Scriptural Evidence That Hell Might Not Be Eternal

[Studious One]

Ignoring my post and saying, "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh Huh!" does not make it so. You still have to deal with "death' being thrown anywhere." And you are still changing scripture to fit your assumptions/presuppositions. Your proof text does NOT say the "bodies and souls in the grave and in Hades. Those bodies were delivered up to be judged." It says "hades is cast into the LOF." Not everyone in the grave is a sinner. So please explain how all the graves in the world being cast into the LOF destroys death? Not everyone who dies is in a grave.

My interpretation does NOT have to change one word in any scripture as yours does.

The righteous dead are resurrected 1,000 years prior to the unsaved being resurrected. Where John wrote that death and hell gave up the dead that were in them, he was speaking of the wicked dead because the righteous dead were resurrected 1,000 years prior to them being resurrected.

There are no righteous dead in the graves in Rev. 20:13.

 

[Der Alte]

Ignoring my post and saying, "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh Huh!" does not make it so. You still have to deal with "death' being thrown anywhere." And you are still changing scripture to fit your assumptions/presuppositions. Your proof text does NOT say the "bodies and souls in the grave and in Hades. Those bodies were delivered up to be judged." It says "hades is cast into the LOF." Not everyone in the grave is a sinner. So please explain how all the graves in the world being cast into the LOF destroys death? Not everyone who dies is in a grave.

My interpretation does NOT have to change one word in any scripture as yours does.

The righteous dead are resurrected 1,000 years prior to the unsaved being resurrected. Where John wrote that death and hell gave up the dead that were in them, he was speaking of the wicked dead because the righteous dead were resurrected 1,000 years prior to them being resurrected.

There are no righteous dead in the graves in Rev. 20:13.

Are empty graves yanked out of the ground and thrown into the LOF. How does this destroy death? Not everyone who is dead is in a grave.

Rev 20:12-15
(12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
(13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
(14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
(15) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.​

According to your interpretation all the righteous had been judged 1000 years earlier but vs. 15 indicates there were still righteous among those resurrected. If only the unrighteous were still in the grave in this passage there would have been no "whosoever", everybody being judged should have been unrighteous.

Still waiting for an explanation how death, which is the point in time, cessation of life which has no physical presence or properties could be thrown anywhere? Is it figurative but Hades being cast into the LOF is literal?

 

[Yab Yum]

I'd think that if you took out eternal hell you'd have more people with less of an excuse to not believe in God.

That's one of the saddest things I've ever seen posted on this board.

 

[SkyWriting]

...
When you die, the physical body is buried in the GRAVE where it decomposes. The GRAVE is not Sheol or Hades. The soul departs and either goes to Hell ... if one dies without Christ....or to Heaven to be with the Lord (absent from the body, present with the Lord). Hell is not annihilation and those lost souls will remain in Hell (Hades) until they are judged at the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). Death and hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire...then those whose names are not found written in the Book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Gehenna). This is eternal separation from God...forever and ever.

I think its the "spirit" that leaves, not the soul.
The rest sounds correct.

 

[sheina]

Genesis 35:18 (KJV) And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

1 Kings 17:21 (KJV) And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again.

It is the "soul", not the spirit, which departs. The "spirit" of man returns to God at death:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The New Testament says there are three parts to man: spirit, soul, and body:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (KJV) 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.

 

[Mikecpking]

Genesis 35:18 (KJV) And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

1 Kings 17:21 (KJV) And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again.

It is the "soul", not the spirit, which departs. The "spirit" of man returns to God at death:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The New Testament says there are three parts to man: spirit, soul, and body:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (KJV) 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.

A 3 part idea of man is unscriuptural as it misses out key body parts like heart (leb), inwards belly, kidneys, reins etc as they also are 'parts' showing spiritual significance.

As mention earlier, a human does not have a soul, it is a soul (nephesh) based on this verse which sould be the foundation for biblical anthropology

Genesis 2:7 (King James Version)


7And 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.


Man became a soul (whole living being), he did not get one!

From post 41 on this thread:

Originally Posted by Studious One

Actually, the soul does indeed leave the body upon death.

1 Kings 17:22 (KJV) And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.
​

The word translated 'soul' here is from the Hebrew word 'nephesh'. When a living creature or person dies, the 'nephesh' departs, but does not go someplace else. 'It' dies at physical death, because the basic meaning of 'nephesh' is life

Here are 4 verses for you to ponder on:

DT 12:23

For the life (nephesh, 'soul') is the blood.

