Soul Sleep?

Super Kal · Apr 5, 2011

i believe the early church has more credibility than the teachers of today, simply because they had the oral tradition of the apostles...

if i had to trust the opinion of a doctrine, it would come from them, & not the popular mainstream doctrines of today

chalkstc · Apr 5, 2011

J,

But in verse 13, the sea appears to be a place. So even if death and Hades are not synonymous, they are still places. So where is death if it's separate?

Imo, death is the place where the body is and hades where the inner man is. These are raised for judgment. They are the rest of the dead who experience the second death because their names were not in the BOL.

Frankie

chalkstc · Apr 5, 2011

Super Kal said:
i believe the early church has more credibility than the teachers of today, simply because they had the oral tradition of the apostles...

if i had to trust the opinion of a doctrine, it would come from them, & not the popular mainstream doctrines of today

kal, you haven't said what you believe? Soul consciousness after the body dies or soul unconsciousnes till the resurrection.

If the latter, then why did Paul consider it gain to die if he would not be with Christ? He says it would be far better?

Frankie

B1inHim · Apr 5, 2011

Hell is a place and quite possible a spirit also.
Lazarus went to hell. A Place.

Death is a spirit.
Death rides a horse in Revelation.

Has anyone here ever heard of this testimony?
this is part 1 of 8
YouTube - 23 Minutes In Hell - Part 1 of 8

chalkstc · Apr 5, 2011

All,

It seems we have some that agree with soul sleep and some that agree with me that we are conscious after death of the body. As they say, the proof is in the pudding.............

Most beleivers in soul sleep have appealed to OT scriptures and by them alone, it seems that soul sleep is the truth. What is failed in that premise is that revelation of truth is progressive. Even though some theme might be stated, does not mean it is the final word on the theme. All scripture must agree to form any doctrine in my opinion.

But some things in the OT are stated ACCORDING TO THE KNOWLEDGE given to the speaker.

Hear Peter................

1 Peter 1:9

Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10

Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12

Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

KJV

The OT prophets spoke as they were moved by the HS but did not understand all they spoke. Why? Because Christ had not come to propclaim the Gospel which moved us from the letter of the law to the spirit of it.

Hear Paul..............

2 Tim 1:10

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

KJV

This is at the first advent and note the change and the new term, not in the OT........"immortality"

The Gospel enlightened the things "hidden in the OT. So to appeal only to the OT about the state of the soul after death is moot in my opinion.

We need to see what is taught in the NT which is the fulfillment of the OT. As I have perused the replies, I have seen many OT texts as if they were the end of the matter, but none have expounded on the NT texts that seemingly say the soul lives after death of the body.

So to resolve this lack imo, please give me your exposition of one text at a time.....................

Here is the first..............

Lk 16:19-31......................about Lazarus the beggar, not the same as Martha's and Mary's brother.

Tell me not only what the parable teaches, but why it was even spoken by Jesus if the soul does not live on after then body dies???

I appeciate all who reply out of a sincere search for truth no matter what others, ECF or modern day scholars teach. What is your personal exposition on this text???

Thx,
Frankie

B1inHim · Apr 5, 2011

Matthew 17:3-4, I Sam. 28, Matthew 22:31-32, Revelation 6:9-11, Luke 16 and Mark 9:44,46,48 all speak of individuals who are active even though their bodies are asleep.

Love,
Brother Jerry

Super Kal · Apr 6, 2011

chalkstc said:
kal, you haven't said what you believe? Soul consciousness after the body dies or soul unconsciousnes till the resurrection.

If the latter, then why did Paul consider it gain to die if he would not be with Christ? He says it would be far better?

