|
Author
|
Topic: The Immortality of Man???
|
Clifford
Community Member
Member # 7264
|
posted
Billy:
Sorry, I forgot to ask you one question.
You state:
quote:
I never implied that we receive immortal bodies before the final resurrection. This much you assumed I was saying.
Please explain to me how many resurrections do you think a believer has, and please quote Chapter and verse, and which resurrection do you identify as the " FINAL " resurrection.
Christ only identifies one time when he raises a believer up, at the last day, please read the book of John. If the believer has more than one resurrection, please tell me how many a believer has? Again, please quote chapter and verse. God does not say anywhere I can find, that all resurrections prior to the "final" one, are to be in a non "immortal" body. Can you show me please in scripture where this doctrine is part of the gospel? God does say that there are those who are raised to life everlasting, and those raised to condemnation or Judgment (the word used is Krisis, and this is Greek for Judgment). So, if we have several resurrections, which you seem to indicate by referencing a final one, are the others to life everlasting? If not where does scripture say that? And if our resurrection is to an "immortal" body, where are those who were raised in Christ's time by him, or later by Peter and Paul? If they were not raised with immortal bodies, then could it be that God has "taken" the "immortal" soul from the bliss of heaven to condemn it to the misery and woe of sinful earth, to be raised and then die, the raised and then die, and then finally to be allowed to be raised to life everlasting? What exactly are you saying here? If however, those who were raised were raised without an "immortal" soul, but only raised to life and not life eternal, then all fits into place. They will be raised again, "at the last day" to life eternal. Only when we are raised to life eternal, is immortality put on as Paul says. Your scenario of the "immortal" soul, going to heaven, then leaving heaven, then going back to heaven, is unknown to me anywhere in scripture. Again, nowhere in scripture does it say man "has" or was "created" with an "immortal" soul. I am now most confused as to how you have come up with this doctrine of multiple resurrections for the believer, and the idea that the believer's so called immortal soul is raised in a non immortal body several times and then finally and some later date gets an "immortal" resurrection body. Nowhere in I Cor. 15 nor I These. 4 does Paul call the resurrection body, "immortal", he calls it heavenly or spiritual. Please quote the verse where Paul says the resurrection body is "immortal".
Again, In Christian Love,
Clifford
Posts: 11 | From: Sacramento, CA USA | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Clifford
Community Member
Member # 7264
|
posted
Billy:
Your whole discussion is predicated on one thing: that the body and soul are two SEPARATE things.
quote:
As I said, Paul is talking here about the raising of the immortal body, not an immortal soul which had previously been distinguished when the first body passed away. Nowhere in 1Corinthians 15 or 1Thessalonians 4 does he even allude the the idea that the soul does not survive the body. As I said before, this is a doctrine that you have based solely on a faulty understanding of Genesis 2:7, and when a doctrine hinges solely on one verse or passage, it cannot hold water. The whole of scripture must testify of it, or it is fools gold.
Please Billy, quote to me the verse of scripture that says that man either "has" or was "created" with an "immortal" soul. Once again, I quote Gen. 2:7, which verse tells us clearly how Adam was formed.
quote:
"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."
Please Billy, where in this verse do you see that God gave to man or created man with an "immortal" soul. God himself, through Moses, divinely inspired, says that man is formed from two things, and ONLY two things are listed here, the dust of the ground, which I think we all understand to be Adam's physical body, and please don't add anything that is not written, and the breath of (that is) life. Then God says, and man BECAME a LIVING soul. There is not one word here about an immortal soul.
In I Cor. 15, please show me the verse where Paul says that the resurrection body he is talking about, 1. Is "immortal" in and of itself, and 2. that this "immortal" resurrection body and an "immortal" soul, which is separate from an "immortal" resurrection body, both form/constitute the resurrected believer?
Thank you in advance, for showing me those verses. For if you can quote scripture that says 1. Man "has" or was "created" with an "immortal" soul (and I quote Gen. 2:7 because that is the verse that tells us how the first man was formed and he is the pattern for all others), separate from the physical body, and that Paul teaches that there is an "immortal" body and an "immortal" soul that make up the resurrected believer, then I must surely study those verses and ask the Holy Spirit to teach those truths to me.
Also, as for this quotation:
quote:
The purpose of the resurrection is not to immoralize the soul of man. The purpose of the resurrection is to set things back in order;
Please give me Chapter and verse that "clearly" states that the purpose of resurrection is to set things back in order? I have never seen such a verse in all my studies. All I have ever seen is that resurrection is to Glorify God, and his resurrection power. Such as:
quote:
John 11:40 "Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the Glory of God."
and:
quote:
Phil. 3:10 "that I man know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death."