Deuteronomy 12:23 (King James Version)


23Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

Lev 17:11
Leviticus 17:11 (King James Version)


11For the life(nephesh) of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls(nephesh): for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul(nephesh).



So the blood is the vehicle of soul, hence what one would call 'life blood'.

Judges 16:30 (King James Version)


30And Samson said, Let me(nephesh) die with the Philistines.

Here, Samson is asking Gog to take away his life (he will die!) Same Hebrew word, nephesh)

Numbers 23:10 (King James Version)


10Who can count the dust of Jacob, and the number of the fourth part of Israel? Let me(nephesh) die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!

These verses prove that 'nephesh' dies at physical death.

In order for the soul to come into the child again, the soul would first have to have left the body.

Scripture also reveals that the soul left Rachel's body...

Genesis 35:18 (KJV) And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

There is no such thing as soul sleep. When the mortal body dies, the body is committed to the ground, while the soul goes to either heaven or hell. If it goes to hell, it will experience all the torment of hell.
​

The definition of soul you are using uis incorrect. If you were to replace the word 'soul' with 'life', then you have a better understanding of the Hebrew word 'nephesh' which cannot be compared with Plato's definition of soul being read into scripture.

Here is Strong's definition of the word nephesh in which you have used as 'soul':

5315 nephesh neh'-fesh from 5314; properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):--any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

There is nothing to suggest any immortal quality about 'nephesh'. There is not one verse that suggests souls go to heaven at death, but dead people go to the grave (sheol) whether righteous or evil. It sounds like you do not believe in the resurrection, nor the final judgement, if after all, one either goes to heaven or hell upon death eternally, what would the point of a resurection be?
__________________

Your speculation that the soul departs and goes some place else rather twists Hebrews meant as from the Hebrew definition in DT 12:23, Lev 17:11 verses denote 'life' so when you quote Gen 35:18, it should read 'life', not 'soul' in the true sense of the word: eg:

Genesis 35:18 (New International Version)

18 As she breathed her last—for she was dying—she named her son Ben-Oni. [a] But his father named him Benjamin

Genesis 35:18 (New Living Translation)

18 Rachel was about to die, but with her last breath she named the baby Ben-oni (which means “son of my sorrow”). The baby’s father, however, called him Benjamin (which means “son of my right hand”).

There you have it in context, there was no immaterial essense that left, just the life went away not that it goes someplace else.

'Spirit' in Ecclesiates 12:7 is 'breath of God' as in Gen 2:7 so that verse is the complete reversal of Genesis 2:7. 'Spirit' is not 'us', it is 'breath' that returns to God.

 

[Studious One]

A 3 part idea of man is unscriuptural as it misses out key body parts like heart (leb), inwards belly, kidneys, reins etc as they also are 'parts' showing spiritual significance.

Man being triune is totally Scriptural.

Paul clearly shows that man is triune in his epistle to the Church at Thessalonica, where he wrote:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (KJV) 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.

Paul makes distinction between the spirit, the soul, and the body. Heart, liver, kidneys, brain, etc all fall under the category of body.

sheina is not unScriptural in her stance, because the Word of God clearly shows the soul and the spirit are not the same thing.

You, sir, are the one that is unScriptural.

 

[Mikecpking]

Man being triune is totally Scriptural.

Paul clearly shows that man is triune in his epistle to the Church at Thessalonica, where he wrote:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (KJV) 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.

Paul makes distinction between the spirit, the soul, and the body. Heart, liver, kidneys, brain, etc all fall under the category of body.

sheina is not unScriptural in her stance, because the Word of God clearly shows the soul and the spirit are not the same thing.

You, sir, are the one that is unScriptural.

Since you do not comment on the verses I posted, in what way is it unscriptural.

Here is something from a theology course which refutes your position:

The error
Traditional Christian doctrine has been very unhelpful in giving us a biblical understanding of personhood, it has usually presented one of two views as being the correct way of defining the components of human being. They have been as follows:-
• Tripartite
This is the view that the human individual is composed of three components; 'the body', 'the soul' and 'the spirit'. This fails to take a whole biblical picture, and bases itself upon a misinterpretation of two verses:-

'May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely;


and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless


at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ'


[ITh 5:23]


'Indeed, the word of God is living and active,


sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit,


joints from marrow;


it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart'.


