• 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.

where did lazarus go before he came back to life?

Discussion in 'Non-denominational' started by Sammy-San, Dec 8, 2015.

  1. BibleQuestions

    BibleQuestions New Member

    2
    +0
    Christian
    Married
    I thought the soul was the body. How can it leave? Jesus said lazarus was asleep in death. If he had gone to heaven, why would Jesus bring him back from something so wonderful? Why wasn't lazarus questioned about it? That is why I asked about this elsewhere. What is the point of a resurrection if a person already goes to heaven or hell upon death? I think they are just asleep.
     
  2. ewq1938

    ewq1938 It's ok to be wrong but it's not ok to stay wrong. Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +5,740
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican

    No, the soul is not the body although at times the word soul refers to a living person with a body but this will prove they are different:

    1Th_5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
     
  3. MWood

    MWood Newbie

    +7,968
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    And again-When God form Adam from the dust of the earth He breathed the breath of life into him and gave him a soul.
     
  4. Pedrito

    Pedrito Newbie

    165
    +25
    Christian
    Married
    BibleQuestions in Post #21:
    Jesus in John 11:11-14:
    -----------------------------------

    ewq1938 in Post #22:
    1 Thessalonians 5:23:
    Did Paul believe that each and every one of his readers would be alive when Jesus returned? I think not. The verse makes more sense if understood to apply to the Thessalonian church as a whole, the collective existence – spirit referring to the group's emotional well-being, soul referring to its collective inner thoughts and adherence to Paul's doctrines, and body being its collective presence as observed by outsiders.

    Otherwise, would he not have said “spirits”, “souls” and “bodies”?

    -----------------------------------

    Mwood in Post #23:
    The Bible (Genesis 2:7)
    The Bible again (Genesis 2:19):
    -----------------------------------

    The question in Post #9:
    will be addressed shortly.
     
  5. ewq1938

    ewq1938 It's ok to be wrong but it's not ok to stay wrong. Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +5,740
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    That's not relevant to this discussion. That's called a red herring. I am merely proving the soul and body are two different things.


    No. He was speaking to people on an individual level like the Pope speaking to a crowd and saying, "I hope you have a wonderful and blessed life."
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2016
  6. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +8,432
    Presbyterian
    Single
    There’s a basic problem for Protestants: the Bible simply doesn’t give an explicit chronology of what happens after death. So there are different views. Of course people say that the Bible clearly supports their view, but I’m not convinced. I don't think we know for sure.

    There are two views:
    * Most Protestants believe that after death, the soul exists without a body. At judgement, the body is resurrected, and the whole person is judged. This existence before the resurrection is often referred to as the "intermediate state."
    * There is a minority view (held by Luther, by the way), that after death we are not conscious until the judgement. In that case we never exist without bodies.

    Often references to paradise (Luk 23:43) or Abraham’s bosom (Luk 16:22) are taken as references to the intermediate state. There are other possible readings of those passages, however.

    I would also suggest that there’s another possibility that some interpreters have not considered. When dealing with eternal life, we’re not necessarily dealing with the same time line as our own. So Jesus telling the thief “today you will be with me in paradise” could still be a reference to his final situation, and is not necessarily an intermediate state.

    Finally, the initial question was about Lazarus. I would suggest to you that he was a special case. Because Jesus was going to resurrect him, he might not have gone to his final reward or even the intermediate state.
     
  7. Pedrito

    Pedrito Newbie

    165
    +25
    Christian
    Married
    ewq1938 in Post #25 in response to my thought about 1 Thessalonians 5:23:
    explained:
    Actually, the verse includes “spirit” as well Therefore, any discussion of human makeup, and what happens at death, ought to involve all three. Isn't that right?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    And, in response to:
    ewq1938 explained:
    OK. But for my understanding I request ewq1938 to explain for me:
    1. What was Paul's understanding regarding how only an incomplete spirit of an individual believer could be preserved blamelessly until (or at) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    2. What was Paul's understanding regarding how only an incomplete soul of an individual believer could be preserved blamelessly until (or at) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    3. What was Paul's understanding regarding how only an incomplete body of an individual believer could be preserved blamelessly until (or at) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    4. Or, if ewq1938 wishes to contend that the “whole” refers to a spirit-soul-body collective personal unity, what was Paul's understanding regarding what the characteristics of that “whole” would be were it not to be preserved blamelessly – and, seeing that twin1954 has apparently informed us elsewhere (Post #88 and Post #100 in the Dispensationalism thread) that there are no degrees of reward in Heaven, what is the point of that preservation anyway?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, I would really like to understand why God deliberately omitted the soul from Ecclesiastes 12:7:
    Traditionally, the explanation was that “ the spirit” in that verse actually meant “the soul”. However, ewq1938 has ably drawn our attention to the fact that Paul mentions spirit and soul as separate items in 1 Thessalonians 5:23.
     
