What is death?

[YosemiteSam]

So what are you saying here? It seems as though many here suggest even the metion of something means that is what is being taught. So are you saying that Jesus taught pagan theology or from it? I find that idea rather strange for God to engage in. Jesus said and did what His Father told Him to do.

Even if it was from pagan sources did Jesus say it to make a point? Is or was that point about the truth? Why is this God inspirited story in the Scripture? Or are you trying to say the Scripture isn't inspired by God? God can not lie. If God lies, can He be believed about anything?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand Christians trying to discredit the Scripture.

Scratch,
Your response to Mking is sad to say the least...How is this conversation or even debate? He gave a statement worth looking into and rather than ask for his sources, you say: "So your saying Jesus taught pagan theology"...How do you even come to such? .,..Your next paragraph is even worse..."Did Jesus say it to make a point?"..."Is or was that point about the truth?"..."Why is this God inspired story in the Scripture?"..."Are you trying to say the Scripture isn't inspired by God?"...
You couldn't be more off-mark or egregious in your statements! Not trying to offend you but you should think more before you post such comments to another. You should try to keep the conversation flowing with the intent of edifying the topic or even edifying the other person.

Although there are several different topics going throughout this thread (as always) the topic your engaged in is the story of Lazarus and the Richman a parable? And if so what is the meaning? Just a reminder! I think all here believe that Christ taught the coming Kingdom of God and that all scripture is "God-breathed"...

 

[YosemiteSam]

Yo Sam,

To patience,
While we here are speaking of the "soul" others are also debating the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. I wonder if it would be beneficial to all if I even interjected a thought since it would concern where this topic really ends.

How happy would heaven be? Would heaven be truly happy if we could see our own kids suffering on this earth as they go through life? If we could see our own children deny God at any moment? If we could see our children burning up, screaming and writhing in pain, eternally? Do you really think that heaven would be a glorious happy place to spend, while you could stare at the frantically screaming torture of others? Lets all think about that for a moment!

That is the "heaven" many religionists teach! Most teach it because of the misunderstanding of Lazarus and the richman. Those who believe that the "saved" go instantly to heaven and those that are "lost" go instantly to eternal torment, use this parable as the basis for this teaching. Would heaven be truly happy?

 

[Fulltruthministry]

Interesting that anyone could even not understand death. NTL there is more than one kind of death. The human can die twice. How is this? The scripture speaks clearly about a sceond death.

DEEP auctually

After reading some of the post;
I would like to first say:
The second death is an eternal state reflected in those that are not alive in Spirit:
Thus even though some breath in the flesh; they are dead in Spirit becasue they dont have the life that sets them free from the second death: Yet if they die to sin; then they may recieve an eternal life that sets them apart from an eternal death:

Thus there seems to be four ways to reference death:

*To die as in being put in a grave;

*Being dead in Spirit; or not apart of that which can only give life: DEAD IN SPIRIT
In which we are all born into this death; we all fall short of the glory; ever man needs to be reborn in the righteousness of God: So men are dead in Spirit;
let the dead burry the dead: Two states of death:
And then we have a third* sort to speak:


*We have a death to sin;
Resisiting sin; killing the sinful nature; ALIVE IN SPIRIT

And then we have the second death poured upon those that are not found in life:

The LAKE OF FIRE

simple enough;
Living it is the calling

 

[from scratch]

Scratch,
Your response to Mking is sad to say the least...How is this conversation or even debate? He gave a statement worth looking into and rather than ask for his sources, you say: "So your saying Jesus taught pagan theology"...How do you even come to such? .,..Your next paragraph is even worse..."Did Jesus say it to make a point?"..."Is or was that point about the truth?"..."Why is this God inspired story in the Scripture?"..."Are you trying to say the Scripture isn't inspired by God?"...
You couldn't be more off-mark or egregious in your statements! Not trying to offend you but you should think more before you post such comments to another. You should try to keep the conversation flowing with the intent of edifying the topic or even edifying the other person.

