• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE STATE OF THE DEAD?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by LoveGodsWord, Jun 11, 2021.

  1. LoveGodsWord

    LoveGodsWord Well-Known Member

    +5,074
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    Hello NotreDame nice to meet you. The post was not mine you are quoting from it does not belong to me but I am happy to provide some comments for consideration.
    Not really dear friend. Your quoting from a single post with scripture while ignoring all the scriptures in the OP and many other posts with scripture that disagrees with you. According to the scriptures we are to judge righteous judgement. That is judgement based on scripture and it is scripture that these judgements are based upon. Now what is it that you do not believe?
    Your response here...
    Your mistake here is in thinking that the scrolls here are divided into chapters and verses. They are not the book of Luke as all the scrolls of the bible are individual continuous scrolls with no chapters and full stops, commas etc and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is just another parable. The meaning being that what we do in life effects the afterlife so once again set in a worldly settings just the same as the other parables. You are also, mistaken saying that none of the other parables talk about the afterlife. If you are familiar with the parable of the wheat and the tares you would see that the wheat and tares grow together until the harvest (second coming). On top of this all the context from Luke 13 to Luke 17 are all parables. Also you may need to consider Matthew 13:34 as everything Jesus spoke to the multitude was in parables and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man was spoken directly to the multitude along with the other parables. So plenty of supporting scripture and precedent wouldn't you say?
    There does not need to be alerting language that each parable is a parable. This is alerted in context already. There is not an alert to every parable in the bible is there? In fact there are a lot of alerts to Jesus speaking parables in Mathew 13 you will notice *Matthew 13:18; 24; 31; 33 but from this point forward it is written in the scriptures in Matthew 13:34 "All these things spoke Jesus to the multitude in parables; and without a parable spoke he not to them." The meaning here is that Jesus mainly spoke to the multitude in parables so of course Jesus was speaking of the parable of the Lazarus and the rich man to the multitude therefore a parable. These are God's Word not mine.
    Your response here...
    Here your trying to make an argument of Jesus as a man not sinning being impossible. Jesus was God in the flesh and of course nothing is impossible for God and to God. The scriptures already provided in the previous section already prove that the object lesson of Lazarus and the rich man was a parable both in the scripture contexts and from the fact that the scriptures state very clearly that Jesus only spoke to the multitude in parables in Matthew 13:34 and it was to the multitude that Jesus spoke the parable of Lazarus and the rich ruler. All you need to do is to read the scriptures to show that there are impossibilities in this parable of Lazarus and the rich ruler. For example in Luke 16:24 it says of the rich man while he was burning in the flames of hellfire; "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." Now perhaps you might like to explain how Lazarus dipping his finger in water from Heaven and coming down to someone burning in hellfire is going to literally cool someone's tongue?
    Your response...
    Not really dear friend. Your making a strawman argument no one is arguing about here unsupported by scripture. No one said anything is impossible for God. As posted earlier the scriptures teach that Lazarus and the rich man is a parable and not literal unless you also want to argue we are all literally sheep, wheat or tares. It is God's Word (not mine) that says Matthew 13:34 "All these things spoke Jesus to the multitude in parables; and without a parable spoke he not to them." The meaning here is that Jesus mainly spoke to the multitude in parables so of course Jesus was speaking of the parable of the Lazarus and the rich man to the multitude therefore a parable. These are God's Word not mine.
    Your response here...
    Exactly the point that was being made from point 4 you are quoting from. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is not literal.
    Your response here...
    According to the scriptures Elijah did not see death. He was taken to heaven without seeing death according to the scriptures (2 Kings 2:11). Moses did die but was resurrected from the dead and taken to heaven *Jude 1:9.

    The scriptures teach is the those who are asleep in the grave (dead) in Christ will rise again at the second coming...

    1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
    [13], But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
    [14], For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
    [15], For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
    [16], For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
    [17], Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
    [18], Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

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

    I believe the vision on the mount of Jesus, Elijah and Moses is a representation of what happens at the second coming of Christ. Elijah on the Mount with Jesus represents all the righteous living that will be alive when Jesus returns at the second coming. Moses on the Mount with Jesus represents all those who died in Christ and are resurrected at the second coming...

    Hope this is helpful.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2021
  2. Daniel Marsh

    Daniel Marsh Well-Known Member

    +2,208
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Isaiah 14
    A Song About the King of Babylon
    4 At that time you will begin to sing this song about the king of Babylon:

    The king was cruel when he ruled us,
    but now his rule is finished.
    5 The Lord breaks the scepter of evil rulers;
    he takes away their power.
    6 In anger, the king of Babylon beat the people.
    He never stopped beating them.
    He was an evil ruler who ruled in anger.
    He never stopped hurting people.
    7 But now, the whole country rests and is quiet.
    Now the people begin to celebrate.
    8 You were an evil king,
    and now you are finished.
    Even the pine trees are happy.
    The cedar trees of Lebanon rejoice.
    They say, “The king chopped us down,
    but now the king has fallen,
    and he will never stand again.”
    9 The place of death is excited
    that you are coming.
    Sheol is waking the spirits
    of all the leaders of the earth for you.
    Sheol is making the kings stand up
    from their thrones to meet you.

    10 They will make fun of you, saying,
    “Now you are as dead as we are.

    Now you are just like us.”
    11 Your pride has been sent down to Sheol.
    The music from your harps announces the coming of your proud spirit.
    Maggots will be the bed you lie on,
    and other worms will cover your body like a blanket.
     