Frankie

nowhere in that verse does it say that we immediately go to heaven or the lake of fire after we die... scripture says that we die, then the judgment (singular) in Hbrws 9:27... there is no second or third judgment. one judgment. & that judgment does not happen until the white throne.

concerning your question, i believe we are conscious... jesus was conscious when he was in hades, preaching the gospel, and so were those who were receiving it in hades... so we ARE conscious in a sense, but resting. i do not believe that our souls "sleep"

chalkstc · Apr 6, 2011

Super Kal said:
nowhere in that verse does it say that we immediately go to heaven or the lake of fire after we die... scripture says that we die, then the judgment (singular) in Hbrws 9:27... there is no second or third judgment. one judgment. & that judgment does not happen until the white throne.

concerning your question, i believe we are conscious... jesus was conscious when he was in hades, preaching the gospel, and so were those who were receiving it in hades... so we ARE conscious in a sense, but resting. i do not believe that our souls "sleep"

thx kal, but I think our judgment is after the SC which is premill. The saints are judged for rewards, and not punishment. Too many texts to quote, but I'm sure you know them...............

Frankie

POSTIOS · Apr 6, 2011

There are too many scriptures showing the dead concious. That makes the other line of thought to be figurative, not literal.

That way there are no contradictions.

Manasseh_ · Apr 6, 2011

chalkstc said:
Manasseh,

Now, I admit I can't substanciate that the soul is immortal the way you have asked, but if we follow the death term as separation, then I can see what I am posing..................Man has a dead spirit till he comes to the Lord. It is regenerated when this happens and he changes from Paul's natural man to the spiritual man....

JMHO,
Frankie
PS sorry for any typos.............time to nap

This is how truthful doctrine is built upon, there always has to be a foundation for any doctrine, whether true or false. So if we find it problematic to give a solid foundation for "immortal soul" then this is scripture giving warning right away that all other scripture we may be viewing which seems to be saying the soul is immortal might have a different meaning and a solid explanation elsewhere which agrees with all other scripture.

Remember my thread a little while back on Pretrib's petitio pricipii.........begging the question ? In the thread I wouldn't allow pretribbers to go any further before they could establish that rapture was before tribulation.........that's what begging the question is..........they point to all kinds of verses saying this proves pretrib.........but they do it asking others to concede (believe) that the pretrib rapture is already true.

The same rule applies here........about the "pro text" ......before it can even be viewed as verses which seem to support the "immortal soul" doctrine, the doctrine itself is found wanting because the foundation support can't be found to begin with........even in the whole bible the 2 words don't even meet in the same sentence.......immortal is never placed with soul, but always points to the soul is in need of immortality or it will be destroyed.

Here's a simple example ..............we all , or I hope we all know the parable of Lazarus and the rich man............

Ok the story flow is simple, 2 men, one rich, one poor both live for a time then they both die, then immediately Christ picks up at a part where they are both living again, having conscious being, the rich man conversing with Abraham.

On the surface we could say that after death these men still have conscious being, the rich man in one certain "place" and Abraham and Lazarus in another..............but if this was the conclusion then we are isolating this parable and not viewing it in light of other scripture, because if Christ were implying that at the instant these men die they would be alive again then he would be contradicting another of his teachings........................

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

this raises the question then.......which are we to believe, when we die we either "go to hell" or we go to "heaven / paradise"........OR we must wait til' an appointed to for this to happen, ie, resurrection ?

another question would be raised, why is Christ teaching 2 different scenarios ? this is confusing at the least ?......and which of his scenarios is truth ?

People may not want to admit that this is what is implied but it still is implied that Christ is teaching 2 different kinds of events and even more so they are prophetic in nature, so now we have 2 different prophesies from Christ ? The worst implication made is that although God makes resurrection available through Christ, that neither Abraham, Lazarus or the rich man required resurrection through him be immortal, they already had it to begin with ?................we can see how absurd this becomes since Christ only taught truth anyway.

Christ is teaching in this parable that there is an appointed time for both men to come life again.........at least 2 resurrections..............obviously the first would be Abraham and Lazarus and the other resurrection would be for the rich man.

Now viewing the parable in this light we begin to understand all of the parable........Lazarus being "carried" by the angels into the "bosom" of Abraham..............remember Christ's promise in Matt 24, the angels gathering the elect and taking them to meet Christ.......this also sheds more light on the verse in Galatians............

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

there's Abraham's "bosom" we are allowed to take part in the very promises made to Abraham just as Lazarus is in the parable, the promise of resurrection, the promise of land to rule over (meek shall inherit the earth) .......so many different verses that don't even seem to be related become interwoven which shows how deep God's word begins to go and it's meaning.............