These verse talk only about resurrection relating to the Glory of God, and power of resurrection, no where can I find here any reference to resurrection's purpose as being to "set things back in order".
Nevertheless, there is a basic problem if you still insist that scripture says that man "has" or was "created" with an "immortal" soul, and that this "immortal" soul is separate from the physical body. That kind of teaching leads to the same error as the Pharisee's taught. They believed in an intermediate state, called "the Bosom of Abraham", a kind of purgatory, which place one was ushered into by angles, and in which the disembodied "soul" of the person, waited for a time. Please read the writings of the Jewish Historian Josephus, who documented the history and beliefs of the Jews around the time of Christ's earthly ministry.
Tradition is a hard thing to let go of. Scripture says man was "formed" from two things:
dust of the ground + breath of life, and this = a "living" soul. No where in this equation is there any mention of an "immortal" soul. Again, please show me chapter and verse where it "clearly" states that man has or was created with such a thing, as this verse "clearly" shows that he was not.
Again, In Christian Love,
Clifford
Posts: 11 | From: Sacramento, CA USA | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
Back to work.
Clifford,
quote:
You wrote:
Nowhere in your response did I find that you have addressed the following verse:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Tim. 6:16 Who ONLY hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; Whom NO MAN HATH SEEN , nor can see; to Whom be honor and power everlasting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't know I was supposed to address it. I will, though, if it makes you happy.
1Timothy 6:13-16
13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.
First, we recognize that this passage is speaking of Christ. Christ is the One Who "alone posssesses imortality". Paul goes on to state;
1Timothy 6:17-19
17 Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. 18 Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.
Thus we can discern that he is speaking of the immortality of the body, not the soul. Jesus is the only One that ascended in His glorified body into heaven. He is referred to as the "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18)," thus showing that He is the only one that, post resurrection, has received His glorified (immortal) body. However, we know that we, at the final resurrection will receive glorified bodies, as well (Daniel 12:2; 1Corinthians 15:42). For this reason, we can see that this passage is not speaking of the realities of the soul, but the foolishness of holding on to earthly treasures while understanding that the mortal body will not survive death. This is the curse of Adam, that we will be naked, stripped of our bodies, until the coming resurrection, when we will be given new, glorified bodies;
2Corinthians 5:6-8
6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord-- 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight-- 8 we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.
I pose to you, in light of 2Corinthians 5:6-8, how is it possible in your theology, to be "absent from the body" and at the same time "at home with the Lord"? There must be a soul (conscious mind / essence) that survives death.
quote:
Does man dwell in the light which "no man can approach unto", if this verse is correct, then no man has ever yet approached unto the glory of God, yet you propose that man, having an "immortal" soul, and going directly to heaven when he dies, goes immediately into the glory and presence of God, which this verse says no man has yet done (nor can see).
If angels shield their eyes and faces, as well as their feet, from the glory of our Lord with their wings, we must assume that no man would dare look upon His glory either, even in heaven. Do you suppose the Moses looked upon His glory, when on the mountain? Of course not. However, we know that he was in his presence, because of the light that shown from his face.
quote:
Additionally you don't even approach the verses quoted in 1 Cor. 15, nor Acts 2:34 which states: "FOR DAVID IS NOT ASCENDED into the heavens . . ." (I will not quote all of I Cor. 15 here, please everyone, read the references)
quote:
Also, consider the whole of I Cor. 15 and I Thes. 4. In both of these chapters, Paul writes about the coming of the Lord again. The main theme, especially, of I Cor. 15, is the " PUTTING ON " of immortality, AT THE TIME OF RESURRECTION I Cor. 15:51-55. I 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." I Cor. 15:53 "for this CORRUPTIBLE must PUT ON INCORRUPTION , and this MORTAL must PUT ON IMMORTALITY ."
These statements are clear and concise. Do you believe Paul is lying to us? He too was inspired by the Holy Spirit and if he were lying the Holy Spirit would not have tolerated it.
As I said, Paul is talking here about the raising of the immortal body, not an immortal soul which had previously been distinguished when the first body passed away. Nowhere in 1Corinthians 15 or 1Thessalonians 4 does he even allude the the idea that the soul does not survive the body. As I said before, this is a doctrine that you have based solely on a faulty understanding of Genesis 2:7, and when a doctrine hinges solely on one verse or passage, it cannot hold water. The whole of scripture must testify of it, or it is fools gold.
