Soul Sleep Biblically Impossible

[Saint Steven]

Matthew 17:9 Καὶ καταβαινόντων αὐτῶν ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· μηδενὶ εἴπητε τὸ ὅραμα ἕως οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθῇ. (Matt. 17:9 BGT)

Definition

1. that which is seen, spectacle
2. a sight divinely granted in an ecstasy or in a sleep, a vision

Matthew 17:9
As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

 

[redleghunter]

Again, it's not apostolic teaching. Firstly you have to realize that you are reading and interpreting a text. Paul is not speaking to you. How you interpret that text is based on your presuppositions. If you already believe that there is some part of man that lives on after death then it's not surprising that you would see that here.

That's actually your approach. Your presupposition is there is no immaterial inner man.

My argument is from presence with the Lord. From there we become informed what Paul meant.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't see how this bears on the subject, but, I believe what John said. In the beginning the word was with God and the word became flesh. The Son of God that existed in the OT became flesh as Jesus

Was Jesus' human nature exactly the same as our own?

 

[Saint Steven]

I didn't play any card. I simply pointed out that it was God who spoke those words.

If that is true, then it should have been obvious. So why did you have to use it to win? Were you losing the argument? Did you think playing the "God" card would help you win?

 

[Dig4truth]

St. Steven: "If that is true, then it should have been obvious. So why did you have to use it to win? Were you losing the argument? Did you think playing the "God" card would help you win?"

If by using the "God" card you mean "Scripture" then yes. In other words, if God said it it is true.

Is this the "God" card you speak of? If not then what is it?

 

[Saint Steven]

No. It is when someone hopes to put their opinion about what the Bible says to them above others opinions by claiming that their opinion is what God said, thus hoping to silence the opinions of others.

You will likely ask, "What if God really did say it?" That should be obvious, so you don't need to point it out. And more likely you could be mistaken. Then you are claiming God said something he did not. Dangerous territory.

Bottom line:
- What does it say about God when you do that?
- What does it say about the other person when you do that?
- What does it say about you when you do that?

 

[Dig4truth]

If God did say it then it should be pointed out. At least that's my opinion.

Why would the assumption be that anyone's view of the Scripture is more likely "mistaken"? Shouldn't a matter be heard before an opinion is given?

I think that comparing Scripture with Scripture we can understand what is being said by God. The challange is to receive what the Word actually says and not to insert what we want it to say.

If we do that then we can accurately handle the Word of Truth.

 

[Saint Steven]

If God did say it then it should be pointed out. At least that's my opinion.

Why would the assumption be that anyone's view of the Scripture is more likely "mistaken"? Shouldn't a matter be heard before an opinion is given?

I think that comparing Scripture with Scripture we can understand what is being said by God. The challange is to receive what the Word actually says and not to insert what we want it to say.

If we do that then we can accurately handle the Word of Truth.

I'm saying that pulling "rank" on someone in a discussion by claiming your argument is "what God says" is bad for discussion. You are obviously trying to shut the other person down. What if you were wrong? Better to just state your argument and not play the "God" card.

 

[Dig4truth]

That makes sense and I agree with you. That would be bad form. Thanks for clarifying.

I believe that the Prince of Peace should be presented in a peaceful way and without force. It is not our responsibility to force anything but to offer it peacefully.

I for one, have changed my opinion on several doctrines of Scripture. If it happened in the past it may happen again. The old proverb is applicable; "Choose your words wisely, you may have to eat them".

I believe that the scriptures speaks of using a little salt added to our words to make it more palatable.

Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt.. Col 4:6

 

[Saint Steven]

That makes sense and I agree with you. That would be bad form. Thanks for clarifying.

I believe that the Prince of Peace should be presented in a peaceful way and without force. It is not our responsibility to force anything but to offer it peacefully.

I for one, have changed my opinion on several doctrines of Scripture. If it happened in the past it may happen again. The old proverb is applicable; "Choose your words wisely, you may have to eat them".