  3. LoveGodsWord

    LoveGodsWord Well-Known Member

    +5,074
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    Isaiah 14 is about Lucifer being identified as the true King of Babylon who will go to the grave (hell meaning place of the dead) after the second coming. It is not talking about what happens when we die and that the dead are living now.

    That would be a contradiction of Ecclesiastes 9:5 that says [5], For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Not to mention all the scriptures provided in the OP. What bible version are you using?

    Isaiah 14:9-15 (KJV)
    [9], HELL FROM BENEATH IS MOVED FOR THEE TO MEET THEE AT THY COMING: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
    [10], All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
    [11], Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
    [12], HOW ART THOU FALLEN FROM HEAVEN, O LUCIFER, SON OF THE MORNING! HOW ART THOU CUT DOWN TO THE GROUND, WHICH DIDST WEAKEN THE NATIONS!
    [13], FOR THOU HAST SAID IN THINE HEART, I WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN, I WILL EXALT MY THRONE ABOVE THE STARS OF GOD: I WILL SIT ALSO UPON THE MOUNT OF THE CONGREGATION, IN THE SIDES OF THE NORTH:
    [14], I WILL ASCEND ABOVE THE HEIGHTS OF THE CLOUDS; I WILL BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH.
    [15], YET THOU SHALT BE BROUGHT DOWN TO HELL, TO THE SIDES OF THE PIT.

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

    Links to...

    Revelation 20:1-15
    [1], And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the BOTTOMLESS PIT and a great chain in his hand.
    [2], And HE LAID HOLD ON THE DRAGON, THAT OLD SERPENT, WHICH IS THE DEVIL, AND SATAN, AND BOUND HIM A THOUSAND YEARS,
    [3], AND CAST HIM INTO THE BOTTOMLESS PIT, AND SHUT HIM UP, AND SET A SEAL UPON HIM, THAT HE SHOULD DECEIVE THE NATIONS NO MORE, TILL THE THOUSAND YEARS SHOULD BE FULFILLED: AND AFTER THAT HE MUST BE LOOSED A LITTLE SEASON.
    [4], AND I SAW THRONES, AND THEY SAT UPON THEM, AND JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN UNTO THEM: AND I SAW THE SOULS OF THEM THAT WERE BEHEADED FOR THE WITNESS OF JESUS, AND FOR THE WORD OF GOD, AND WHICH HAD NOT WORSHIPED THE BEAST, NEITHER HIS IMAGE, NEITHER HAD RECEIVED HIS MARK UPON THEIR FOREHEADS, OR IN THEIR HANDS; AND THEY LIVED AND REIGNED WITH CHRIST A THOUSAND YEARS.
    [5], BUT THE REST OF THE DEAD LIVED NOT AGAIN UNTIL THE THOUSAND YEARS WERE FINISHED. THIS IS THE FIRST RESURRECTION.
    [6], BLESSED AND HOLY IS HE THAT HATH PART IN THE FIRST RESURRECTION: ON SUCH THE SECOND DEATH HATH NO POWER, BUT THEY SHALL BE PRIESTS OF GOD AND OF CHRIST, AND SHALL REIGN WITH HIM A THOUSAND YEARS.
    [7], And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
    [8], And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    [9], And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
    [10], AND THE DEVIL THAT DECEIVED THEM WAS CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE AND BRIMSTONE, WHERE THE BEAST AND THE FALSE PROPHET ARE, AND SHALL BE TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT FOR EVER AND EVER.
    [11], ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
    [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.

    Hope this is helpful.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2021
  4. Butch5

    Butch5 Newbie Supporter

    +709
    Christian
    Married
    Sleep is used as a metaphor for death. The most likely reason is the Resurrection. Death and the Resurrection are like going to sleep and then later waking up. The doctrine of soul sleep, that the soul sleeps after the body dies, is not a Biblical. When a man dies he is dead until the resurrection. There is no consciousness between death and the Resurrection. In Gen 2:7 Moses recorded how God created man.

    And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

    We can see from this that God formed the man from the dust of the earth. So man consists of the dust of the earth. That's what a man is. God then breathed His breath or spirit of life into the man and the man "became" a living soul. This shows us that that dust of the ground man became a living soul. It's not that he has a soul, but that He is a soul. We're also told that when a man dies the breath or spirit returns to God and the body returns to the dust. Since the two elements of the soul have separated, the soul no longer exists. Thus there is nothing left to live on after death.

    5 Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:
    6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
    7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Eccl. 12:5-7 KJV)
     
  5. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +2,396
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    I do not believe your interpretation of the relevant verses is a correct interpretation. You can invoke the phrase “according to Scripture” but that is nothing more than self-serving phrasing and fallaciously begs the question, as the issue before us is whether your interpretation is correct. It is my opinion your interpretation is not correct.

    There isn’t any point after death of some unconsciousness or soul sleep as some call it.

    Anyone who takes this view has to explain how Moses, in a bodily form, is walking on top of a mountain and conversing with Jesus.

    Anyone who take such a view of soul sleep must contend with Paul’s remarks which are inconsistent with soul sleep.

    “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” It’s actually gain to die! “For if I live on the flesh this will mean fruit for my labor. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless, to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.”

    There’s no room for “soul sleep” above. Paul is unequivocal, “having a desire to depart and be with Christ.” To depart is to be present with Christ, to depart isn’t to be away from Christ.

    Second, the context is important. Paul is comparing presently being in the “flesh” to “depart and be with Christ.” Paul is having difficulty deciding whether to be present on earth or to “depart” and be present with Christ. Soul sleep doesn’t enter Paul’s calculus.