Acts 2:32-36
32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: `THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, 35 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."' 36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."
Peter here is talking about the ascension of Jesus, which we know had happened bodily. He was not saying that David's soul had not, at the time of his sermon, been transfixed by the glory of Christ into heaven. Rather, he was pointing out that David's value, worth and knowledge was less than that of Christ's, as evidenced by the fact that Christ had ascended, bodily, into heaven, whereas David had not. Peter is talking about what had been seen and witnessed by his own eyes. You cannot see or witness the spiritual with your eyes (Hebrews 11:1).
quote:
What you are implying is that there is no need for Christ to come to us and resurrect us, we, being already immortal, are coming to him at or upon our death.
The purpose of the resurrection is not to immoralize the soul of man. The purpose of the resurrection is to set things back in order; that is the order of the original creation, before the fall of man. There will be a new heaven and a new earth, and all that live in them will have imperishible bodies. This does not imply that we do not already have imperishible souls. The resurrection is not a means to the end of our glory, but to God's glory. God will be glorified when all things are set right.
quote:
If that were not true, where is Lazarus? He was a believer, did he not have immortality? Was he not raised to everlasting life? Where is he now? How come he is not among is? Could it be he died again? How can that be if he was immortal? Immortality itself implies the in-ability to die. How can something that is or has immortality die? If you believe that the body is the only thing that can die, and that man has an immortal soul that goes on to heaven when he does die, please quote those verses to me. Also please consider all the other instances of scripture (some already given in earlier posts) where the dead were raised. Consider the ones in Hebrews 11 who wanted a better resurrection and did not accept the first one, and were returned to their womenfolk. Where are all those dear saints now, if they were raised to life everlasting? Did they all die again? How come they died again if they were already immortal? Is scripture telling us lies? The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is in direct conflict with the evidence of scripture. How about the young man Paul raised when that young man fell out of the window and was taken up dead? Where is he now if he were raised to everlasting life? Was he not immortal?
I never implied that we receive immortal bodies before the final resurrection. This much you assumed I was saying.
quote:
John 3:13 "AND NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Yet again. Talking about bodily ascension. This was Jesus prophesying His coming ascension into heaven.
Okay. I have kept my part. Now, I put it to you. Will you answer my posts, or do I need to post them again? I have asked MANY questions that you have not answered, and quoted much scripture that you have avoided dealing with. Zeena has also posted some very valid questions that have gone unanswered. I hope you realize how long it takes to pick apart someone's post and answer all their questions. This is not an easy task. It takes much time to do. So I would appreciate it if you would, out of appreciation for the effort that I have put into you, do the same with the questions that I have repeatedly asked, with no reply in turn. There is nothing more frustrating than typing up a long post without receiving a reply. I don't like to toil in vain.
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
quote:
2 Peter 3:10-13
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Thank you for sharing this passage, Zeena. I find such hope in it. Everytime I read it, I am filled with such joy at the understanding of what Christ did that it might come to pass to the glory of God, for the good of all that are in His Son, Christ Jesus.
In Christ,
Billy
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
quote:
Clifford:
the constituent elements of the "dust of the ground"
2 Peter 3:10-13
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
apilgrim2
Advanced Member
Member # 7182
|
posted
Perhaps we are not all given to see Scripture in precisely the same way.
The Bible is a LIVING Word, and the Holy Spirit of God has ordained some to deeper Truth than others. Scripture is surely not so simple a document that it's truths may be explored to the depths by every individual in EXACTLY the same way.
Let us bear with each other in Christian LOVE! Let us give thanks for the Grace of God without which our lives would be very sad indeed. Grace for you, and Grace for me . . . Grace for all who believe.
"...and therein I do rejoice, and WILL rejoice."
Good night Billy . . . get some rest.
Rest in the LOVE of Christ Jesus our Lord, our blessed Savior,
-apilgrim2
--------------------
"Relativity applies to physics, NOT ethics." - A. Einstein
Posts: 49 | From: Sacramento California | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
Clifford,
Yet again, I will answer you specifically. Thought, I will point out that you have avoided quite a bit from my posts. Because I seem to have missed certain posts that I don't believe were even directed at me, that doesn't give you an excuse to lambast me like this when you only chose to answer snipets of posts that I've directed to you specifically, and even repeatedly with no reply. Here we go...
quote:
Billy:
I wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that we have to first establish that when I quote the scriptures, I am NOT quoting from the Jehovah's Witnesses bible. I use only the interlinear Hebrew and Greek translation and the Companion bible. The Hebrew and Greek interlinear translation, gives the words as they appear on the ORIGINAL Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, i.e, the Books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, and the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Both used and endorsed by Paul (Acts 28:23)and (II Tim. 4:13).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which you replied:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said that you did
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All through your response you compare my statements with what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, such as:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why I continue to compare your arguments with the Jehovah's Witnesses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, you never directly said I quote from Jehovah's Witnesses bible, but you imply that I have somehow derived a doctrine from the original Greek and Hebrew that conforms to what they believe, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses did not even exist when the original scriptures were written.