Excuse me, please. Why do I need to ask for his sources? Are we debating the validity of non Biblical sources or are we debating from the Bible. This isn't a secular forum last time I checked. Why should I go looking for his information?

It has been promoted that this is from some other source than God or the Scripture as in a common pagan tradition or source. So is it from God or some other source? Just what could or would that other source be? Now we have God (Jesus) using it. Is God the Father promoting some untruth through His only begotten Son Jesus Who is God also. Why would I a Christian go to a pagan source to promote my idea about God? Is this grasping at straws to promote a lie? I really don't understand how one could be more brasen. Look I can't question the relationship of any one here about their relationship with God. But I do invite everyone to examine the fruit. I certianly don't understand your coming to the defense of what I object to here in this case. I'm not even going to ask you to explain it.

I'm vaguely familar with various types of Judaism. I don't get into them or other pagan rites as a rule. Note to the admin I didn't say Judaism is pagan. I have no desire to discuss the various Judaistic rites/tradition. That is simply beyond the scope of this thread. Religious thought outside of Judaism and Christianity is considered pagan. Judaism is outside of Christian thought as well. If one wishes to cite Judaism as a basis don't include pagan sources for support. This IMHO is railing against Christianity. Why would a Christian do such?

Please review this post for what was said - http://www.christianforums.com/t7608095-34/#post59120398

Now was Jesus teaching the truth or a lie? I ask this in the context of the pro law camp saying that Jesus, Paul and James taught the law as an obligation for the believer/Christian.

 

[from scratch]

To patience,
While we here are speaking of the "soul" others are also debating the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. I wonder if it would be beneficial to all if I even interjected a thought since it would concern where this topic really ends.

How happy would heaven be? Would heaven be truly happy if we could see our own kids suffering on this earth as they go through life? If we could see our own children deny God at any moment? If we could see our children burning up, screaming and writhing in pain, eternally? Do you really think that heaven would be a glorious happy place to spend, while you could stare at the frantically screaming torture of others? Lets all think about that for a moment!

That is the "heaven" many religionists teach! Most teach it because of the misunderstanding of Lazarus and the richman. Those who believe that the "saved" go instantly to heaven and those that are "lost" go instantly to eternal torment, use this parable as the basis for this teaching. Would heaven be truly happy?

Threads do take some strange turns. The subject of the rich man an Lazarus is on topic as it relates to eternal death the second death. This death isn't an ending such as the physical life of a person as some insist.

 

[listed]

DEEP auctually

After reading some of the post;
I would like to first say:
The second death is an eternal state reflected in those that are not alive in Spirit:
Thus even though some breath in the flesh; they are dead in Spirit becasue they dont have the life that sets them free from the second death: Yet if they die to sin; then they may recieve an eternal life that sets them apart from an eternal death:

Thus there seems to be four ways to reference death:

*To die as in being put in a grave;

*Being dead in Spirit; or not apart of that which can only give life: DEAD IN SPIRIT
In which we are all born into this death; we all fall short of the glory; ever man needs to be reborn in the righteousness of God: So men are dead in Spirit;
let the dead burry the dead: Two states of death:
And then we have a third* sort to speak:


*We have a death to sin;
Resisiting sin; killing the sinful nature; ALIVE IN SPIRIT

And then we have the second death poured upon those that are not found in life:

The LAKE OF FIRE

simple enough;
Living it is the calling

Nice presentation on this otherwise boring very cool day. Nice game on the tube though.

 

[Sieben]

So much dust that needs shaking off

 

[from scratch]

Its not a discrediting of scripture, Jesus was using the Pharisees own teaching against them.

Show me elsewhere in scripture the dead going to Abraham's bosom.

Why exactly would that be necessary seing Who it was making the statement? Do you have a source showing it was a teaching from the Pharisees? I don't find such in the Scripture, so this must be from some other source as you admit above.

I also need to ask if God (Jesus) needs to use something generated from man for support? That seems to me what you're saying. The pharisees didn't present or bring up the point/argument.

 

[from scratch]

Nice presentation on this otherwise boring very cool day. Nice game on the tube though.