[Heb4:12]​

In context these statements are clearly the rhetorical words of a preacher, they are not foundational theological statements. They must be interpreted against the broad biblical background of statements about personhood; and not it against them.
• Bipartite
This is the view that the human individual is composed of two components; 'the body' and 'the soul', with the 'spirit' being the quintessence of the 'soul'.
Neither of these two views are satisfactory, because:-
• they create the impression that the human person is comprised of three [or two] quite distinct elements [like a Neapolitan ice cream!], rather than a totality.
• they do not do justice to the range of biblical vocabulary with the variety of senses in which it is used.
• they are influenced by Greek philosophy rather than by Jewish thought; the words of the New Testament have too frequently been filled with concepts from Greek speculation while the Hebrew ideas they are translating have been forgotten.
• to imagine 'body', 'soul' and 'spirit' as distinct entities is to fundamentally misunderstand the biblical concepts.
• in ITh 5:23 the verb and adjective are both singular; the implication is 'keep the whole of you', not 'parts' of you.
• in Heb 4:12 the implication is to 'permeate every dimension' of a person, not separating 'parts'..
• neither of the models give any direct mention to the 'heart' which is a key biblical concept.
Bearing these facts in mind we must now attempt to resolve our thinking about the riddle of human nature by looking more closely at the way in which the biblical words are used.
The key
The Bible leads us towards an understanding of our personhood in its totality by approaching it in terms of our physical body. To the Hebrew mind 'personality' resulted from an 'animated body', it was not, as the Greeks thought, an 'incarnated soul'. The important biblical truth is that a person does not have a body they are a body. The Hebrews never thought about the body in isolation and for its own sake, they were only interested in the whole person and their relationship with God.
So the Bible sees the human body as the pathway into the whole person; it sees the physical body as the medium of an individuals personal life. Added to this, an organic and inseparable connection is seen between the physical and the spiritual dimensions of a person. As a result we see that various physical organs are spoken of as being connected with particular aspects of inner feelings and spiritual experience [eg breath, blood, heart, liver, kidneys, bowels etc]. In fact, at first sight, one could be forgiven for imagining that each individual person is composed of a number of unrelated and isolated centres of inner activity, seemingly independent of any unifying factor. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth; and understanding this paradox is in fact the essential key to understanding biblical anthropology.
The key to the biblical doctrine of personhood is understanding that the Hebrew mind saw no contrast or distinction between the 'one' and the 'many', the 'whole' and the 'part'. This results in two fundamental conclusions upon which everything else is built>
• the human person is a unity; a physical and spiritual totality which is an indivisible whole.
• the whole may be represented and seen in each particular part. At
any moment any part can stand for the whole person. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew scriptures mention some 80 parts of the human body, and yet, as we shall see, there is no single word for the 'whole'; almost any part can be used to represent the whole.
So in studying biblical anthropology we are presented with personhood as a totality and a whole; an indivisible unity. What the nature and substance of that unity is, is illuminated by a wealth of pictures which have their root in physical organs and observable phenomena from which they provide a 'bridge' into the spiritual depths of human personality:-
• each picture gives a vivid description of some aspect of the inner spiritual processes of personhood.
• each picture serves as a window into the whole person.
• each picture represents the whole person from a particular point of view.
Putting all the pictures together we have a series of windows each looking in on personhood as a whole, but highlighting different aspects of our unity from different perspectives. Imagine a free standing room with a window in each of the four walls and one in the ceiling; looking through each window gives you a view of the whole room, but each window also gives you a unique perspective on the whole room. The same is true of each of the biblical words.
The teaching of the Bible about personhood is profound. At first sight its approach may appear naive, but on examination we discover a treasury of pictures which interlock with one another in the most complex manner. Their variety of emphasis and colour, their subtle nuances in sense and feeling, all express deep truths about a person as a spiritual being.
The New Testament naturally builds from its Hebrew foundations. While it makes no clearer dogmatic statements than the Hebrew Bible, it does provide a centre around which all the fluid Hebrew ideas can arrange themselves - this is the personality of Jesus. Paul's treatment of the nature of personhood is the most elaborate in the New Testament, due to his emphasis on
'personal experience'. While he enlarges the biblical vocabulary he uses the new words in the
established biblical manner and framework. Also the New Testament emphasis on both the
present and future experience of the Kingdom of God, and its promise of the 'resurrection of
the body1, bring a new force to the whole subject. — « - ^
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']THE PICTURE - WINDOWS Nephesh - Psyche - Soul[/font]
The important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.

