What is a soul?

[Pythons]

Let me try another approach here....

Do you have any scripture where the Pharisees describe what a soul is? I'm not asking for verses where they describe what a soul can do, but what it is.

We could start by explaining what it is not. It's not "Unconscious" for certain.

If you mean "soul" as in sea talk, like 12 souls lost their lives. I was thinking based on your 1st post you meant to discuss what I have been. Opp's, sorry.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Lainie,

Here is a portion of the information I have been working on. When I get the rest of it put to gether I will come back and post that also.


Perhaps it will be of help in answering your quetion if we go back to Gen. 2:7 and take a closer look at the meanings of the words used there to tell us about God's creation of man.

"And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2:7.​

There are four phrases here that containe words whose meanings, from the Hebrew, I think will be of help in gaining a fuller understanding of exctly how Adam became a "living Soul."

God formed man. Aditional important details about Adam's creation are given. We are allowed to peer, as it were, into the work shop of God and to watch His hand preforming the mysterious act of creation. The word for "to form," yasar, implies an act of moulding and fashioning into a form corresponding in design and appearance to the divine plan. The word is used in describing the activity of the potter (Isa. 29:16; 49:5 ect.), of the goldsmith fashioning idols (Isa. 44:9; Hab. 2:18), and of God, who fashions various things, amoung others, the light (Isa. 45:7), the human eye (Ps. 94:9), the heart (Ps.33:15), and the seasons (Ps. 74:17).

Of the dust of the ground. That man is composed of materials derived from the ground, the elements of the earth, is confirmed by science. Decomposition of the human body after death bears witness to the same fact. The major elements making up the human body are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen. Many others exist in smaller proportions. How true that man was made of "the dust of the ground," and also whence he was taken (Eccl. 12:7).

The breath of life. "Breath," neshamah. From the Source of all life the life-giving principal entered the lifeless body of Adam. The agency by which the spark of life was transfered to his body is said to be the "breath" of God. The same thought appears in Job 33:4. "The breath [nesamah] of the Almigty hath given me life." Imparted to man the "breath" is equvalent to his life; it is life itself (Isa. 2:22). At death there is "no breath [neshamah, life] left in him" (1 Kings 17:17). This "beath of life" in man differs in no way from the "breath of life" in aimals, for all recieve life from God. (Gen. 2:21, 22; Eccl. 3:19). It therefore can not be the mind or intellegence.

A living soul. When the lifeless form of man was infused with divine "breath," neshamah, of life, man became a living "soul," nephesh. The word nephesh has a variety of meanings: (1) breath (Job 42:21), (2) life (1 Kings 17:21; 2 Sam. 18:13; ect.), (3) heart as the seat of affectios (Gen. 34:3; S.of Sol. 1:7; ect.), (4) living being (Gen 12:5; 36:; Lev. 4:2; ect.), and (5) for emphasizing the personal pronouns (Ps. 3:2; 1 Sam. 18:1; ect,). Note that the nephesh is made by God (Jer. 38:16), and can die (Judges 16:30), be killed (Num. 31:19), be eaten (metaphoricaly, Eze. 22:25), and be refreshed (Ps. 19:7; Heb.). None of this applies to the spirit, ruach, indicating clearly the great difference between the two terms. It is obvious from the above survey that the translation "soul" given by the KJV to nephesh of Gen 2:7 is not appropriate, if the commonly used expresion "imortal soul" is implied. Although pouplar, this concept is completely foreign to the Bible. This passage may be rightly translated: Man became a living "being" (RSV). When "soul" is considered synonymous with "being," we gain the Scriptural meaning of nephesh in this text.

I hope that this additional explaination will give you a clear understanding for the question you have ask. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[thecountrydoc]

I just realized that I had left out this additional comment.