On the game assumng we watching the same one, of course. And I did like the post you quoted.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Excuse me, please. Why do I need to ask for his sources? Are we debating the validity of non Biblical sources or are we debating from the Bible. This isn't a secular forum last time I checked. Why should I go looking for his information?

It has been promoted that this is from some other source than God or the Scripture as in a common pagan tradition or source. So is it from God or some other source? Just what could or would that other source be? Now we have God (Jesus) using it. Is God the Father promoting some untruth through His only begotten Son Jesus Who is God also. Why would I a Christian go to a pagan source to promote my idea about God? Is this grasping at straws to promote a lie? I really don't understand how one could be more brasen. Look I can't question the relationship of any one here about their relationship with God. But I do invite everyone to examine the fruit. I certianly don't understand your coming to the defense of what I object to here in this case. I'm not even going to ask you to explain it.

I'm vaguely familar with various types of Judaism. I don't get into them or other pagan rites as a rule. Note to the admin I didn't say Judaism is pagan. I have no desire to discuss the various Judaistic rites/tradition. That is simply beyond the scope of this thread. Religious thought outside of Judaism and Christianity is considered pagan. Judaism is outside of Christian thought as well. If one wishes to cite Judaism as a basis don't include pagan sources for support. This IMHO is railing against Christianity. Why would a Christian do such?

Please review this post for what was said - http://www.christianforums.com/t7608095-34/#post59120398

Now was Jesus teaching the truth or a lie? I ask this in the context of the pro law camp saying that Jesus, Paul and James taught the law as an obligation for the believer/Christian.

Like I said, your comments are egregious...It does not matter from what "camp" as you like to say. For anyone to claim or even ask if Jesus taught from pagan practice or make a claim that another is really "trying to say" that what God wrote is a lie, is in fact a falsehood. MK did none of which you so carelessly projected your comments or questioning. They were of no use what so ever...You should try using more tact and sticking to the topic than randomly disambiguating the topic with comments or questions such as these.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Lazarus and the rich man was a parable used by Christ to teach the lesson that those in Abraham's bosom would receive eternal life and those who did not listen to Moses and the prophets would eventually be thrown into the lake of fire. We should go line by line through this parable to get a complete understanding. But one thing it does not teach is that people go to heaven when they die!

 

[James 75]

Lazarus and the rich man was a parable used by Christ to teach the lesson that those in Abraham's bosom would receive eternal life and those who did not listen to Moses and the prophets would eventually be thrown into the lake of fire. We should go line by line through this parable to get a complete understanding. But one thing it does not teach is that people go to heaven when they die!

or eternal suffering.

 

[YosemiteSam]

or eternal suffering.

I would agree with you James on that...it does not teach eternal suffering

and it is easy to prove that it was a parable!

 

[from scratch]

Like I said, your comments are egregious...It does not matter from what "camp" as you like to say. For anyone to claim or even ask if Jesus taught from pagan practice or make a claim that another is really "trying to say" that what God wrote is a lie, is in fact a falsehood. MK did none of which you so carelessly projected your comments or questioning. They were of no use what so ever...You should try using more tact and sticking to the topic than randomly disambiguating the topic with comments or questions such as these.

So many people believe that the story of the rich man and Lararus is a literal story and is teaching about the afterlife. It is one of a series of 5 parables and it definately not literal. Judaism (certain parts) had already have been influenced by Greek and Babylonian philosophy (see Jewish encyclopedia), that ideas like the immortality of the soul became strangely blended. That is one of the reasons the Apocrypha is not part of the Protestant bible!

Is this promoting the source of the stroy from God or religious/pagan thought not found in the Scripture? You decide.

What is the source MK suggests Jesus got His material from? I don't find any indication in Scripture that is came from the Scripture. Do you? What did MK suggest the source might have been? How is this egregious as you state? How is asking anything a falsehood?

So very sorry you don't like my questions. They will never cease as that is my God given nature and has been my habit for 61 years. Thank you.

 

[from scratch]

I would agree with you James on that...it does not teach eternal suffering

and it is easy to prove that it was a parable!