'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'. Here are some of the central statements about 'nephesh':-
• it is that vital life which is shared by both humans and animals [Gen 2:19].
• it is life that is bound up with the body, blood is the vehicle of nephesh [Dt 12:23], at death it dies [Nu 23:10] draining away with the blood, with resuscitation it 'returns'; not that it has gone anywhere.
• it can denote 'the living individual themselves' [Gen 14:21], and can replace the personal pronoun to create special emphasis [Ps 42:6], God uses it of himself [Am 6:8].
• it is strongly instinctive [animal] activity; desire, vital urge, feeling, emotion, mood [Dt 14:26].
• it is feelings and emotions of a spiritual kind; grief, pain, joy, peace, love [Ezk 27:31]; its highest expression is longing for God [Ps 25:1].
The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.
This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.

 

[Mikecpking]

Page 2:

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Ruah - Pneuma - Spirit[/FONT]
This 'picture - window' into personhood highlights our unique relationship with God.'Ruah' has its roots in the 'wind' which emphasises both its powerful and yet subtle nature. 'Ruah' is used in a number of different contexts:-
• for the wind in nature.
• for the nature of God's being ['Spirit of God', 'Holy Spirit']; dynamic, overwhelming, at times completely dominating [Jg 6:34], the root of prophesying [ISam 10:5-6] and abnormal strength [Jg 14:6].
• for demonic activity [ISam 16:14].
• for the 'principle of life' [akin to 'nephesh' often used interchangeably]. It is the life force present everywhere; independent, universal, it does not die.
• for the vital energy dwelling within each individual, that force which affects temperament.
Human 'ruah' is more than just the natural breath we breathe [which is 'nesama']. There is a vital energy within each person which is the result of the special 'in-breathing' of God; the centre of thoughts, decisions, moods, and is the dimension of personhood most directly open to the influence of God. 'Ruah' particularly stresses:-
• the direction of the will, it is the energy behind willing and acting, that which urges good and evil [Isa 29:24; Ps 51:12].
• the deep emotions; passion [Jg 8:3], grief [Gen 26:35] zeal [Hag 1:14], often seen in the panting of excitement or distress which is different from normal breathing.
• the seat of individual moral qualities and attitudes [Ecc 7:8; Isa 57:15; Num 14:24]. Ezekiel sees the Messianic age as a period when individuals will be permeated by Yahweh's 'ruah' which in turn will renew their own [11; 19; 18:31; 36:26; 39:29]. This is one of the most important words in Paul's vocabulary with his emphasis on regeneration, sanctification, fellowship with God [Gal. 5:22-23 etc].
• the experience of being in touch with God and under God's influence. The human 'ruah' searches out God's ways [Ps 77:7; Isa 26;9], it can be stirred or hardened by God [Jer 51; 11; Dt 2:30].
'Ruah' presents us with human nature's in interplay with the nature of God. It is stressing a person open to and transmitting the life of God [Rm 8:16; ICor 2:10-11]. It has no physical 'animal' character, [never associated with blood], transcending mere desire or feeling.
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Leb - Kardia - Heart[/FONT]
'Leb' is a 'window - word' that looks in at personhood in terms of deepest emotions and from the perspective of intellect and will. 'Leb', in some ways, draws together every spiritual process. It is'conscious spiritual activity'.
It was early recognised that emotions and intense feelings produce physical effects in the heart [slow, quick, intermittent pulse rates, sometimes strong pain]. So it has come to picture the epicentre of the human person as an emotional being. Other bodily organs have been drawn alongside to add other facets to this idea:-
• Kidneys: the unfathomable depths of an individual, centre of emotions that only God can search out and test [Jer 11:20; 12:2; Isa 29:13].
• Bowels: emotions that can be deeply agitated; seething fermenting, troubling [Job 30:27; Lam 1:20].
• Inwards-Belly: emphasising the unique character of human spiritual nature in contrast to the external world [Phil 3:19; Jn 7:38].
• Bones: the basic structural element in man; spiritually and emotionally as
well as physically [Ps 35:10; Pr 3:8], they suffer seismic shock in emotional distress [Jer 23:9].
The other very important emphasis of 'leb' is personhood in terms of their inner direction; the deliberate conscious activity of the will and the responsibility it brings.