  8. Pedrito

    Pedrito Newbie

    165
    +25
    Christian
    Married
    BibleQuestions (Post #21), offered:
    When she said that, perhaps she had not read just John 11:11-14:
    I suspect she had also read:
    Not to mention 2 Kings 13:13, 2 Kings 14:16, 2 Kings 14:22, 2 Kings 14:29, 2 Kings 15:7, 2 Kings 15:22, 2 Kings 15:38, 2 Kings16:20, 2 Kings 20,21, 2 Kings 21:18, 2 Kings 24:6. and the related verses in 2 Chronicles.

    She might have also read Ecclesiastes 9:5:
    And Matthew 27:52:
    And I wonder what she thought of:

    Was anyone wondering where she got the idea from?
     
  9. ewq1938

    ewq1938 It's ok to be wrong but it's not ok to stay wrong. Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +5,740
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    Yes but since the soul and spirit are joined together, scripture doesn't always mention both even if both are part of what the verse is discussing.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Spirit's are not incomplete.


    Soul's are not incomplete.


    Bodies are not incomplete. Your questions make no sense.


    If your whole being isn't preserved then it all is destroyed which is exactly the fate of the unsaved.


    Because mention of one is enough.


    In John 12:27, Jesus said, "Now is my soul (psuche) troubled, while in a similar context in the next chapter he said, "Jesus was troubled in his spirit (pneuma) [John 13:21]"

    Here they are used interchangeably.


    Keep in mind there isn't any actual difference in the definitions of soul and spirit in both Hebrew and Greek and even English. They are synonyms.

    Following are the possible definitions which are relevant to this study from The American Heritage Dictionary:


    soul (sol) noun
    1. The animating and vital principle in human beings, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
    2. The spiritual nature of human beings, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
    3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human being; a shade....
    5. A human being: "the homes of some nine hundred souls" (Garrison Keillor).
    6. The central or integral part; the vital core: "It saddens me that this network . . . may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news" (M. Kalb).

    spir·it (spîr¹ît) noun
    1. a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings. b. Incorporeal consciousness....
    2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.
    6. a. The part of a human being associated with the mind, will, and feelings: Though unable to join us today, they are with us in spirit. b. The essential nature of a person or group.
    7. A person as characterized by a stated quality: He is a proud spirit.(11)

    SOUL (nephesh):
    1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
    1a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
    1b) living being
    1c) living being (with life in the blood)
    1d) the man himself, self, person or individual
    1e) seat of the appetites
    1f) seat of emotions and passions

    SPIRIT (ruach)
    1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
    1a) breath
    1b) wind
    1c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation)
    1c1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour
    1c2) courage
    1c3) temper, anger
    1c4) impatience, patience
    1c5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented)
    1c6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse
    1d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)
    1d1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being
    1e) spirit (as seat of emotion)
    1e1) desire
    1e2) sorrow, trouble
    1f) spirit
    1f1) as seat or organ of mental acts
    1f2) rarely of the will
    1f3) as seat especially of moral character(13)

    So in Hebrew "soul" refers to "that which breathes" and to the mind, desire, and emotions.
    And "spirit" refers to "that which breathes" and the part of us which experiences emotions and is responsible for "mental acts."

    Thayer's Greek words for soul (psuche) and spirit (pneuma):


    SOUL (psuche):
    1) breath
    1a) the breath of life
    1a1) the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing
    1a1a) of animals
    1a12) of men
    1b) life
    1c) that in which there is life
    1c1) a living being, a living soul
    2) the soul
    2a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)
    2b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life
    2c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death....

    SPIRIT (pneuma)
    2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated
    2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides
    2b) the soul
    3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting
    3a) a life giving spirit
    3b) a human soul that has left the body
    4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one
    4a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.(14)



    Thus in Greek "soul" refers to the animating principle which feels, desires, and can attain everlasting life with God.
    And "spirit" is also the animating principle which feels, thinks, and decides. And notice once again, the use of the word soul to define spirit (twice in fact: 2b,3b). Only #4 for spirit gives so much as a hint the two might be distinct.

    Again using the Strong's:




    Spirit
    G4151
    pneuma
    pnyoo'-mah
    From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: - ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Compare G5590.