What exactly does it teach? Is there some reference that the richman's torment ever ended in the presentation or else where specifically related to this richman. I'd be most interested.

Is a parable just a meaningless story to fill the time or used as filler material for the author?

 

[patience7]

Patience,
thanks for your reply... I see where you are coming from now...okay...

Unfortunately, that is not what the Bible says...

I think most forget or negate the fact that Adam had to choose from either the "tree of life" (eternal life) and the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (good and sin)... Remember he was cast out of the garden so that he then could not take of the "tree of life"...Had God allowed Adam to take of the tree of life after taking of the tree with knowledge, Adam would have been immortal (can not die)...Adam took of the "tree (you know which one) and he received the death penalty, subsequently so did everyone after him. Heb 9:27 "as it is appointed unto men once to die"...this is what passed from Adam to all men after him...simply death...Adam did not have the spirit of God. . .

I know and understand that all men received the sentence of death when Adam ate of the tree. I believe Adam started out whole, as in body, soul, and spirit, and therefore perfect. In order to believe God's word as stated : for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die - something had to die that day - Adam no longer being whole and perfect, he lost that unique relationship with God, the spiritual and of course, I could be wrong in what I believe! But hey something had to die that day not years later!

As for the spirit in man, this is addressed in several locations in God's Word...1 Cor 2:11 "For what things knoweth the things of a man, except for the spirit of man which is in him?" Man does have a spirit, but it is not an immortal spirit...the spirit of man returns to God at his death...(a natural man (Bin Laden) or a begotten son, such as Peter...mans spirit is God's record of the man in which he will use at a latter date to resurrect that individual...(resurrection to immortality or up in the flesh it matters not at the present conversation)...the spirit in man gives man knowledge or intellect see 1 Cor 2:11 again...a dog, cat or giraffe (any animal) has not this spirit...animals have no spirit...they have not the ability to reason, to speak, to love, to do math, to do music...they are just animals, temporary and will see no resurrection or immortality whatsoever...

The "spirit of man" is connected with his body and soul, i.e. man's nature, that which gives man knowledge or intellect. All persons have spirit, psychologically, in this respect man is higher in nature than animals.

All humans have "man's spirit" but not all men have God's spirit, we must remember that in our studies...Eccl 3.20-21 "all go unto one place, and all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again...21 who knows the spirit of man which goes upward and the spirit of the beast which goes downward." Eccl 12:7 "then shall the dust return the the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it." It is man's spirit that returns to God...but it is not an immortal spirit!!!

I agree that not all men have God's spirit. Man's spirit (i.e. nature, intellect, knowledge) is shaped by man's upbringing, environment etc. - that's why I said it is part of the body and soul and ends with death. Ecc. 9:5 For the living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything. . . All I know is that the spirit given by God goes back to God.

What about the soul...Gen 2:7 states "God breath into man the breath of life (air) and man became a living soul" what about "the soul that sinneth it shall die" Ezek 18.20 The soul can die! That is what God says! Look at Eccl 9:5 "For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more reward, the memory of them is forgotten...cont v6 "also their love, and their hatred and their envy is now perished; neither have they any more portion for ever in anything that is done under the son." Wow! How straight forward is that? Man dies is what your bible says!!! Most believe just the opposite, most think the dead are off on a cloud playing a harp or just sitting around with nothing to do! But that is contrary to what the bible actually says!

Look closely at what David said, Ps 88.10-12 "Shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah...Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? of thy faithfulness in destruction?...shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?" David knew that he would return to the dust and he would not be able to praise God during that time. Wow! Where is David today? Acts 2:29 "Men and brethren let me speak freely unto you of the patriarch David, he is both dead and buried and his sepulcher is with us today...Acts 2:34 "For David is not ascended unto heaven.." Heb 11:39-40 should make it crystal clear " And all these having obtained a good report, received not the promise...God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

There is a time for a resurrection and the resurrection is the hope of the true Christian...Pls read 1 Cor 15, 1 Thes 4...Read Rev 19 and 20 All these and many, many others gives us God's record or plan which He will fulfill.