So I can't discuss the "pro" or "proof text" on the foundation that the soul is already immortal, I can discuss all verses brought up which are used in attempts to prove it but I'll have to disagree with all these because of the scriptural foundation that Adam (mankind) was not made immortal but was made from dust and requires Jesus Christ through resurrection to finally make the soul immortal.

Manasseh_ · Apr 6, 2011

B1inHim said:
Matthew 17:3-4, I Sam. 28, Matthew 22:31-32, Revelation 6:9-11, Luke 16 and Mark 9:44,46,48 all speak of individuals who are active even though their bodies are asleep.

Love,
Brother Jerry

Matthew 17...........Christ also tells his apostles that they had seen a VISION and not to tell of this VISION until he rose from the dead

Hos 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

VISIONS are "similitudes" to the real thing, not the real thing, Moses and Elijah also await the first resurrection through Christ.

1Samuel 28.........the witch of endor had no power to raise men from the grave and neither did the "familiar" spirit she had conjured.....Saul did not see Samuel, Saul only perceived it to be Samuel, it was a wicked spirit who's purpose was to further deceive Saul......and it was Saul's wickedness for seeking such counsel instead of seeking God's counsel only

1Ch 10:13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;

Samuel was a servant of God , a righteous man, not a "familiar" spirit.

Matthew 22:31-32 ..........God is the God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob, yes he is the God of the living.......and by what means is he the God of the living ?.............by resurrection through Jesus Christ.

Revelation 6:9-11............once again, John is seeing VISIONS and was told to write down these VISIONS......and not only visions but visions of future events shortly before the "Lord's Day" would come........are all souls that were martryed for Christ having to spend conscious being under one altar in heaven ? Is Peter and Paul who were martyred under this altar too ?, Christ said no man has ever ascended to heaven, yet if implied we do have many men who have ascended to heaven here.

Luke 16..........a parable to teach resurrections, one for Abraham and Lazarus , another resurrection for the rich man
John 5:28-29........Daniel 12:2

Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

So what are we imply by these three verses............immortal worms ? and these "immortal worms" give proof to conscious being after death.......and not only this , these verses relate to the wicked and their punishment (not punishing forever) or are they punished forever ? .........just what scripture implies that God also offers immortality to the wicked in order for them to be punished forever ?

or is the scripture saying this is final for the wicked who refuse to repent , who refuse to live according to God's way of salvation........eternal punishment, eternal flame, the worm dieth not.......the fire is not quenched until...................

Mal 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

they become ashes, burned up.........it's eternal because there is no amnesty from this death sentence, no reprieve........the governor isn't going to call at the last minute and order a stay of execution.

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

a soul which can be destroyed and become ashes is not immortal.

a soul who believes Christ is resurrection and immortality puts on this immortality 1 Cor 15.
Immortality is something sought after not a possession already given

Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

God does not offer this immortality (eternal life) to the wicked.

None of these verses either imply or teach conscious being after death and none of them teach "immortal soul" it must be implied by the preconception of this doctrine, ie, that a soul is already immortal, was created immortal.

chalkstc · Apr 6, 2011

Manasseh,

Now viewing the parable in this light we begin to understand all of the parable........Lazarus being "carried" by the angels into the "bosom" of Abraham..............remember Christ's promise in Matt 24, the angels gathering the elect and taking them to meet Christ.......this also sheds more light on the verse in Galatians............

I don't agree that this gathering by the angels shoots forward to the coming resurrection at the SC. Why? Because no one had risen from the dead at this juncture.

Both men simply died...................one carried by angels to AB and one was buried. The rich man appeals to ABE to send Laz back to tell his brothers so they would repent and not come to this place of torment.

Abe says they have enough to believe moes etc and would not even if one rose from the dead. This shows that Christ had not even gone to the cross yet. The disciples did not even anticipate or understand that Jesus was going to the cross and then rise from the tomb.

Parable = to cast the ball or to call along side. It is a story of earthly eyes to understand spiritual truth. But if you notice, this portion is never even called a parable in the text, except by us.

It begins......"a certain rich man". Focus on the term certain and see how it is used elswhere. It alludes then to an actual happening, that only the Lord would have known what transpired after the two men died.