There are a couple of additional things that I should clarify. The first being, the pharse "breathed into his nosterils the breath of life." When God "breathed the breath of life," there were actually two things that took place. The first was the physical act of filling Adam's lungs with air. The second, was the act of imparting that "spark of life" so that Adam could become/became a "living soul". We humans have the tendancy to want to lable everything, including that indefineable "spark of life" that only comes from God, and which is most often called the spirit, or the soul. While it is true that at death God takes back that "spark of life," a further study will show that the soul is not imortal. If the soul were indeed imortal then Satan's [the serpents] first lie to mankind as found in Gen. 3:4

"And the serpent said unto the woman ye shall not surly die:" Gen. 3:4.​

would not be a lie, and God would have been wrong in telling Adam and Eve that if they ate of the tree they would indeed die as found in the preceeding verse.

"God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Gen. 3:3​

An "imortal soul" would indicate that a most important part of man's life, spirit, the soul, would never die. To futher clarify this, think of the definition of the word resurect; verb, to bring back to life. If God made man from, shall we say, raw materials the first time, He can recreate, reconstruct, and resurect us a second time.

What I have given you here is simple logic. If however you wish to explore this topic further there is pleanty of textual evidence to support this logic.

If you have further questions please feel free to post here or to call on me at any time.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[Jimlarmore]

This is good sound logic and truth Doc. Thankyou for your input here. There's nothing I can think of to add other than many many verses that tells us that the soul is not immortal.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Pythons]

The Spirit "comes" from God while the body from creation. In any event without the clear dualist statements from the NT I would give serious weight to Doc's statements. I would suggest Jesus is the authority on this.

"That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection (or angels or spirits)" asked Jesus a question they thought would stump Him. Jesus answered their question about marriage and took it past what they asked. Jesus said,

"You are in error because you know not the Scriptures or the power of God....... But at the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to "you", I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, He is not the God of the dead but of the living" Matt 22, 23-32

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not alive in the body when Moses was at the burning bush.

 

[Cribstyl]

The Spirit "comes" from God while the body from creation. In any event without the clear dualist statements from the NT I would give serious weight to Doc's statements. I would suggest Jesus is the authority on this.

"That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection (or angels or spirits)" asked Jesus a question they thought would stump Him. Jesus answered their question about marriage and took it past what they asked. Jesus said,

"You are in error because you know not the Scriptures or the power of God....... But at the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to "you", I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, He is not the God of the dead but of the living" Matt 22, 23-32

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not alive in the body when Moses was at the burning bush.

Good post..... to God the dead are alive before Him.

 

[RND]

The Spirit "comes" from God while the body from creation. In any event without the clear dualist statements from the NT I would give serious weight to Doc's statements. I would suggest Jesus is the authority on this.

"That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection (or angels or spirits)" asked Jesus a question they thought would stump Him. Jesus answered their question about marriage and took it past what they asked. Jesus said,

"You are in error because you know not the Scriptures or the power of God....... But at the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to "you", I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, He is not the God of the dead but of the living" Matt 22, 23-32

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not alive in the body when Moses was at the burning bush.

Job 14:10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where [is] he?


Job 14:11 [As] the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up:


Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens [be] no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.


Job 14:13 ¶ O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!


Job 14:14 If a man die, shall he live [again]? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.


Job 14:15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.

 

[Pythons]

Job 14:10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where [is] he?

Yes RND, "man". When Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gave up "THEIR respective GHOST's" the Great I AM tells you He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore, if God "IS" the God of Abraham, Issaac and Jacob then whatever it is that distinguishes these "ghosts" enough that retains their names is alive.

Job 14:11 [As] the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up:

You have this citation confused with what happend to the Mitzvot (The Ten Commandments AKA The Law)

Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens [be] no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

That is why the Sadducees rejected the Resurrection and immortality of the soul RND. Acts 23,8 and exactly why Christ corrected them on their rejection of both the Resurrection and Spirits.

Job 14:13 ¶ O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!

Job 14:14 If a man die, shall he live [again]? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

"So man lies down and does not raise v.12)"

"For when a few years are past I shall go the way of no return". Job 16,22

Good job RND, have the Old Testament interpret the meaning of the New Testament and swap established definitions of words with your meanings and try to pass it off as truth. LOL.