What comes from an individuals heart is 'the distinct property of the whole person' making them responsible for it. The 'responsible will' is central to the biblical concept of the 'heart'. Making God's will our own requires a new heart [Ezk 36:26].
Paul in his writings uses 'kardia' with all the senses of the Hebrew 'leb', but enlarges it by the introduction of two other words that emphasis 'will' and ' responsibilities':-
• Mind [nous]: human intellectual capacity [Phil 4:7] which may be good or bad. It may be immoral, vain, corrupt defiled [Rm 1:28; Eph 4:17]. It contains God's law [Rm 7:23] and in a Christian is renewed transforming life [Rm 12:2], imparting the mind of Christ [ICor 2:16].
• Conscience [suneidessis]: human faculty for moral judgment. It can be defiled [ICor 8:7] or pure [ITim 3:9]. It is that consciousness of 'being right within one's heart' [Rm2:15].
So 'leb' is conscious spiritual activity, stressing the sense of responsibility.
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Contrast : Nephesh, Ruah, Leb[/FONT]
It will be quite clear that 'nephesh', 'ruah', and 'leb' overlap one another at significant points.
The distinctions between 'nephesh' and 'leb' at the higher level of understanding is very difficult. They are often used interchangeably [cf Ex 6:9 with Jg 16:16; Ecc 7:8 with Job 6:11], and yet they are not the same. The distinction is found back at their roots.
The overlap between all three is to be expected when we remember each is considering the whole man from a slightly different angle. Their contrasting stresses may be seen as:-
• Nephesh : instinctive 'animal' activity.
• Leb : conscious spiritual activity.
• Ruah : personhood open to the influence of the nature of God.
'Nephesh' and 'leb' stand in contrast with 'ruah' between them. 'Nephesh' and 'ruah' stress the 'lower' and 'higher' levels of consciousness.
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Basar - Sarx - Flesh[/FONT]
'Basar' is the 'window - word' that looks at 'the whole life substance of personhood organised in visible form'. It is common to both human and beast. As we have seen we do not have a body, we are a body. 'Basar' is 'nephesh' in its outward form, the same reality is involved, a person as a living being. It is the whole tangible form of a person controlled by the 'nephesh', [there are different Hebrew words for simply the muscular parts of the body and for a lifeless corpse]. The Hebrew scriptures do not have a word for 'the body' in the way we would understand that term [the whole]. 'Basar' is 'flesh', though [as we shall see] the New Testament term 'body' is rooted back into it.
The Bible places high value on a person's physical aspect, 'basar' affirms our physical existence. It destroys the Greek idea, that has so often polluted Christian thinking, that 'the flesh' is a prison cell, the enemy of the spirit, which incarcerates the 'real self in matter.
However the Bible also affirms that the physical alone does not give complete meaning to personhood. 'Flesh' is simply the whole person from one particular perspective:-
• it is personhood in corporeal form: often used as a personal pronoun [2Cor 5:5; Eph 5:28]; notice how 'flesh', 'longs after God' [Ps 63:1], 'rejoices in God' [Ps 84:2].
• it is personhood in external and visible in contrast to internal and spiritual [Gal 4:13-14; 2Cor 12:7].
• it is personhood in earthly solidarity with earthly existence [Phil 1:24; Gal 2:20]. It is God's chosen will for us to be part of this world, our God-given sphere of life. It is neutral. John stresses Jesus came 'in the flesh' [Jn 1:14; Un 4:2].
• it is personhood in contrast to God: human as opposed to divine. It is 'mere mortals' in their weakness, their impotence, their mortality, temporary, perishable; in contrast to the power and eternal nature of God.
• it is personhood in opposition to God; flesh has been exploited by the rebellious forces of 'this age' and has fallen under sin and death [Rm 8:12; Gal 5:13]. It is a person living for this world. Their God-given place has taken over as the principle of his life and conduct [humanism]. An individual in their self-sufficiency. For this reason flesh will neither 'glory before God' [ICor 1:29], nor 'inherit the kingdom' [ICor 15:50]. In this sense 'being in the flesh' is incompatible with being a Christian [Rm 8:8]; not because it is evil but because it distorts a person's relationship with God.
'Flesh' is the whole person in visible form and it is good. Dependent life which requires a physical organism to sustain it. It stresses human impotence and the fact that ultimately we are wholly perishable. There is no promise of resurrection for the 'flesh'.