    Soul
    G5590
    psuche
    psoo-khay'
    From G5594; breath, that is, (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from G4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from G2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew [H5315], [H7307] and [H2416]: - heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.



    Spirit: "by analogy or figuratively a spirit" and "the rational soul"
    Soul: "(by implication) spirit" and "the rational and immortal soul"

    Same exact meanings.






    Unfortunately scripture doesn't provide any reasoning why the two have their own names or why their definitions are the same. We essentially have two of the same thing with no provided difference between them. It's kind of like having a two headed coin, the same on both sides yet one side is not the other side per se'.
     
  10. Pedrito

    Pedrito Newbie

    165
    +25
    Christian
    Married
    ewq1938 in Post #29 offered a few thoughts.
    Well then, Paul makes no sense either in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, when he says “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Unless of course, a person's soul and body can be preserved but not the spirit, or the soul and spirit can be preserved but not the body, etc.

    ewq1938 did say:
    But what did he actually mean by “If your whole being isn't preserved”?


    I suggest that a more sensible perspective is that Paul is referring to the Thessalonian church as a whole. His “wholly” and “whole” blend into that scenario smoothly and naturally.


    Continued ...
     
  11. Pedrito

    Pedrito Newbie

    165
    +25
    Christian
    Married
    … Continued.



    And in response to my question:
    ewq1983 replied:
    So why did Paul go to the trouble of specifically mentioning both as though they are separately identifiable items?

    I think I will acknowledge Paul as being the inspired writer of the two.

    So perhaps “soul” and “spirit” are not used interchangeably in John 12:27 and John 13:21 and elsewhere after all.


    Unfortunately, the problems of inconsistency and imprecision pervade the teachings of a number of Christian churches. But that is not actually surprising. Some of the doctrines floating around would fall apart without their use.
     
  12. DawnStar

    DawnStar Pragmatist

    +787
    Unitarian
    Private
    "But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife" (II Timothy 2:23)
     
  13. Pedrito

    Pedrito Newbie

    165
    +25
    Christian
    Married
    I would like to float the thought that God has given us specific revelations in His Holy Word.

    I would suggest that distorting those revelations, twisting their meaning to make them fit various doctrines floating around in various churches, is actually offensive to God.

    And I would further suggest that offending God could have significant implications regarding a person's future.

    Therefore, maybe DawnStar's well intentioned thought in Post #32 was issued inappropriately:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a case in point, if God inspired Paul to clearly express that the soul and the spirit are separately identifiable items, each therefore having distinct characteristics, then to make statements such the following, actually disparages God's Holy Revelation, and therefore disparages God Himself:
    (Stated by ewq1938 in Post #29, with reference to “soul” and “spirit” (as mentioned specifically and separately in 1 Thessalonians 5:23); he made those statements after referring to the American Heritage Dictionary, Thayer's lexicon and Strong's lexicon; and yet that same Strong's Lexicon entry carefully differentiates between the two words, something that ewq1938 apparently hoped to draw attention away from by underlining something else; if we look closely at, and compare the two lexicons, we can actually detect the effect of theological leanings on the definitions presented).

    ewq1938 in Post #29, a little further down, stated.
    And when I asked the sensible question:
    The response was:
    But not according to Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (emphasis added):
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I suggest that in this instance, and actually in any and every instance, defending God's Holy Revelation can hardly be defined as one of the:

    And I further suggest that the confusion that generally exists regarding the body-soul-spirit issue indicates that, because God is not the author of confusion, some church doctrines might have been formulated without taking into account “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).

    It is beyond doubt that both the apostle Paul and his readers understood exactly what he meant by his statement overall, and the meaning of each word he used, in his inspired utterance.

    If those meanings are not crystal clear to us now, and were unclear even to the lexicon writers of relatively modern times, does that not simply show how far our understandings must have strayed from those of apostolic times?

    I would give an affirmative response to that.
     
  14. Gunny

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +88
    Christian
    Married
    Abraham's bosom aka paradise aka before the Cross.
     
  15. ewq1938

    ewq1938 It's ok to be wrong but it's not ok to stay wrong. Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +5,740
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican

    It's in the same place now after the cross. Anyone who died "righteous" in God's eyes went to heaven/Paradise/Abraham's bosom. Anyone not righteous in God's eyes went to Hades. It's always been that way.
     
  16. Pedrito

    Pedrito Newbie

    165
    +25
    Christian
    Married
    In Post #9, the Poster asked the following question:
    I am happy to provide scriptures that answer that question. (Although one could wonder why the Requester suddenly changed focus from Lazarus in the original post, the one who was raised, to Stephen, who wasn't. Were the questions and points I raised regarding Lazarus, somehow difficult to handle?)