I believe that the scriptures speaks of using a little salt added to our words to make it more palatable.

Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt.. Col 4:6

Awesome post. Thanks. (winner)

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has undergone a clean up. Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[RDKirk]

Some peddle the doctrine of soul sleep - that once the body dies, the soul goes into a state of "sleep" or non-conscious existence.

This is proved Biblically impossible by the appearance of Moses and Elijah to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. Elijah's body was assumed into heaven, but Moses' body died and returned to dust. He was buried by God. And yet, the person of Moses appears in some sort of bodily (visible) form to Jesus on the Mount.

Moses' body was not ultimately returned to dust.

But even the archangel Michael, when he was contending with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" Jude 1

Michael recovered Moses' body for a purpose of God.

 

[RDKirk]

In a way, it doesn't really matter. Whether we are instantly in heaven or our 'soul sleeps' for a thousand years, the next thing we will be conscious of after death is being in God's presence.

Precisely. I can see how this is an issue for Catholics because they believe saints are active and operative for their benefit.

But for others who don't hold the dead in that capacity, this is nearly an irrelevant dispute.

The issue of "soul sleep" that probably needs correction is that the spirit rests anywhere else other than "with the Lord." That the spirit is "with the Lord" is without question.

Whether the spirit is self-aware and conscious of ongoing activities is one of those "debatable matters" (Romans 14) that Paul warns us not to divide ourselves over.

 

[Butch5]

If that is true, then it should have been obvious. So why did you have to use it to win? Were you losing the argument? Did you think playing the "God" card would help you win?

Do the words of God trump the definition of a man?
What posted were the words of God through the prophet Ezekiel. What Redleghunter posted was his definition of the resurrection. Now, you can say I'm interpreting it wrong if you'd like to, but I'm not playing a card. It seems to me that you're just trying to distract from the subject at hand

 

[redleghunter]

Precisely. I can see how this is an issue for Catholics because they believe saints are active and operative for their benefit.

But for others who don't hold the dead in that capacity, this is nearly an irrelevant dispute.

The issue of "soul sleep" that probably needs correction is that the spirit rests anywhere else other than "with the Lord." That the spirit is "with the Lord" is without question.

Whether the spirit is self-aware and conscious of ongoing activities is one of those "debatable matters" (Romans 14) that Paul warns us not to divide ourselves over.

The main 'soul sleep' or 'soul annihilation' theory here is that there is no immaterial human soul/spirit or inner man to be present with the Lord. My main point in posting here is to confirm the teaching of the Apostle Paul that upon death of our mortal bodies our spirit/inner man is with the Lord. I see you concur with this.

The main thrust of this thread is not a debate on whether our immaterial inner man (soul/spirit) is conscious while with the Lord but that such an immaterial nature of man does not exist at all unless joined to a physical body.

This theory that there is no immaterial nature in man is shared by JWs, SDA and some who are beholden to the teachings of EW Bullinger.

Bottom line? There is no 'you' other than what rots in the grave.

 

[redleghunter]

Do the words of God trump the definition of a man?
What posted were the words of God through the prophet Ezekiel. What Redleghunter posted was his definition of the resurrection. Now, you can say I'm interpreting it wrong if you'd like to, but I'm not playing a card. It seems to me that you're just trying to distract from the subject at hand

God explains the definition of the vision in Ezekiel 37. It's not the resurrection, however, can be a type or shadow of the resurrection. Here's the interpretation of the vision:

Ezekiel 37: NASB
11Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off.’ 12“Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13“Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. 14“I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it,” declares the LORD.’”

 

[Saint Steven]

Do the words of God trump the definition of a man?
What posted were the words of God through the prophet Ezekiel. What Redleghunter posted was his definition of the resurrection. Now, you can say I'm interpreting it wrong if you'd like to, but I'm not playing a card. It seems to me that you're just trying to distract from the subject at hand

I wasn't talking to you. It was someone else. Sorry.