alone. He can take back that life whenever he wishes.
So on a different note, I noticed that you called the human body "Triune." From reading Bright Raven's link as to what he meant by Trinity, it said that none of the parts were independent of each other.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
But just after you called the human Triune in body, soul, and spirit, it seems that you are indicating that you do think that one or more of these components can exist apart from the other.
Genesis 2:7 KJV
(7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.
So to form man, God 1) formed together dust, 2) breathed breath of life, which thus became 3) a living soul. Here's how this looks as an equation:
Dust + breath of life = living soul
For dissolution, we break the formation like as referenced in James, "for as the body without the spirit is dead..." Spirit and "breath of life" should be interchangeable in this context.
That "flaw" must permeate the scripture as well then. I have reason to think this spirit belongs to God, both from the Ecclesiastes 12:7 you quoted, and also other passages, such as these in Job:
Job 27:3 KJV
(3) All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;
Job 33:4 KJV
(4) The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Job 34:12-15 KJV
(12) Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.
(13) Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?
(14) If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
(15) All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.
Also in Isaiah, we can see that "breath of God" and "spirit" are used in parallel, and it is a spirit (singular) that belongs to God rather than speaking of spirits.
Isaiah 42:5 KJV
(5) Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
I do see the Ecclesiastes verse that tells us that the spirit returns to God who gave it. It doesn't say he creates this spirit, but that he gave it, as if it belongs to him. What I don't see is that God then sends this spirit anywhere.
This all is exactly what I would expect if our physical form is animated (made living) by God alone. He can take back that life whenever he wishes.
So on a different note, I noticed that you called the human body "Triune." From reading Bright Raven's link as to what he meant by Trinity, it said that none of the parts were independent of each other.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
But just after you called the human Triune in body, soul, and spirit, it seems that you are indicating that you do think that one or more of these components can exist apart from the other.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Age long duration......
Age long duration......
Yes it can, when it 'aion' or its derivative is used in context towards 'God' himself or something 'divine', but when just describing a dispensation or period of time...it simply infers an 'age' (a period of time) and does not necessarily mean 'eternal', 'everlasting', or 'unending'.
Endless punishing is ridiculous besides insane and unethical, yet there being an 'eternal punishment' resulting in a permanent and final death (disintegration of soul) is more logical and lawful....since the wages of sin is death. The second death is the full termination of personhood, individual conscious existence, from a 'conditional immortality' perspective.
Age long duration......
Yes it can, when it 'aion' or its derivative is used in context towards 'God' himself or something 'divine', but when just describing a dispensation or period of time...it simply infers an 'age' (a period of time) and does not necessarily mean 'eternal', 'everlasting', or 'unending'.
Endless punishing is ridiculous besides insane and unethical, yet there being an 'eternal punishment' resulting in a permanent and final death (disintegration of soul) is more logical and lawful....since the wages of sin is death. The second death is the full termination of personhood, individual conscious existence, from a 'conditional immortality' perspective.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Not quite. We see God "formeth THE SPIRIT OF MAN within him". Showing that man has a spirit in him formed by God. The spirit of man....not God's Spirit in man.
Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Here we see "your whole spirit and soul and body"..... triune made in the image of God.
1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here we see soul and spirit together and the "joints and marrow" referring to our "tent" in which we dwell.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
As I showed you before....the "breath of life" is even given to animals. Nothing mysterious about the breath of life. It is not speaking of God's Spirit being given to the animals or man.
No, when the spirit leaves the body...it's the body that is dead. THE BODY (without the Spirit) is dead. Only the body returns to the dust of the ground. It was the body that was formed from the dust, and it's the body that returns to the dust.
Gen. 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Glory wins ANOTHER debate with scripture !!!
glorydaz
Well-known member
That is all referring to God breathing into them the breath of life.....just as He is said to do with all flesh (including animals). Notice in Isaiah, God gives the breath of life and "spirit to them". Once gain God forms the spirit of man in him.
Well, it does say God forms the spirit of man in him. It does say that the spirit returns to God (rather than stay with the body in the grave).
Of course He can. He gives life and He takes it away.
1 Samuel 2:6
The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.
The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.