    Which means you and everyone else has misconstrued many verses. But before I delve into how and why you misinterpreted many verses, I want to first address the Lazarus and rich man account, and your assertion it is a parable.

    You espouse several reasons for the notion the Lazarus and rich man account is a parable. They are A) impossibility and A1) The notion that asserting impossibility is not presenting an impossibility for God B) identifying a rule of how Jesus “mainly” speaks to a crowd from the book of Matthew and B1) The assumptions you make in applying this rule to the relevant verses of Luke C) A Strawman argument about Jesus D) An argument of non-literalism based on a comparison to objects in verses which aren’t parallel.

    All of them are flawed, as I detail below but not necessarily in the order above.

    Your mistake is thinking it makes any difference. It doesn’t. My argument is rooted in the language that clearly indicates a continuation of parables and such language is absent in regards to the Lazarus and rich man account.

    Second, assuming, arguendo, without conceding, the paradise verses are parables, so what? Jesus utilized factual reality for his parables. Shepherds, sheep, creditors, debtors, farmers, seeds, Samaritans, Jews, etcetera, all factually exist. Hence, it is very plausible a paradise did exist and Jesus uses factual elements of this paradise for his parable, as he did with so many other parables.

    I’ve not made that argument. You’ll need to re-read what I said and how I used the example. You’ve misconstrued what I said and in doing so attributing a theological point I didn’t make and have never held.

    The impossibility idea doesn’t make any sense. None. The Bible is inundated with what is otherwise “impossibilities.”

    Excuse me? You’ve made the claim of impossibility. It’s your burden to demonstrate impossibility.

    Considering the Bible is littered with impossibilities, such as splitting the Red Sea, dead people coming back to life, the earth ceasing to spin, walls of Jericho falling to the ground, water springing forth from a rock, a burning bush, a staff turning into a snake, bread falling from heaven, people walking on water, cursing a tree and it immediately dies, a talking donkey, the passage about Lazarus and the rich man doesn’t suggest impossibility.

    One of your premises for arguing the passage is a parable is this nonsensical impossibility notion. So, yes, you are in fact arguing by logical inference that the scenario is an impossibility for God, hence, it MUST be a parable.

    Otherwise, your entire theme of impossibility as evidence for a parable doesn’t make any sense. If the situation of Lazarus and the rich man is not impossible, which means it is a possible scenario, a possible scenario an almighty God could create those conditions, then your argument for a parable based on this idea is impossible evaporates. Hence, logically, you are indeed arguing by inference the Lazarus and rich man account is impossible for God. You can protest otherwise but doing so renders this aspect of your argument incoherent.

    Do you make it a habit to compare apples to oranges? The very use of a metaphor screams parable or hypothetical. “All the world is a stage,” is a metaphor, not to be taken literally. But there’s no use of animals or objects as metaphors in the Lazarus and rich man account.

    First, you assume a “multitude” of people as the audience in Luke in regards to the account of Lazarus and the rich man thereby invoking this “mainly” spoke to crowds/multitudes notion of yours. A “multitude” of people isn’t signaled in the text of Luke, whereas it is explicitly referenced in Matthew.

    The textual evidence at best says the Pharisees were present to listen to Jesus speak of Lazarus and the rich man. Luke 16:14. But it isn’t clear or unequivocal the Pharisees were present to hear Jesus speak of Lazarus and the rich man as they are referenced as being present to listen and ridicule the doctrine in verses 16:1-13, but aren’t referenced again in regards to Lazarus and the rich man in the subsequent verses.

    In addition, Jesus is addressing his disciples in chapter 16 and it doesn’t say “multitude” of people. “Now He was also saying to the disciples…” This is a transition away from the people Jesus is mentioned to have addressed in Chapter 15. So, Jesus goes from speaking to people in 15 to speaking to his “disciples,” in which the Pharisees are present (maybe eavesdropping) to listen to Jesus’ teachings to his disciples and interject but Jesus wasn’t addressing the Pharisees according to the opening language of chapter 16.

    Contrast Matthew’s explicit reference to a “multitude” of people by writing, “And large crowds gathered to Him” with the lack of any reference to a large crowd in Luke’s account but instead Luke noted “all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near Jesus to listen to Him.” There’a nothing in the text to suggest or support these people constituted as a “large crowd” or a “multitude” in Luke.

    In addition, the crowd narrows according to the text, as the Pharisees are referenced in 16 as eavesdropping on Jesus’ teaching to his “disciples” but not the other people. And there’s no mention to the other people being present, maybe the Pharisees, for the Lazarus and rich man teaching.

    So, we may deduce that the rule you pull from the text in Matthew, of Jesus using parables to “mainly” speak to a multitude of people, a large crowd, isn’t applicable to the text of Luke 15-16, as there’s no indication of a “large crowd.” There lacking evidence of a “large crowd” in Luke 16, means a parable used for Lazarus and the rich isn’t necessary, and doesn’t demonstrate any likelihood, since the text doesn’t say he was addressing a “large crowd” in which parables are “mainly” used for large crowds. Stated another way,since there’s no crowd mentioned in Luke, the link between your “mainly” spoke to crowds and “so of course Jesus was speaking of the parable of the Lazarus and the rich man” falls apart.

    This is a consequence of a short sighted textual exegesis. Lifting a rule from a verse in one book and applying it to a set of circumstances in another book without pausing to ask whether the rule from the verse in one book is applicable to what is discussed in the other book can be fatal.