We only speculate of what happens after a loved one is gone. None have come back to tell us what happened after their demise, nor will any ever do that. We all wait and hope...period. So where does this leave us?

In my opinion this text shows consciousness after death. Not as a stand alone, but a building block.

I asked before what does Eternal life mean if we receive it per Jn 3:16 and then have an interlude of unconscious death till the resurrection at the SC? It becomes moot, does it not? If it is Eternal, then it is forever from the moment of our individual born again experience imo.

Exek says "the soul that sinneth it shall die". Okay, how about the soul that sinneth not because it is under the blood? You say it dies too? I think not!

Let's move on to......................

Phil 1:21

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

22 

But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.

23 

For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

24 

Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

25 

And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith;

KJV

If Paul knew he would die and rest in unconsciousness till the resurrection, how would be that gain? He would die eventually, but he says he is in a strait between living and dying and his choice would death and departing to BE WITH CHRIST which is FAR BETTER.

Now if you brought this text to an unbelieving English teacher and simply asked for sentence structure and meaning of what is said, what would be his or her answer just based on thought of what is penned?

I pose that by dying, Paul would be immediately in Christ's presence.

Your turn.......................
Frankie

Mikecpking · Apr 6, 2011

What do you guys think a soul is? Certainly not the biblical soul.

chalkstc · Apr 6, 2011

Mikecpking said:
What do you guys think a soul is? Certainly not the biblical soul.

................

Nothing like being vague Mikey.......................

There is no neutral side here. What is your view or opinion?

Thx,
Frankie

POSTIOS · Apr 6, 2011

Mikecpking said:
What do you guys think a soul is? Certainly not the biblical soul.

I think for the purposes of this thread, we are debating whether we remain consious after the flesh dies, or whether we literally sleep until judgement.

chalkstc · Apr 6, 2011

POSTIOS said:
I think for the purposes of this thread, we are debating whether we remain consious after the flesh dies, or whether we literally sleep until judgement.

I didn't think it needed re-iterating, but thx,

Frankie :amen:

Jpark · Apr 6, 2011

Super Kal said:
i believe the early church has more credibility than the teachers of today, simply because they had the oral tradition of the apostles...

if i had to trust the opinion of a doctrine, it would come from them, & not the popular mainstream doctrines of today

Early church? I think you mean the second century and after.

These churches had more credibility simply because they immediately succeeded the first century church.

Orthodoxy in the form of dead words (2 Cor. 3:6) became dominant in Christianity and the spiritual aspects of the Bible were distorted (i.e. Satan rebelled against God by his own ability. This is not so as Satan was given the choice of rebellion and could not have done so by his own will) or lost (1 Peter 1:22-23).

Jpark · Apr 6, 2011

To add to my post,

John 16:32 "Behold, an hour is coming, and has already come, for you to be scattered, each to his own home, and to leave Me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me.

Luke 22:53 "While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours."

Since Jesus was continuously abiding in the Father even when He was delivered to Satan, it's probable that He was abiding in the Father even after His death. So if we continuously abide in the Father, then we will be abiding in Him even after death.

Soul sleep implies severance from connection with God. There can be no severance when abiding in Him.

Manasseh_ · Apr 6, 2011

chalkstc said:
Manasseh,
I don't agree that this gathering by the angels shoots forward to the coming resurrection at the SC. Why? Because no one had risen from the dead at this juncture.

Both men simply died...................one carried by angels to AB and one was buried. The rich man appeals to ABE to send Laz back to tell his brothers so they would repent and not come to this place of torment.

Exactly , at the time Christ is telling the story not even he had risen from the grave.....and he is the only one to get victory over death and the grave.............so why is it implied that right from the beginning of the parable that Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man are all alive again ? this is implying that they did not require resurrection from death, they died but they didn't die, ...........we're still trying to view the events of the parable as if they were happening instantly.