Only the body. Just as when our Lord became flesh....he remained God, but the flesh died and went to the grave. In the same way, our body will go to the grave and we'll be resurrected and given a spiritual body (as He was).
Of course, we aren't God, but our design is based on His.
Rosenritter
New member
A couple observations:
1) Spirit can mean "life force" or it can mean "Holy spirit" or it can generally assess our emotions and ranges of things in between. It's a broad word.
2) I acknowledge that all life has physical and spiritual components, including mankind. I do not agree that we exist without a body. Yes, as we speak of men, the body without the spirit is dead, but it does NOT logically follow that the spirit of man is alive without a body.
You have already stated the scriptural authority for your understanding. Specifically, that the seance performed by the witch of Endor summoned something that called itself Samuel, and that the divination performed successfully predicted Saul's death.
I base my understanding on other parts of scripture, including where God describes the meaning of death to Adam as dissolution to dust, that Solomon tells us that death is alike for both man and beast, that Job says that the dead are still and trouble no longer, that David says that the dead cannot praise God and no longer have any being, and so on and so forth. That, and I can scarcely understand how "we of all men would be most miserable" if there were no resurrection of the dead, if we were alive and happy in spirit in Paradise or some other such place upon death.
3) It doesn't seem that you are using "Triune" the same way that Bright Raven uses "Triune." Bright Raven (or at least his website that he gave to represent his belief) would say that one part couldn't exist without the others, and that each part would recognize the other as not itself, thus using a different pronoun. Assuming that you are Trinitarian, I'm sensing some problems here if you're going to attempt to say that "man is Triune as God is Triune, made in his Triune image:"
a) Do you agree with that Trinity definition that the body cannot exist without soul and spirit, the soul cannot exist without spirit and body, and the spirit cannot exist without body and soul?
b) Does the body speak of the spirit using a different pronoun, or vice versa? Are these self-aware parts?
4) Yes, you have one passage that speaks of body and soul and spirit (1 Thess 5:23) but you also have another passage where Jesus speaks of the man as consisting of heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). So depending on whether you choose one, or the other, or how you choose to interpret overlap, that's as many as three, four, five, six, or seven different parts.
So I'm suggesting that maybe that isn't an ironclad model.
1) Spirit can mean "life force" or it can mean "Holy spirit" or it can generally assess our emotions and ranges of things in between. It's a broad word.
2) I acknowledge that all life has physical and spiritual components, including mankind. I do not agree that we exist without a body. Yes, as we speak of men, the body without the spirit is dead, but it does NOT logically follow that the spirit of man is alive without a body.
You have already stated the scriptural authority for your understanding. Specifically, that the seance performed by the witch of Endor summoned something that called itself Samuel, and that the divination performed successfully predicted Saul's death.
I base my understanding on other parts of scripture, including where God describes the meaning of death to Adam as dissolution to dust, that Solomon tells us that death is alike for both man and beast, that Job says that the dead are still and trouble no longer, that David says that the dead cannot praise God and no longer have any being, and so on and so forth. That, and I can scarcely understand how "we of all men would be most miserable" if there were no resurrection of the dead, if we were alive and happy in spirit in Paradise or some other such place upon death.
3) It doesn't seem that you are using "Triune" the same way that Bright Raven uses "Triune." Bright Raven (or at least his website that he gave to represent his belief) would say that one part couldn't exist without the others, and that each part would recognize the other as not itself, thus using a different pronoun. Assuming that you are Trinitarian, I'm sensing some problems here if you're going to attempt to say that "man is Triune as God is Triune, made in his Triune image:"
a) Do you agree with that Trinity definition that the body cannot exist without soul and spirit, the soul cannot exist without spirit and body, and the spirit cannot exist without body and soul?
b) Does the body speak of the spirit using a different pronoun, or vice versa? Are these self-aware parts?
4) Yes, you have one passage that speaks of body and soul and spirit (1 Thess 5:23) but you also have another passage where Jesus speaks of the man as consisting of heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). So depending on whether you choose one, or the other, or how you choose to interpret overlap, that's as many as three, four, five, six, or seven different parts.
So I'm suggesting that maybe that isn't an ironclad model.