 

[Mikecpking]

page 3:

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Basar - Soma - Body[/FONT]
The word 'body' is unique as a 'picture - window' into the whole person. It is a word that takes on particular significance in the New Testament vocabulary of Paul. The word 'flesh' [ ['sarx'] properly translates the Hebrew 'basar'. The word 'body' ['soma'] must find its origin in the same Hebrew root, but it develops quite differently. Paul speaks of 'the body of the flesh' [Col 2:11]; this makes a complete identity between 'body' and 'flesh'. It is significant that the Greeks stressed the contrast between 'body' and 'soul', while Paul draws the contrast between 'body' and 'flesh'.
The word 'body' carries the following emphases:-
• it is the external presence of the whole person. It is what an individual has that makes their earthly life possible [Gal 6:17; 2Cor 10:10]. In as much as it is the sum of sensual functions and physical appetites, it will pass away. Only when the 'body' has emphasised everything in 'flesh' does it diverge from it.
• it is personhood in opposition to God. The 'body' is identified with 'flesh' in the power of sin and corruption [Rm 6:6] humiliation [Rm 7:24] dishonour [ICor 15:43] and lust [Rm 6:12]. It is because sin is not just 'fleshly' but a reality of the whole person that it is essential that redemption be accomplished as a bodily event.
• it is what personhood is. The whole person is an expression of the very core of their being. Hence fornication is a sin against the body [ICor 6:18]. It is the 'body' that is the temple of the Holy Spirit [ICor 6:19-20].
• it is personhood made for God. It emphasised the strength of human creativity [ICor 6:13-20]. In contrast to 'flesh' it is not merely the external as opposed to the spiritual. It is not merely the human as opposed to the divine.
• it is personhood in solidarity. 'Body' stresses that which binds one individual to another. It contrasts the Greek idea which saw the body as the boundary that separated one person from all others. The 'body' never stresses the individual [singular or plural are not significant], it is social. It emphasises the solidarity of the human race [Heb 13:3]. Biblically a person's individuality is found only in their relationship before God [Jer 31:29-30]. It is in the vertical direction that biblical individualism is seen.
• it is the whole person destined for God. 'Body' stresses an individual's 'goal', 'destination', and 'end' in God, rather than their origins; 'the body is for the Lord' [ICor 6:13]. Only the resurrection reveals a person's true destiny, and only the 'body' carries an individual into their resurrection, and that as part of the 'Body of Christ'. Before the body is raised it is essential that it dies first [Jn 12:24; ICor 15:36]. 'Flesh' must be replaced by a 'resurrection body'.
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Resurrection body[/FONT]
• Focus
Death brings visible physical destruction to the human body. If personhood is a 'whole' a 'unity', how can there be life beyond this point? This is the moment when for the Christian the distinction between 'flesh' and 'body' becomes critical. To focus on death as the crisis point for personhood is 'humanist', it distorts the biblical perspective. For the Christian the hope of resurrection of the body is rooted in the reality of their being part of the eschatological community which is one with the resurrection Body of Christ. Nowhere is the 'resurrection of the body' to do with the moment of death. Neither is the modern obsession 'the survival of the individual' a biblical emphasis. Rather the Bible speaks in 'corporate' and 'social' terms which envelope the individual. Two key passages for our discussion are; ICorinthians 15:35-58; and 2Corinthians 4:16-5:10. The focus points for Christian thinking on the resurrection body are 'baptism' and the 'Parousia'.
• Promise
The corner stone of the hope of the 'resurrection of the body' is the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ [Mt 28:6]. Upon this the promises are based:-
• 'whoever lives and believes in me shall never die' [Jn 11:25].
• 'He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies' [Rm8:ll].
• 'He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also' [2Cor 4:14].
• 'God is our certainty, guaranteeing the promise by his Spirit' [2Cor 5:5].
• Baptism
This is the point at which we become part of the resurrection body of Christ; the corporate Christ who will one day be the only one. Our survival 'present' and 'future' does not depend simply upon our 'body' but on this unique relationship with God through the risen Christ.
From baptism onwards we begin to be inwardly renewed [2Cor 4:16] Christ being formed within us [Gal 4:19] transformed into his image [2Cor 3:18]. Flesh is decaying but the individual as 'body' is being continually transformed [Rm 12:2]. Resurrection begins at
'spiritual birth' [Jn 3:3,5]; future life is a development of present spiritual life [Jn 6:40], a sequence in the life already possessed, a life which passes through death untouched [Jn 11:25].
Being part of the Body of Christ releases within us 'the powers of the age to come' [2Cor 5:17]. The present indwelling of the Spirit is the link with our resurrection bodies, full manifestation is yet to come [Col 3:4]. The 'heavenly body' is the result of sowing in corruption, dishonour and weakness now [2Cor 5:17; ICor. 15:42-45].
There is a tension between present experience and future hope. The body of Christ is a 'suffering body' as well as a resurrection body [Phil 3:10-11]; we groan in longing [2Cor 5:2]. The 'resurrection body' cannot be complete until the 'Parousia' when Christ is 'all in all' [Eph 1:23].
• Parousia
The final change will take place 'in a moment' [ICor 15:52]. As the 'old' falls away it will be seen that in Christ all things are become new [2Cor 5:17]. The 'Parousia' will not be an entirely 'magical moment' quite unrelated to the present.
ICorinthians 15 appears to be stressing 'resurrection' in 'individual' terms but the language must to be understood corporately to get the full biblical force.
There are many perplexing questions about the nature of the resurrection body at the 'Parousia'. They remain unanswered. It is a mystery. What is raised? What is preserved and purified through resurrection? To what extent will the resurrection body be 'physical'? We cannot say [Un 3:2-3]. Just as a 'plant' is different from its 'seed' and yet there is 'continuity' between the two, so it will be for us [ICor 15:37-38]. The body will fulfil its essence. However, it will only inherit if it is radically changed [ICor 15:51]. Sin is done away with [Rm 6:6]. The body is redeemed and fashioned anew [Rm 8:23]. The natural body is transformed into the 'spiritual' body [ICor 15:44].
When Paul wrote 2Corinthians 4 and 5, and ICorinthians 15 he clearly expected that he would be alive at the 'Parousia1 :-
• ICor. 15:52 : 'The dead will be raised ... we shall be changed'.
• 2Cor. 5:4 : 'Not that we would be unclothed, but... further clothed'.
This leads to the question, "What is the position of those who die before the 'Parousia'?"
• Interim
This is a very hard question to answer. In Hebrew thinking the 'dead' were not 'nephesh' but 'rephaim' ['shadows', 'the weak' Isa 14:10]. They are 'insubstantial' but not 'immaterial', death being 'the weakest form of life' not extinction. Their habitation was 'sheol', a state of twilight existence [cf Job 3:17-19]. There is this sense of suspended animation.