Here's a clue for you RND. If the belief in the Resurrection was not not existent at the time of Ecclesiastes then you can bank on the fact it wasn't existent in Job.

Job 14:15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.

"If a man dies, will he live again? ALL THE DAYS OF MY STRUGGLE I will wait until my change comes. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hand".

Job is struggling all his days until his change comes? How does this work out RND? If at death Job knows not anything how is he in struggle? Oh, that's right, that's not what the verse is saying. Job is suffering until God's wrath returns to God and Job can enjoy the here and now exactly like was understood at that time.

 

[RND]

Yes RND, "man". When Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gave up "THEIR respective GHOST's" the Great I AM tells you He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore, if God "IS" the God of Abraham, Issaac and Jacob then whatever it is that distinguishes these "ghosts" enough that retains their names is alive.

Not a God of the "dead" as in literally "dead." There is no more place under the sun for the "dead."

You have this citation confused with what happend to the Mitzvot (The Ten Commandments AKA The Law)

Huh?

That is why the Sadducees rejected the Resurrection and immortality of the soul RND. Acts 23,8 and exactly why Christ corrected them on their rejection of both the Resurrection and Spirits.

Yet Christ wasn't raised as a"spirit" was He?

Job 14:14 If a man die, shall he live [again]? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

"So man lies down and does not raise v.12)"

"For when a few years are past I shall go the way of no return". Job 16,22

Good job RND, have the Old Testament interpret the meaning of the New Testament and swap established definitions of words with your meanings and try to pass it off as truth. LOL.

Thanks, I appreciate you noticing that 2/3's of the Bible should not be ignored.

Having the "Old Testament" interpret the "New" is imperative considering all the referrences to the "Old" in the "New."

Job knew what was promised to him in the resurrection that he would not would sleep forever, but God would remember him at his appointed time and raise him up again. Of course, Paul knew this too.

1 Cor 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Here's a clue for you RND. If the belief in the Resurrection was not not existent at the time of Ecclesiastes then you can bank on the fact it wasn't existent in Job.

Nope. Just because some people accepted the false theology and inferior gods of ancient peoples and religions doesn't mean that there isn't any truth.

In other words, had the Pharisees and Saducees read the scriptures and not listened to and absorbed false pagan theology, they would have known instantly what to believe!

You are just a heretical Sadducee in that you place the Sadducees Dogma of the Spirit over that of Christ then illogically don't apply the same reasoning to the resurrection.

Gee, that was completely unnecessary.

Nope, I'm a Christian that believes in the resurrection of the dead at the last trump on the last day.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

"If a man dies, will he live again? ALL THE DAYS OF MY STRUGGLE I will wait until my change comes. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hand".

And when does the "New" Testament say that Job's change will come?

1 Th 4:16 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:

Job is struggling all his days until his change comes?

In the grave?

How does this work out RND?

The soul waits til it is changed and resurrected.

If at death Job knows not anything how is he in struggle?

What "struggle?" Job is clearly talking about being dead in the grave.

Here's the verses again:

Job 14:10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where [is] he?


Job 14:11 [As] the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up:


Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens [be] no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.


Job 14:13 ¶ O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!


Job 14:14 If a man die, shall he live [again]? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.


Job 14:15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.

Highlight the word "struggle" for me would ya?

Oh, that's right, that's not what the verse is saying. Job is suffering until God's wrath returns to God and Job can enjoy the here and now exactly like was understood at that time.

You readin' the same verse I am?

"...until thy wrath be past..."

 

[Cribstyl]

Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens [be] no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

The truth in this and following chapters, Job is having a pity party with his friend. He even accuses God of being the destroyer of hope.

Job is not always right in his philosophical venting, but he was more accurate than his friend.

Here is a version that makes it clearer....