We still have to remember both Christ's and Daniel's prophecy that the dead will awake hearing his voice and they will awake in order of which resurrection they take part in.............John 5:28-29 and Daniel 12:2

you're isolating the parable again without regard to what Christ foretold for the future, remember, scripture cannot be broken.....if it teaches something in one area then it also has to agree with all other areas which are pertinent to the teaching........and when this is done we see the contradiction again, Christ tells a story, he teaches immediately after death the good are carried by angels to Abraham's bosom and the wicked are in "hell" being tormented.............then over to John 5........he teaches that the only way the dead will rise again they first hear his voice, they awake from death then we have 2 separate resurrections marked by a good deal of time between the 2.

chalkstc said:
Manasseh,
It begins......"a certain rich man". Focus on the term certain and see how it is used elswhere. It alludes then to an actual happening, that only the Lord would have known what transpired after the two men died.

Luk 12:16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
Luk 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Luke 12 starts out saying it's a parable but there's a "certain rich man" there............the other 2 also have a "certain rich man" now what are we to do here if the rich man in the Lazarus parable is implying an actual event.......is that the rule ? if it has the phrase "certain rich man" then it's an actual event, are all three "rich men" one in the same ? or three different rich men ?. I've heard this argument before chalkstc...........the suggestion is made that because "names" are mentioned it can't be a parable because Christ never used specific names in parables............but we have to ask what names ??

The certain rich man isn't his name............we don't have his name, neither do we have the name of his father or his 5 brothers.

Lazarus is a very common name in hebrew, it comes from Greek Lazaros............and this was taken from aramaic Lazar which is a short name for Eleazar , which in hebrew means God has helped, let's see there's about 6 or 7 different Eleazars' in the OT alone, just think of all the jewish guys named Eleazar even today, not to mention how many name the same from the lost 10 tribes down through the ages.

The only reason Christ did refer to Abraham was the fact that everyone listening to the story, Pharisees included, would easily understand promise and resurrection because Abraham was the first that God had made this covenant to, passing down to Isaac and Jacob.........what are always referred to as the FATHERS in the KJV.

It does no good to comment on the other parts you mentioned about this parable or the other verses you give because you're still arguing your premise with isolation and still without the support of immortality of the soul before Christ returns to give it......

more simply , the minute we see the prophecy in John 5 , Christ saying there would be resurrection required at different appointed times, then we can't still go back to the parable and argue it from the same standpoint because the two don't agree with each other, they are very clear contradictions, we know the scripture doesn't contradict itself, so it has to be the doctrine, it's the only explanation.............

According to premise 1. the parable is teaching immediate conscious being after death
According to premise 2. this can't be possible because of what Christ said in John 5 resurrection from death is required first

this is only one example.............look at the other things that would be contradictory and in disagreement with "immortal soul"

Christ is no longer the "firstfruit" of the dead........we can take our pick of the firstfruit, either Abraham or Lazarus or even the rich man are the "first" to rise from the grave, hold on, they didn't even need to rise from the grave, no need for resurrection anyway (already immortal)......but wait
we also have the suggestion that Enoch did the same......Noah......Moses, Elijah.........on and on the list grows of men who can be candidates for the "firstfruit", before Christ
We can no longer give witness that Christ got the victory over death and the grave........take your pick again of those mentioned........??
Christ shouldn't have claimed to be the resurrection in the first place because none of these men needed Christ to rise from the dead, they're already immortal..............

you can see the implications made under the "immortal soul" doctrine, personally I believe a few of them to actually be blasphemous toward Christ and what he has done for men, that no other man could do for all of mankind.

we simply can't learn doctrines of truth this way, be shown that one area doesn't agree with the premise but continue to use the premise anyway ignoring the contradiction and moving on to prove the same premise

???
[/quote]

POSTIOS · Apr 6, 2011

Well Manasseh,

It is not an issue for me. Hebraisms and figures of speech that lead to a spiritual truth, not a literal one.

No contradictions Manasseh, so either figuratively we are conciousness after death, or figuratively the dead bodies breaking forth and rising from the graves.

I choose the latter.

Soul Sleep?

the goal is to be more like You, and less like me

Newbie

Newbie

LOVE one another

Newbie

LOVE one another

the goal is to be more like You, and less like me

Newbie

zeke37

not the evil king Manasseh

not the evil king Manasseh

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

zeke37

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

not the evil king Manasseh

zeke37

Similar threads