    In applying the rule of Jesus “mainly” spoke to “large crowds” in parables, and this “mainly” element being evidence Jesus did so in Luke, chapter 16 of Luke, specifically the Lazarus and rich man, you assumed a large crowd as the audience in 16 of Luke but the text doesn’t support your assumption, weakening the evidence “mainly” to Jesus did use a parable specifically regarding Lazarus/rich man.

    And just in case you seek to argue since parables are used, then a large crowd is present, that isn’t the rule in Matthew. The rule in Matthew is large crowd, then parables (you say mainly parables). The rule isn’t parables, therefore, large crowd.

    In addition, your interpretation of the verse in Matthew is not unambiguously supported by the text. NASB: “All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak anything to them without a parable. 35 This was so that what was spoken through the prophet would be fulfilled:“I will open My mouth in parables;
    I will proclaim things hidden since the foundation of the world.”

    “All these things” is qualifying language in relation to “spoke to the crowds in parables.”
    This may be a reference back to what Jesus said to the crowd. After all, Matthew says “And He told them many things in parables…” and “all these things” rationally indicate Jesus “mainly” spoke “things” to that crowd in parables.

    This supports as rational an interpretation that Matthew isn’t stating a crowd is present so Jesus “mainly” speaks in parables (“He did not speak anything to them without a parable”) but rather Jesus spoke “these things” on that occasion as parables to the crowd.

    We do know Jesus addressed crowds without parables. The famed sermon on the Mount is not all parables, if any, as Jesus addressed the crowd. Given that point Jesus “mainly spoke in parables” doesn’t lead to the conclusion “so of course Jesus was speaking of the parable of the Lazarus and the rich man.” The use of the word “mainly” means there are occasions when Jesus doesn’t use parables and that means the Lazarus and rich may be such an occasion.

    Additionally, the fact there are, as you correctly say, “a lot of alerts to Jesus speaking parables” in Matthew, establishing a pattern of announcing a parable. The announcement of a parable is followed in Luke, where a parable is announced. The subsequent examples are easily identified as parables by the use of conjunctions, linking the subsequent examples back to the opening parable, and thereby designating the subsequent examples as parables by use of conjunctions. But the conjunctions are absent connecting Lazarus/rich man to the first parable thereby signaling a continuation of parables.

    To the contrary, they are your words, your interpretation of the text. Whether your words are indeed God’s words depends upon the text, the meaning of the words used, sentence structure, word arrangement, the evidence, logic used. I have no problem with God’s word. I disagree you’ve correctly presented what is God’s word.

    And again, it is self serving to proclaim what you’ve said is God’s word. There’s no shortage of people who have done the same as you, asserted they are merely repeating “God’s word” for slavery, sexism, discrimination, the Cruasdes, same sex acts, etcetera. It isn’t at all impressive you can so easily proclaim what you’ve said is God’s word, that’s easily done by people everyday.
     
  6. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +2,396
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    .............

    I believe the vision on the mount of Jesus, Elijah and Moses is a representation of what happens at the second coming of Christ. Elijah on the Mount with Jesus represents all the righteous living that will be alive when Jesus returns at the second coming. Moses on the Mount with Jesus represents all those who died in Christ and are resurrected at the second coming...

    Hope this is helpful.[/QUOTE]

    This is Biblically unsound. Jesus was the first human being to suffer death, resurrection and live forevermore. Amen.

    The resurrections subsequent to Jesus are detailed in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible, not in the OT or the NT, is there any special resurrection for Moses. None.

    Jude 1:9 says nothing about Moses being resurrected from the dead. There is nothing in Jude 1:9 explicitly stating or implying Moses was resurrected. "Yet in the same way these people also, dreaming, defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak abusively of angelic majesties. 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him an abusive judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these people disparage all the things that they do not understand; and all the things that they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed."

    Moses' body has not been resurrected yet. Moses body is awaiting resurrection.

    None of those verses support any notion of a state of unconsciousness, AKA soul sleep. Those verses refer to the physical body in the ground. Those verses do not assert there is a state of unconsciousness.

    You are permitted to believe whatever you desire. Your belief above, however, is not supported by the verses.

    "He took along Peter, John, and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, 31 who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure, which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32"

    Moses was present on the mountain. Moses was so present on the mountain that Moses was talking to Jesus, and speaking to Jesus about "His departure." There's nothing in this verse supporting your "representation." Nothing. You are imposing extraneous notions onto the verse.

    "And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4"

    "And He was transfigured before them; 3 and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them. 4 And Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. 5"

    Nothing in these verses suggests, implies, or tacitly supports your "representation" idea. Nothing.

    However, the presence of Moses is Biblically impossible under the doctrine of soul sleep, an unconsciousness of the dead, as none of the verses identified as soul sleep have a Moses exception. Moses is clearly not unconscious, is clearly not experiencing soul sleep, walking on the mountain with Jesus, conversing with Jesus, and discussing Jesus' "Departure" with Jesus.

    “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” It’s actually gain to die! “For if I live on the flesh this will mean fruit for my labor. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless, to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.”

    There’s no room for “soul sleep” or a state of unconsciousness. Paul is unequivocal, “having a desire to depart and be with Christ.” The phrase is connected by the word "and" and the word "and" is a logical operator. "To depart AND be with Christ." Logically to depart isn’t to be away from Christ or not with Christ. It is to "depart AND be with Christ," which means where Paul has departure then he is with Christ.

    Second, the context is important to understanding what "with Christ" means. The "live on" is a reference to his condition presently, and extending his present condition, and his condition is he is presently in the flesh. He is comparing his present condition and living longer in the present condition of being in the "flesh" to departing his present condition of being in the flesh to "be with Christ." I am presently in the flesh but to die and I am present with the Lord is Paul's point. And Paul is agonizing over the two, to remain and be present in the flesh or to depart the flesh and be present with Christ.