Job 14:
"How frail is humanity! How short is life, and how full of trouble!
2 Like a flower, we blossom for a moment and then wither. Like the shadow of a passing cloud, we quickly disappear.
3 Must you keep an eye on such a frail creature and demand an accounting from me?
4 Who can create purity in one born impure? No one!
5 You have decided the length of our lives. You know how many months we will live, and we are not given a minute longer.
6 So give us a little rest, won't you? Turn away your angry stare. We are like hired hands, so let us finish the task you have given us.
7"If a tree is cut down, there is hope that it will sprout again and grow new branches.
8 Though its roots have grown old in the earth and its stump decays,
9 at the scent of water it may bud and sprout again like a new seedling.
10"But when people die, they lose all strength. They breathe their last, and then where are they?
11 As water evaporates from a lake and as a river disappears in drought,
12 people lie down and do not rise again. Until the heavens are no more, they will not wake up nor be roused from their sleep.
13"I wish you would hide me with the dead and forget me there until your anger has passed. But mark your calendar to think of me again!
14If mortals die, can they live again? This thought would give me hope, and through my struggle I would eagerly wait for release.
15 You would call and I would answer, and you would yearn for me, your handiwork.
16 For then you would count my steps, instead of watching for my sins.
17 My sins would be sealed in a pouch, and you would cover over my iniquity.
18"But as mountains fall and crumble and as rocks fall from a cliff,
19 as water wears away the stones and floods wash away the soil, so you destroy people's hope.
20You always overpower them, and then they pass from the scene. You disfigure them in death and send them away.
21They never know if their sons grow up in honor or sink to insignificance.
22They are absorbed in their own pain and grief."



Now his neighbor responds to his comments

Then Eliphaz the Temanite replied:
2"You are supposed to be a wise man, and yet you give us all this foolish talk. You are nothing but a windbag.
3 It isn't right to speak so foolishly. What good do such words do?
4 Have you no fear of God, no reverence for him?
5 Your sins are telling your mouth what to say. Your words are based on clever deception.
6 But why should I condemn you? Your own mouth does!

7"Were you the first person ever born? Were you born before the hills were made?
8 Were you listening at God's secret council? Do you have a monopoly on wisdom?
9 What do you know that we don't? What do you understand that we don't?
10 On our side are aged, gray-haired men much older than your father!
11"Is God's comfort too little for you? Is his gentle word not enough?
12 What has captured your reason? What has weakened your vision,
13 that you turn against God and say all these evil things?

Job goes on to reply to his friends about the dead trembling underground in a place call Sheol... (KJV)

Job 26:
5"The dead tremble in their place beneath the waters.
6 The underworld [fn1] is naked in God's presence. There is no cover for the place of destruction


The difference in Jobs 2 perspectives of the dead is, Job 14:12 is from a living man's view and Job 26:5,6 is from God's view.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hello once again,

Thank you Pythons for your previous post. It does indeed help to clarify this subject. Lets take a closer look at the passage you have quoted:

"That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection (or angels or spirits)" asked Jesus a question they thought would stump Him. Jesus answered their question about marriage and took it past what they asked. Jesus said,

"You are in error because you know not the Scriptures or the power of God....... But at the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to "you", I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, He is not the God of the dead but of the living" Matt 22, 23-32

To gain a clearer understanding of this passage I have highlighted the last portion of it. Let's now take a look at Eccl. 9:5:

"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 thems forgotten.

It now becomes clear that when man is dead (in the grave) he is no longer a "living soul." That God given gift, that spark of life, the "living soul," has ceased to exist. The thought process' of the mind stop. Without a concious mind there can be no communication with the Creator. It is the ability to think and communicate with our Creator that seperates man form all the rest of God's creation. In death there is seperation from God. It now also becomes clear how/why the "second death" becomes the final reward of the wicked. The second death will produce a total and eternal seperation from God.

With the above in mind, we can now understand the true meaning of the word "death." We can also see that there is no "dualist statements" made concerning the soul in the NT or anywhere else in the Bible.

This is an excellent example of why we must study to show ourselve "approved" and why we must use "line upon line and precept upon precept" as we study God's Word.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[Cribstyl]

Job 14:14 If a man die, shall he live [again]? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

"So man lies down and does not raise v.12)"

"For when a few years are past I shall go the way of no return". Job 16,22

Good job RND, have the Old Testament interpret the meaning of the New Testament and swap established definitions of words with your meanings and try to pass it off as truth. LOL.