    As I said, I am happy to provide scriptures, but there is a proviso. Moving the target to avoid facing the answers, although a common technique, is simply not on.

    I have noticed that it is common in Christian circles for people to ask questions of others, without having any intention of seriously considering the answers provided – instead, those people stand prepared to reject whatever information is offered if it seems to indicate something different from what they currently want to believe.

    I have seen Evangelicals subjected to this approach by Non-Evangelicals, and I have seen Non-Evangelicals likewise treated by Evangelicals.

    For that reason, I believe I can be forgiven for being a little circumspect in this matter. It disturbs me to see the Holy Scriptures treated with disrespect.

    And therefore I am happy to present scriptures, but only if they are to be received in the spirit in which they are offered – non-adversarial, emotion-free, logical assessment of their coherence with other scripture.


    Unfortunately, the Requester's capitalised “PRECISELY” above does appear somewhat adversarial, does it not?


    Continued next post ...
     
  17. Pedrito

    Pedrito Newbie

    165
    +25
    Christian
    Married
    In Post #9, the following question was posed:
    As I pointed out in my previous post, the capitalised “PRECISELY” does appear somewhat adversarial, does it not?

    And I hate to see Holy Scripture treated off-handedly.

    For that reason, I think it is fair for me to be willing to present relevant scriptures only if the Requester, Job8, demonstrates that he (I assume “he”) is actually open to seriously considering those scriptures – instead of simply preparing to reject or explain away whatever information is offered if it seems to indicate something inconvenient.

    (Seriously considering means investigating those scriptures and honestly determining their degree of coherence with other scripture.)

    In fact, why don't I request the same commitment from another person who has posted in this thread, ewq1938, who stated in Post #11, with respect to the Lazarus whom Jesus resurrected in John Chapter 11:
    The same person? Really?

    In the light of the above, could my request be considered in any way over the odds? Not really.

    And I'm tempted to include a third person, Gunny, especially since he has expressed an idea which disagrees with ewq1938's understanding. I think I will. Gunny said in Post #34:
    ewq1938 highlighted that conflict in the following Post #35, in which he stated:
    Imagine the reaction of an earnest seeker, if that seeker became aware of the utter confusion that reigns in church circles regarding particular subjects – subjects on which the seeker had expected God to have revealed precise information (and which He actually did).

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So, how can someone demonstrate that they are truly open enough to give that unbiased, serious consideration to Scripture?

    Easy.


    Continued ...
     
  18. Pedrito

    Pedrito Newbie

    165
    +25
    Christian
    Married
    So, how can someone demonstrate that they are truly open enough to give unbiased, serious consideration to scriptures that could be presented?

    Easy.

    For example, the Job8's statement in Post #4:
    alluded to the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31.

    So did his statement in Post #6:
    ewq1938 and Gunny mentioned Abraham's bosom directly. (Posts #34 and #35)

    Those three people are invited to demonstrate their seriousness and openness to Scripture by simply explaining, clearly and honestly, the ways in which the interpretation of Luke 16:19-31 that is generally promoted in Evangelical circles, actually contradicts core Evangelical teaching. (Other Readers are invited to offer explanations also, if they so wish.)

    Once the seriousness of those three invited people has been demonstrated, I will be prompted to satisfy Job8's request of me:
    You never know, I might even include where Lazarus went – the actual subject of this thread.


    (Note 1: Let me pre-empt right here any dishonest attempt to distort what I have said above, i.e. any par for the course attempt to avoid the issue by accusing me of implying that general Evangelical teaching is incorrect. That is not what I said. I am merely inviting three particular people to admit that the “normal” interpretation placed on Luke 16:19-31 lacks integrity, and to explain to us how it does. That will determine their openness to, and seriousness about, what God's message to us, the Bible, actually declares.

    Note 2: I did say “invited”. No compulsion implied. But without a demonstrated commitment to Scriptural truth, what is the point of anyone presenting relevant Scripture for consideration on any subject?)


    Would anyone like to be first?
     
  19. Rohan

    Rohan New Member

    1
    +0
    Non-Denom
    Single
    As a follow up question to this, When Peter raised Dorcas from the dead, did she go to heaven, since this was post resurrection of Jesus?
     
  20. ewq1938

    ewq1938 It's ok to be wrong but it's not ok to stay wrong. Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +5,740
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    I believe she went to heaven when she died.
     
Loading...