    Paul's comments do not allow for this idea of soul sleep, a state of unconsciousness after death. Neither does Moses walking around on a mountain top chatting with Jesus about Jesus' "Departure."

    But you have a narrative to adhere to, and rather than adjust your belief to rationally make sense of the conflicting Biblical evidence, you resort to beliefs and rationalizations of those verses which conflict with your narrative in an effort to have the Biblical evidence conform to your narrative. In doing so, you espoused the Biblically unsupportable idea of Moses as a specific "representation" and the Biblically unsupportable notion Moses' body has already been resurrected from the dead.

    I do not operate that way. My mind operates premise, evidence, conclusion, revisit and revise if necessary when presented with conflicting evidence, if the reasoning is flawed, and where are my mistakes in my reasoning and evidence. I once gave serious consideration to the idea of soul sleep, this idea of some unconsciousness after death, but Moses on the mountain with Jesus and having a chat with Jesus and Paul's comment of departing this life and being with Christ mandated I rethink the idea. And the evidence supports the notion some part of us remains conscious after death.
     
  7. Butch5

    Butch5 Newbie Supporter

    +709
    Christian
    Married
    What part of man would you submit lives on after death?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
  8. LoveGodsWord

    LoveGodsWord Well-Known Member

    +5,074
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    Please forgive me but I disagree with your teachings as already shown with Gods' Word in our conversation and in the scriptures already provided in the OP and on many posts already on page one. Of course you are free to believe as you wish. That is between you and God. Thanks for sharing your view but for the reasons and scriptures already outlined in the post you are quoting from and the hundreds of scripture already provided in the OP we will agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing your view but I do not believe it is biblical. I think @Butch5 asked you a good question at the end of the post, although their seems to be a formatting problem in the post. In case you find it hard to follow. He asked "What part of man would you submit lives on after death?"What part of man would you submit lives on after death?
     
  9. Butch5

    Butch5 Newbie Supporter

    +709
    Christian
    Married
    Hi LoveGodsWord,

    I find that most people who hold to some form of consciousness after death start with that premise and then draw that conclusion. It's actually fallacious, a form of Circular Reasoning. I think before we ask if man is alive after death, we should ask, is it possible for a man to be alive after death? If it's not possible then a lot of people are misunderstand quite a lot of Scripture. I've found, after much deep study of the Bible over several years, that it's not possible for man to be conscious after death.
     
  10. LoveGodsWord

    LoveGodsWord Well-Known Member

    +5,074
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    Hi Butch5, yes I agree. It is nice to see someone that studies the scriptures for themselves instead of holding to teachings handed down from the Roman Catholic Church to much of Protestantism. It is so clear what happens when we die if one reads the bible for themselves and how wonderfully this all links into the 2nd coming of Jesus in the clouds and the resurrection of the dead at the second coming. Thanks for sharing Butch, I enjoy reading your posts and insight into the scriptures.

    God bless.
     
  11. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +2,396
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    I did miss that post. Who posted it?

    There is of course a simple answer. You have a theory. Based on your theory, there are certain occurrences that cannot happen. One occurrence is people after death cannot be conscious or exist in any bodily form prior to one of the resurrections. If that does happen, then this disproves your theory, also known as Popper Falsification.

    So, based on your theory, Moses cannot walk and talk on top of the mountain with Jesus. This falsifies the entire theory. It doesn’t matter how many verses you think you have to support your view. One contrary example means the theory is wrong and you’ve misconstrued the verses.

    In addition, Paul’s remarks do not support your view. “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” It’s actually gain to die! “For if I live on in the flesh will mean fruit for my labor. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless, to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.”

    There’s no room for “soul sleep” or a state of unconsciousness. Paul is unequivocal, “having a desire to depart and be with Christ.” The phrase is connected by the word "and" and the word "and" is a logical operator. "To depart AND be with Christ." Logically to depart isn’t to be away from Christ or not with Christ. It is to "depart AND be with Christ," which means where Paul has departure then he is with Christ.

    Second, the context is important to understanding what "with Christ" means. The "live on" is a reference to his condition presently, and extending his present condition, and his condition is he is presently in the flesh. He is comparing his present condition and living longer in the present condition of being in the "flesh" to departing his present condition of being in the flesh to "be with Christ." I am presently in the flesh but to die and I am present with the Lord is Paul's point. And Paul is agonizing over the two, to remain and be present in the flesh or to depart the flesh and be present with Christ.

    Paul's comments do not allow for this idea of soul sleep, a state of unconsciousness after death. Neither does Moses walking around on a mountain top chatting with Jesus about Jesus' "Departure."

    Those two pieces of evidence do not fit your theory. One piece of evidence is entirely contradictory and the other is inconsistent.

    What I do know is there’s evidence contradictory to and inconsistent with your theory and interpretation of the Bible. There’s evidence of man existing in a state of consciousness after death, as Moses is walking and conversing with Jesus on the mountain. Paul states his departure is to be with Christ, and not his departure is to a state of unconsciousness.

    It isn’t a simple matter of “believing as”
    I wish. It is believing based on the evidence and the strength of the reasoning. Simply, your reasoning is spurious. Your evidence is tenuous.

    For example, to explain away Moses on top of the mountain with Jesus, you conjure a “representation” not supported by any verse in the Bible.