Here's a clue for you RND. If the belief in the Resurrection was not not existent at the time of Ecclesiastes then you can bank on the fact it wasn't existent in Job.

With all due respect Pythons, can your show a timeline of Job vs Solomon? Who is the author of Job?

CRIB

 

[Pythons]

Yes RND, "man". When Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gave up "THEIR respective GHOST's" the Great I AM tells you He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore, if God "IS" the God of Abraham, Issaac and Jacob then whatever it is that distinguishes these "ghosts" enough that retains their names is alive.

Not a God of the "dead" as in literally "dead." There is no more place under the sun for the "dead."

To God, the righteous are not literally dead. "I AM the God of" Vs. I was the God of. A point you understand perfectly but as it messes up your I.J. doctrine you are forced to ignore Scriptural and historical context.

That is why the Sadducees rejected the Resurrection and immortality of the soul RND. Acts 23,8 and exactly why Christ corrected them on their rejection of both the Resurrection and Spirits.

Yet Christ wasn't raised as a"spirit" was He?

Put to death in the body and made alive in the spirit RND. As in,

"I am torn between the two: for I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. Convinced of this I will remain". Phili 1,23

"I" will remain in my body intead of departing "My" body sounds like Paul doesn't buy-in to your Sadducee belief. Fact is, Paul says he will remain in his body. He (Paul) = Spirit that animates the flesh because the spirit retains the name while the body is just "the body".

Good job RND, have the Old Testament interpret the meaning of the New Testament and swap established definitions of words with your meanings and try to pass it off as truth. LOL.

Thanks, I appreciate you noticing that 2/3's of the Bible should not be ignored.

Having the "Old Testament" interpret the "New" is imperative considering all the referrences to the "Old" in the "New."

Finally, thank you for saying that so well.

Here's a clue for you RND. If the belief in the Resurrection was not not existent at the time of Ecclesiastes then you can bank on the fact it wasn't existent in Job.

Nope. Just because some people accepted the false theology and inferior gods of ancient peoples and religions doesn't mean that there isn't any truth.

In other words, had the Pharisees and Saducees read the scriptures and not listened to and absorbed false pagan theology, they would have known instantly what to believe!

That is exactly why the Sadducees rejected the Resurrection and Spirit dotrines of Jesus.

Yeah, Job is struggling in the Grave until Christ wakes him up. Hogwash.

 

[RND]

To God, the righteous are not literally dead. "I AM the God of" Vs. I was the God of. A point you understand perfectly but as it messes up your I.J. doctrine you are forced to ignore Scriptural and historical context.

Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

This verse says nothing about being Abraham, Issac or Jacob still being alive. We know from scripture they are dead.

Gen 25:8 Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full [of years]; and was gathered to his people.

Act 7:15 So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers,

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Put to death in the body and made alive in the spirit RND. As in,

"I am torn between the two: for I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. Convinced of this I will remain". Phili 1,23

And yet, Paul knew exactly when he would be with Christ.

1Cr 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we (Paul includes himself) shall be changed.

"I" will remain in my body intead of departing "My" body sounds like Paul doesn't buy-in to your Sadducee belief. Fact is, Paul says he will remain in his body. He (Paul) = Spirit that animates the flesh because the spirit retains the name while the body is just "the body".

Man, you gotta stop the name calling. I don't call you names. Nor do I have Sadducean beliefs. I believe in the resurrection. I just don't buy your time line.

Besides, if we go to Heaven at death (or purgatory) what's the need of Jesus coming to judge the "quick" (alive) and the "dead" (dead).

As for your take regarding Paul if that were true why would Paul insist he would be resurrected in the twinkling of an eye on the last trump?

Finally, thank you for saying that so well.

Then it's agreed! The Old interprets the New!

That is exactly why the Sadducees rejected the Resurrection and Spirit dotrines of Jesus.