Look forward to hearing from you...Y

I understand all of the above and I don't think that I have said anything differently.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Is this promoting the source of the stroy from God or religious/pagan thought not found in the Scripture? You decide.

What is the source MK suggests Jesus got His material from? I don't find any indication in Scripture that is came from the Scripture. Do you? What did MK suggest the source might have been? How is this egregious as you state? How is asking anything a falsehood?

So very sorry you don't like my questions. They will never cease as that is my God given nature and has been my habit for 61 years. Thank you.

He simply made an observation of the times based on history. He gave you his source as the Jewish encyclopedia. He was simply making several statements based on his reading and understanding. Do you not use a concordance, a lexicon, and other bible commentaries in your studies? So why does his have to be pagan? How do you even come to a conclusion that MK suggest that Jesus taught pagan theology? or your other comment from post 339 the MK is trying to say the Scripture isn't inspired by God?

See, those comments are egregious to the topic...they hold no merit! Does the bible support the idea that the Jewish leaders (pharisees) were in fact influenced by other sources than their original doctrine, the Pentateuch? Certainly!!!

Look at Christ statement in Matt 15:9 speaking in front of the pharisees "But in vain the worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Lazarus and the rich man also He spake in front of the pharisees Luke 16:14...Christ was using this parable to warn them of what would happen to them if they did not repent!

The Pharisee Jew understood exactly what Christ was saying to them. That they would be burned up like chaff. See Matt 3.7-12;Luke 3:3-14;Matt 13

In fact there were two major groups of jews... the Pharisee and the Sadducees...the pharisee did believe in the resurrection of the dead whereas the Sadducees did not...You can read of this in Acts 23..Paul, a pharisee was on trial for his belief in the resurrection from the dead...The Sadducees wanted to kill him. However, you can also read of the Pharisee and Sadducees from other historical sources as well. An historical source such as Josephus or even Encountering the New Testament does not mean it is pagan and does not mean it is right or wrong. It is just an historical source that we might get more light on the subject to understanding what was going on at a particular time or event.

Hope this helps...Y

 

[patience7]

To patience,
While we here are speaking of the "soul" others are also debating the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. I wonder if it would be beneficial to all if I even interjected a thought since it would concern where this topic really ends.

How happy would heaven be? Would heaven be truly happy if we could see our own kids suffering on this earth as they go through life? If we could see our own children deny God at any moment? If we could see our children burning up, screaming and writhing in pain, eternally? Do you really think that heaven would be a glorious happy place to spend, while you could stare at the frantically screaming torture of others? Lets all think about that for a moment!

That is the "heaven" many religionists teach! Most teach it because of the misunderstanding of Lazarus and the richman. Those who believe that the "saved" go instantly to heaven and those that are "lost" go instantly to eternal torment, use this parable as the basis for this teaching. Would heaven be truly happy?

I don't believe nor have I ever believed that when a person dies they immediately go to heaven or hell.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I know and understand that all men received the sentence of death when Adam ate of the tree. I believe Adam started out whole, as in body, soul, and spirit, and therefore perfect. In order to believe God's word as stated : for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die - something had to die that day - Adam no longer being whole and perfect, he lost that unique relationship with God, the spiritual and of course, I could be wrong in what I believe! But hey something had to die that day not years later!


The "spirit of man" is connected with his body and soul, i.e. man's nature, that which gives man knowledge or intellect. All persons have spirit, psychologically, in this respect man is higher in nature than animals.


I agree that not all men have God's spirit. Man's spirit (i.e. nature, intellect, knowledge) is shaped by man's upbringing, environment etc. - that's why I said it is part of the body and soul and ends with death. Ecc. 9:5 For the living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything. . . All I know is that the spirit given by God goes back to God.


I understand all of the above and I don't think that I have said anything differently.

Thank you

 

[YosemiteSam]

I don't believe nor have I ever believed that when a person dies they immediately go to heaven or hell.

Well, thank you, i guess i am confused a little on your position...so you believe in the resurrection from the dead when Christ returns?

Yo