    Then, you assert Moses’ body has already been resurrected. Your evidence? A verse in Jude that says nothing about resurrection and has nothing to do with resurrection.

    A lecture about “God’s word” is vacuous coming from someone who has taken positions not supported by any verse in the Bible.
     
  12. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +2,396
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    Do you make a habit to presume characteristics about people you do not know? Want to assume any other fictional facts about me?

    Just because I attended the University of Notre Dame doesn’t make me Catholic. The student body is littered with non-Catholics, and people who aren’t religious.

    But it is cool, your approach to Biblical interpretation, make unfounded assumptions, is reflected above, as you assume a feature about me upon which you have no evidence to support it and is false. Nice.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  13. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +2,396
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    There is of course a simple answer. You have a theory. Based on your theory, there are certain occurrences that cannot happen. One occurrence is people after death cannot be conscious or exist in any bodily form prior to one of the resurrections. If that does happen, then this disproves your theory, also known as Popper Falsification.

    So, based on your theory, Moses cannot walk and talk on top of the mountain with Jesus. This falsifies the entire theory. It doesn’t matter how many verses you think you have to support your view. One contrary example means the theory is wrong and you’ve misconstrued the verses.

    In addition, Paul’s remarks do not support your view. “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” It’s actually gain to die! “For if I live on in the flesh will mean fruit for my labor. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless, to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.”

    There’s no room for “soul sleep” or a state of unconsciousness. Paul is unequivocal, “having a desire to depart and be with Christ.” The phrase is connected by the word "and" and the word "and" is a logical operator. "To depart AND be with Christ." Logically to depart isn’t to be away from Christ or not with Christ. It is to "depart AND be with Christ," which means where Paul has departure then he is with Christ.

    Second, the context is important to understanding what "with Christ" means. The "live on" is a reference to his condition presently, and extending his present condition, and his condition is he is presently in the flesh. He is comparing his present condition and living longer in the present condition of being in the "flesh" to departing his present condition of being in the flesh to "be with Christ." I am presently in the flesh but to die and I am present with the Lord is Paul's point. And Paul is agonizing over the two, to remain and be present in the flesh or to depart the flesh and be present with Christ.

    Paul's comments do not allow for this idea of soul sleep, a state of unconsciousness after death. Neither does Moses walking around on a mountain top chatting with Jesus about Jesus' "Departure."

    Those two pieces of evidence do not fit your theory. One piece of evidence is entirely contradictory and the other is inconsistent.

    What I do know is there’s evidence contradictory to and inconsistent with your theory and interpretation of the Bible. There’s evidence of man existing in a state of consciousness after death, as Moses is walking and conversing with Jesus on the mountain. Paul states his departure is to be with Christ, and not his departure is to a state of unconsciousness.
     
  14. LoveGodsWord

    LoveGodsWord Well-Known Member

    +5,074
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    See post 187 linked. @Butch5 posted the question to you. I am sorry I do not believe you. Scriptures already provided why in the OP and on the posts provided on page one. Your only repeating yourself here again so no need to answer it again. As to Jude 1:9 do you know what Jude is quoting from?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
  15. Butch5

    Butch5 Newbie Supporter

    +709
    Christian
    Married
    Or, you could be misunderstanding those passages. In order for you're interpretation to be correct it would have to be possible for man to live on after death. Since it's not possible for man to live on after death, you must have misconstrued those verses.

    You didn't answer my question. Is there a reason?

    I appreciate you giving me your understanding of the passages, but, unless you can prove that man can live on after death, I have to conclude that you don't understand those passages. Your contention that these passages disprove my theory is based on the premise that your understanding of these passages is correct. If it's not, then they don't prove my theory wrong.

    Also, I don't subscribe to soul sleep. From what we see with the creation of man the logical conclusion is that the soul ceases to exist at death.

    Actually, there's not. Moses wasn't walking around with Jesus. That was a vision of the Second Coming. Paul was stating a desire, not a theological fact. Claiming his departure from life would immediately put him with Christ is an assumption. If Paul had thought that immediately upon death he would be with Christ, why did he say this?

    12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
    13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
    14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
    15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
    16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
    17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
    18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. (1 Cor. 15:12-18 KJV)

    If Paul thought that immediately upon death he would be with Christ, why did he tell the Corinthians that if there is no resurrection, those who had died in Christ had perished? Why didn't he tell them that they were immediately with Christ? He didn't. The only hope he holds out for these dead believers is the resurrection. Apart from that they'd perished.

    Also, some food for thought. Why do you suppose there isn't a single statement to that effect in Scripture? Why does the idea have to be inferred? If, as so many claim, believers go to Heaven when they die and are with Christ, don't you think we'd find at least one verse of Scripture that tells us that?
     
  16. NotreDame

    NotreDame Domer Supporter

    +2,396
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Others
    It is but a truism, not a rebuttal, that I “could be misunderstanding” the verses. You’ve provided no counterargument I have. You’ve provided no contrary textual exegesis. None.

    My interpretation of those verses is based on the content of the verses and you’ve not shown the plain text of those verses do not support my understanding.

    The contrary is true, my understanding is consistent with the text of those verses, because my understanding is rooted in the language of those verses.

    Paul’s specific words I have quoted do not support your view of soul sleep. Paul’s own words make the point for him to “depart” is to be “with Christ.” There’s no room for your theory based on the plain wording.

    Now, as my high school calculus teacher always said, show your work. Let’s have a coherent, consistent theory, of how Paul’s assertion to “depart” and “be with Christ” is consistent with your notion of “depart” and then unconscious, soul sleep, and not “with Christ.”