I don't reject the teaching of Jesus. I just reject your version of it!

Yeah, Job is struggling in the Grave until Christ wakes him up. Hogwash.

But the verse doesn't say anything about Job struggling. Job admits he rests in the grave until his change comes, when God's wrath is finally past.

How is that hogwash?

I know what is curious is that you can't hightlight the word "struggle" in the verses quoted.

 

[freeindeed2]

Then it's agreed! The Old interprets the New!

Where do you get this idea from? I vehemently disagree! The 'old' MUST be viewed through the Gospel. It's the Gospel that puts the 'old' into proper perspective, NOT the other way around.

In fact, for the church (which didn't exist prior to the cross) they should view the Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, and John) through the Epistles (direct instruction to the church), and the 'old' through both (IOW, Epistles-> Gospels-> Old Testament). Doing it the other way around is the reason for unsound doctrine.

I don't reject the teaching of Jesus. I just reject your version of it!

You just think it must be viewed through the old testament first.

In CHRIST alone...

 

[RND]

Where do you get this idea from? I vehemently disagree! The 'old' MUST be viewed through the Gospel. It's the Gospel that puts the 'old' into proper perspective, NOT the other way around.

The picture and plan of salvation (Gospel) are clearly displayed for all to see in the OT.

In fact, for the church (which didn't exist prior to the cross) they should view the Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, and John) through the Epistles (direct instruction to the church), and the 'old' through both (IOW, Epistles-> Gospels-> Old Testament). Doing it the other way around is the reason for unsound doctrine.

That's your opinion but the story's of Ruth and Ester are both perfect pictures of the Gospels and the Plan of Salvation and redemption.

You just think it must be viewed through the old testament first.

Nope, didn't say that free. I said "The Old interprets the New!" You can't understand the "New" until you understand the "Old." There are so many OT references in the NT that if you don't understand the OLD one will have a hard time with the NEW.

You disagree with that?

 

[freeindeed2]

The picture and plan of salvation (Gospel) are clearly displayed for all to see in the OT.

It may have displayed pieces of the picture, but the Reality who was in the picture has come. Why would you still try to view Jesus through the filter of the 'old' picture?

That's your opinion but the story's of Ruth and Ester are both perfect pictures of the Gospels and the Plan of Salvation and redemption.

Again, Jesus has come! He died and has been raised! His Spirit (God Himself!) lives IN us! The Destination has arrived yet you want to go back to the road signs!

Nope, didn't say that free. I said "The Old interprets the New!"

No way. If I drew out some directions for you and parts of them were confusing, yet they were correct, you would be able to see clearly why they were drawn the way they were once you reached the destination.

The old does not interpret the new. The old simply told about what was to come (Jesus). But the New has come and now we can see more clearly why God did what he did with and put in Scripture what he did because of how Christ fulfilled it all. Now that Christ has come it's much easier to understand the 'old' because of the 'new'. If it was the other way around then the Jews wouldn't have missed Christ!

You can't understand the "New" until you understand the "Old."

What? Think about it. A person who responds to the Gospel of Christ doesn't do so because they understand the OT. They're responding to the Good News of Jesus and they experience conversion and become a NEW creation whether they know nothing about the OT or everything. IT'S ABOUT JESUS! Not understanding the history of Israel's constant failing in the covenant God made with them.

There are so many OT references in the NT that if you don't understand the OLD one will have a hard time with the NEW.

You disagree with that?

Completely, with regards to salvation in Christ. It does not take an understanding of the OT to respond to Jesus Christ. That's what a Judaizer would say!

In CHRIST alone...

 

[Pythons]

Freeindeed2,

The Investigative Judgment Dogma of Seventh-day Adventists teaches that the Spirit is rendered unconcious and remains in a state of coma after death.

On October 22, 1844 God started to "Judge" the dead / Jesus moves into the holy of holies to wash down that section of the heavely sanctuary exactly as it was done in the Old Testament. Christ sprays blood on the literal alter in heaven and acts as mans lawyer while Satan cross-examines.