 

[Studious One]

I reject your Theologians.

The Word of God clearly separates body, soul and spirit.

Your theologians prove they have no business telling people what the Word of God says because they don't understand it themselves.

 

[Mikecpking]

I reject your Theologians.

The Word of God clearly separates body, soul and spirit.

Your theologians prove they have no business telling people what the Word of God says because they don't understand it themselves.

Well, I think you have to question Spurgeon's and the main Anglican faith

Workshop Advisory Committee | Workshop

What is Workshop? | Workshop

What People Say | Workshop

I see you are a Baptist; I became a believer through the Baptist chuch and this is what someone said about the course from the Baptitst church in the UK:

Baptist - Neil Brighton, Keyworth Baptist Church, Nottingham
"The course gave me the confidence for further study. It encourages students to grapple with the way scripture, tradition and culture inter-relate. It is of immense value to those who continue their existing roles in local churches and the voluntary sector by encouraging the skills needed for critical reflection on contemporary issues."

Bible Society
- Rev Dr Martin Robinson: Director of Mission and Theology (1987-2002)
"I have been enormously impressed with the calibre of the students, the quality of the curriculum, the ability of the various lecturers, and the clear application that the students seem to be able to make in terms of the content of the course. Past students frequently tell me how helpful the programme was in developing their potential."

If all you can say is 'you are wrong and Iam right' what is the point of debating scripture when you never address any of the points?

How do you answer my earlier point that the soul is literally the (in) the blood when you say it goes some place else?