    Paul’s very words aren’t compatible with your theory.

    And this isn’t the only occasion Paul stated to leave the body is to be with Christ.

    “So we are always of good courage; we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.”

    Paul’s message is unambiguous, “away from the body and at home with the Lord.”

    Paul didn’t say “away from the body, separate from the Lord in a state of unconscious, soul sleep.” Paul said “away from the body and at home with the Lord.”

    That plain language leaves no room for your intermission soul sleep. None.

    And, if you read the NT in Greek, especially Paul’s letters, you’d realize Paul used three Greek word for body, spirit, and soul, making a distinction between the three.

    1 Thessalonians 5:23: “May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here Paul uses all three of these terms in Greek, the soma, psuche, and pneuma (the spirit).

    Now, Paul’s words alone are inconsistent with your theory. Clearly, Paul teaches some part of us exists after death and with Christ. I do not need to understand how for it is written, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God…”

    Paul states to leave the body is to be with Christ. That is inconsistent with your theory. That’s all that is important, the fact Paul’s own words are inconsistent, arguably contradict, your theory and that is sufficient to refute your theory.

    You can obsess how it works but that is irrelevant because Paul’s own words refute your theory, regardless of how. Which is to say, for Paul, he didn’t seem concerned enough with “how” to articulate the “how,” and the fact Paul didn’t provide explication of “how” was no impediment to stating to “be away” to “depart” the body and be “at home with the Lord.”

    Paul’s words lend no support for your theory, are inconsistent, arguably contradictory to your theory, and provide refutation of your theory.

    And the flaw with your response above is to impose your theory onto the text of those verses, rather than let the verses speak for themselves. That is never a rational way to read any text.



    My understanding of those verses from Paul is right, not because I said so, but because the very language of the verses is consistent with and supports my understanding.

    But go ahead, tell me why what I said isn’t consistent with the verses from Paul. Tell me how exactly the simple, easy to read and understand phrasing of “away from the body and at home with the Lord” does not mean what it just said, “away form the body” and “at home with the Lord.”

    And Moses with Jesus on the mountain, conversing with Jesus, contradicts any idea there isn’t a bodily consciousness after death.

    I’ve been very careful to say a state of unconsciousness and equating that with soul sleep. I could not care less for the idea of whether the soul ceases to exist after death. What I do know is Paul teaches there is an existence after death and it is with Christ, as opposed to the idea of no consciousness sleep, unconsciousness, soul sleep.

    There’s no textual support for your view. None.

    The verse reads as follows, “2 And six days later Jesus *took with Him Peter, James, and John, and *brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; 3 and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them. 4 And Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus….Six days later, Jesus *took with Him Peter and James, and his brother John, and *led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him….About eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter, John, and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white andgleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, 31 who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure, which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.”

    The verses clearly say A) Moses was present in bodily form to be seen B.) Talking to Jesus and C) Talking to Jesus about Jesus’ “departure” that D) Jesus was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

    Moses was there on the mountain talking to Jesus. There’s nothing hinting at the second coming. Rather, what Moses talked to Jesus about was Jesus’ soon “departure,” Jesus’ ascent upward from earth.

    It is illogical to have a verse discussing “departure” from Jerusalem as being a return, a second coming, as you assert. Especially since the Greek word can mean “exodus,” Moses spoke to Jesus about Jesus’ “exodus” which was about to happen. There’s no room here for your second coming notion.

    Second, I’m guessing you are reading the fabled KJV as you invoke the word “vision.” The Gospels and NT are written in Greek. Hence, knowing Greek, some familiarity with Greek, or a Bible dictionary, will avoid the error of “vision.” I highly recommend a Bible dictionary for anyone who wants to know what God’s word says.

    The Greek word (οραμα) used is translated as “what is seen, appearance.” And the Greek meaning “appearance” is exactly the word used in the NASB version above.

    And Jesus’ words in Greek are accurately “what you have seen.”

    There is nothing in the Greek to suggest this wasn’t a real event.

    No, Paul is stating this as a matter of fact. Paul doesn’t using any wording in Greek to suggest he is presupposing or assuming. Where in Paul’s wording is support for your notion Paul is stating an assumption? Where? Because the plain text has Paul speaking in a matter of fact. Paul says to depart is to be with Christ. That’s no assuming, that’s stating what Is to happen.

    Paul wrote “immediately upon death he would be with Christ” because Paul believed in the death of Jesus and his resurrection to heaven, which permits his own departure and then being with Jesus. Paul is correcting those who do not believe in the resurrection of the body because that means Jesus also wasn’t resurrected, and if Jesus isn’t resurrected, then nobody is going anywhere. It’s Jesus’ death AND resurrection that permits us to be with Christ after death as describe by Paul.

    Paul’s verses say exactly that! “Away from the body” and “at home with the Lord.” To “depart” and “be with Christ.” “we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” “depart and be with Christ.”
     
  17. Butch5

    Butch5 Newbie Supporter

    +709
    Christian
    Married
    I've not provided a counter argument because you've refused to answer my question. Why should I explain how you've misunderstood those passages when you refuse to tell me what part of man it is that can live on after the body dies. The premise of your argument is that some part of man lives on after death. You've assumed that premise. You've not proven it. Should I have a debate of these passages of Scripture when the very premise is wrong and/or not proven. Before we debate whether Martians are both male and female, shouldn't we first establish that Martians exist?

    Again, Paul stated a desire.

    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. (Phil. 1:21-24 KJV)

    It's a desire. It says "and" not "is". It fits my belief fine. Since the dead know nothing, for them, one minute they're alive and the next thing they know they're in resurrection. So, to the dead it would feel like it was immediate even thought it wasn't.