If it was not determined who is going to be saved subsequent to 1844 then Peter, Paul and anyone else for that matter needed to be held in a coma like state. Once you pass inspection you continue to be in a coma until the General Resurrection where you are Resurrected.

I believe this is more or less what they believe so it's important to conform the New Testament to the early Old Testament understanding that the dead do not know anything and are in a dreamless sleep like state until the General Resurrection.

 

[Pythons]

Hiya Doc, your words would tell me you are a kind person, and I do appreciate the way you asked this question. I would love to look at this Scripture with you.

"You are in error because you know not the Scriptures or the power of God....... But at the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to "you", I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, HeisnottheGodofthedeadbutoftheliving" Matt 22, 23-32
To gain a clearer understanding of this passage I have highlighted the last portion of it. Let's now take a look at Eccl. 9:5:

"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 thems forgotten.

It now becomes clear that when man is dead (in the grave) he is no longer a "living soul." That God given gift, that spark of life, the "living soul," has ceased to exist. The thought process' of the mind stop. Without a concious mind there can be no communication with the Creator. It is the ability to think and communicate with our Creator that seperates man form all the rest of God's creation. In death there is seperation from God. It now also becomes clear how/why the "second death" becomes the final reward of the wicked. The second death will produce a total and eternal seperation from God.

With the above in mind, we can now understand the true meaning of the word "death." We can also see that there is no "dualist statements" made concerning the soul in the NT or anywhere else in the Bible.

This is an excellent example of why we must study to show ourselve "approved" and why we must use "line upon line and precept upon precept" as we study God's Word.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

Ecclesiastes makes some very emphatic statements, that if taken synonymously would deny the resurrection. I’ve listed a few texts that I believe demonstrate the understanding at the time this was written.


“For that which befalleth the sons of men also befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth so dieth the other; Yea, they all have one breath; for a man has no preeminence over a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place: all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him”? Ecclesiastes 3,19


________________________________ECCL 9,5____________________________
v.4 “For to him that is joined to the living there is hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

v.5 “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward: For the memory of them is forgotten.

V.6 “Also, their love, and their hatred, and their envy is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun”.
_______________________________________________________________________________

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it”. Eccl 12,7

Vs.

“While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, Lord Jesus receive my spirit”.

I would ask that you compare Eccl 3:19 to the death of Stephen and study if each person believed the same way? I’m not suggesting the Old Testament is worthless as I read it all of the time. When I compare what has been written about early Judaism with Traditional Judaism’s description of the development of its doctrines I find very solid evidence that at the time of Eccl a Resurrection was not a belief.

Feel free to fire something back at me and thank you again for your respect.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ Jesus
pythons

 

[TrustAndObey]

Now who ever said being Adventist wouldn't be interesting?

It's definitely an interesting spot to be in, considering on one side other Christians tell us to ignore very important parts of the New Testament (MOST Messianics I know), and the other side tells us to ignore basically the entirety of the Old Testament (MOST Protestants I know).

I believe there is a happy medium in there, and that scripture is ALL the Word of God. Even Jesus said that!

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

I don't know of any other "book" that people would skip over the beginning or the ending of, but I see it all the time when it comes to the bible.

You cannot understand Revelation without Daniel and vice versa. They're sister books. One interprets the other.

Pythons, you mentioned that God is not the God of the dead. Are you sure about that?

I know what the Old Testament verses say, but did not Christ die and rise again to BECOME the Lord of the dead and the living? Yes, He did.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

BOTH the dead and living.

He promised us a resurrection. Without it, we would PERISH.

You keep saying the Sadducees rejected the resurrection because they didn't believe in the immortal soul-but I think you're way off. They didn't believe in the resurrection and thought that dead meant dead, with no hope of a resurrection.

You've also made a comment about the "general resurrection" and I'd like to point out that there's TWO very distinct resurrections mentioned in scripture.

John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

In fact, the resurrections are 1,000 years apart.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

Lived not again, until......

Interesting words considering that you're contending they don't ever die, eh?