    Again, I submit you're misunderstanding the passage.

    8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Cor. 5:8 KJV)

    The word translated absent, ekdemeo, means, 1) to go abroad 2) emigrate, depart 3) to be or live abroad. So the word means to go abroad or emigrate. It means to leave one's people. The word translated present, endemeo, means, 1) to be among one's own people, dwell in one's own country, stay at home. It means to be among one's own people. So in this passage Paul is talking about being with and apart from his own people. The body in this passage is not talking about the flesh. It's talking about the church, the body of Christ. It is the church, the body of Christ, that is Paul's own people. He's talking about being with them or being away from them and with Christ. He's not talking about leaving his flesh. That this is the case can be seen in this same passage.

    It always amazes me when people quote this passage as proof that the dead are alive, because Paul is actually teaching just the opposite. Just a few verses prior to this passage Paul states that he doesn't want to leave the body. Leaving the body was the Greek hope. Paul didn't want that.

    For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
    2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
    3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
    4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. (2 Cor. 5:1-4 KJV)


    This whole passage is about the Resurrection, not about a state after death. Paul here contrasts two states of being, the earthly house and the building of God. The earthly house is this present state of corruption. The building of God is incorruption.


    He speaks of groaning in this present state, longing to be clothed with our house from Heaven. Then, notice verse 3. if so being clothed we shall not be found naked. He equates being found naked with the Greek hope of escaping the body. He doesn't want that. Instead, he wants to be overclothed. The Greek word here, ependuomai, means to put on over. In other words, Paul wants to put on that house from Heaven over his current form. That mortality might be swallowed up of life. In other words, immortality will swallow up his mortality. There's no casting off of the body and living as a disembodied essence.

    There is nothing here that speaks of being alive after death. Yes, Paul speaks of the body, the man. He speaks of the spirit, the breath of life, and he speaks of the soul, the combination of the body and the breath of life. We're told that when a man dies the body returns to the dust, the breath of life returns to God, and the soul has ceased as it's component parts have separated.

    No, his words aren't inconsistent with my theory. Your understanding of his words are inconsistent with my theory. Your understanding of his words are also inconsistent with Scripture. There's nothing in Scripture that tells us that people who have died are alive as a disembodied essence. That's simply a belief imposed on the text. It's supported solely by way of inference.

    He didn't state how because that's not what he said.

    You're understanding of Paul's words is based on a flawed premise, that being that man can live apart from the body. So, far you've given no proof except for your understanding of a few passages of Scripture. As I said, if your understanding is wrong then you've got no proof at all

    See above.

    And that's the reason you're missing what he said, you couldn't care less. If the soul ceases to exist, the body returns to dust, and the breath of life returns to God, what is left to live on?



    Sure there's textual support for it. I wouldn't have made the claim otherwise.

    27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
    28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
    KJV Matthew 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
    2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
    3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
    (Matt. 16:27-17:3 KJV)

    And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
    2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
    3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
    4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
    (Mk. 9:1-4 KJV)

    But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
    28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
    29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
    30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: (Lk. 9:27-30 KJV)

    It's recorded in three of the Gospels. Peter also tells us what it was.

    16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
    17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
    18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (2 Pet. 1:16-18 KJV)

    Here Peter tells us plainly that what happened on that mountain was the power and coming of the Lord. if that was a real event, please explain how it could be the Second coming of Christ before He even left the first time. The passages say that Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus in glory. In glory in the Scriptures is a reference to the Resurrection. How were Moses and Elijah resurrected before Christ even went to the cross? How was Jesus in resurrected form before He even died? It was a vision.

    Regarding the departure statement, the words, 'which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem" are Luke's commentary to his readers. Moses and Elijah were talking about his departure. It wouldn't be unexpected that Moses and Elijah would be talking about Jesus' departure at His second coming.



    I didn't say that Paul was making an assumption. I said you were making an assumption. Paul uses words like willing and desire, they are not words used to express facts.



    But that's not what he said. He told the Corinthians that if there is no resurrection, those who had died in Christ had perished. How could he say that if they were in fact with Christ? He couldn't. Thus they aren't with Christ. You've misunderstood those passages based on the false premise that some part of man can live on after death.

    It's all based on what a man is.
     
  18. Butch5

    Butch5 Newbie Supporter

    +709
    Christian
    Married
    Thanks! Yeah, it is clear in the Scriptures. I think it's just hard for a lot of people to change beliefs. imagine finding out something you believed most of your life is wrong. It's also comforting to think that loved ones are in Heaven with Jesus rather than in the grave. For me it's all about the truth of Scripture. I don't want to be comfortable, I want a proper understanding of Scripture. When I became a Christian I was "taught" what the Bible teaches. However, after looking for myself I found that much of what was taught is simply wrong. I've change much of what i believed in the beginning. It's just not found in Scripture.
     
  19. ChetSinger

    ChetSinger Well-Known Member

    +489
    Protestant
    Married
    My denomination (Grace Brethren) doesn't teach soul sleep. After looking into this it seems that the only ones who do are the Jehovah's Witnesses and the SDAs. Is this true?
     
  20. LoveGodsWord

    LoveGodsWord Well-Known Member

    +5,074
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    SDA's do not teach soul sleep. They teach the bible view on the state of the dead or what happens when we die. Please read the OP. The body returning to dust and the spirit (breath of life) returns to God who gave it and that the dead in Christ will rise at the second coming in the first resurrection.
     
Loading...