I implied nothing. I straight out said it. This doctrine that you teach is exactly what is being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses, today. If you believe it to be truth, based on scripture, fine. From my reading of scripture, I have not discerned the same thing. Like I said, it is of no consequence if your theology lines up with that of a cult in an area or two, as long as it is not an area where they deviate from the true Christian faith. In this particular area, I believe they do deviate, but you obviously don't. Have you even read their literature, or are you just assuming that I am making all this stuff up? I have a whole library of their literature, and I can assure you, you do not deviate from their doctrine on this issue one bit.
quote:
If you believe that God inspired the men who wrote the original documents and that if his word is inerrant and infallible, then how can you assert that I am arguing from that position? Also, I never argue. I quote the word.
You quote the word and then give your interpretation of it. This is nothing new, and I am not implying that it is wrong that you do. The priests did the exact same thing in Nehemiah. So do all the apostles, throughout the New Testament. I quote the word and give my interpretation of it, as well, but I have a completely different method of interpreting scripture than you do, obviously. This is what I've been trying to show you.
quote:
I do not purport to teach anything to anyone. I have quoted scripture to you and you refuse to acknowledge the verses I have quoted.
Now, let's not get viscious. I refuse to adhere to your methods of interpreting the scriptures that you show me. There is a difference.
quote:
True the exact word used in Gen. 2:7 is "formed" not "composed", but we are not talking here about the molecular composition of the body, although one can certainly determine by modern methods what, the constituent elements of the "dust of the ground" are at any specific location. The point is this, God only lists two things that he used to form man, 1. dust of the earth, and 2. breath of life. No mention anywhere about an "immortal" soul.
Here's my problem with the way that you spin this verse. You get all in an uproar when others say that the soul survives the body, because this verse, which is what your argument hinges on, does not elude to an "immortal" soul. Then in the same breath, you assign your own personal definitions to "dust of the earth" and "breath of life." Do you not? Are these elements explained, in Genesis? Atleast are they explained in the way that you explain them here...
quote:
So Mat 10:28 says fear NOT those which kill the dust of the ground, but fear Him, God, who can destroy BOTH dust of the ground and breath of life, which GOD can do.
Tell me. If this rendering of Matthew 10:28 is accurate, who can kill the material make up of the body without distinguishing the breath that is in him? Is it not the 'breath', by your definition, that gives life to the body in the first place? So how can one take a life without taking the breath of life? It seems as though, if this interpretation were valid, Jesus might benefit from a course in biology.
The breath of life animated the first human beings into living beings. The breath of life is what animated the bodies that had been formed. The verse does not say that the soul is immortal, but it does not limit it to mortality, either. That much you have read into the verse. Seeing as this has been left out of the verse (the argument for or against the soul surviving the body), we must move on from this verse and look to others. This verse should have never been brought into this debate, because does not even attempt to address the topic at hand.
quote:
You don't even address the issue of the banishment from the tree of Life. Why did God prevent Adam and Eve from eating of the one tree in the garden that could grant them everlasting life, if both of them were already immortal?
I did not avoid this issue. I addressed it right here...
quote:
God said that the very day that Adam ate of the fruit he would surely die. Did he physically die, on that very day? No. Thus, we must conclude that he died, spiritually. This is why you have the triune composition of man represented by evangelicals, today; body, soul and spirit. The body being the material man. The soul being the essence (or mind) of man. And the spirit being that part of man that communes with God. On the day that Adam sinned, his spirit died, but his body and soul lived on. His body unto physical death, and his soul unto eventual, everlasting torment, if he did not in fact repent and trust in Yahweh (Jesus) to save him from his sins.
When we understand this composition, we see that the Tree of Life had more to do with the immortality of the human body than the human soul, or spirit. Upon his rebellion, his spirit died. Without the fruit of the Tree of Life, his body eventually died. His soul, however, did live on for we see that, on the very day that he sinned, he did not die in body and soul. His body was intact, and his mind (essence/soul). After eating the fruit, he lived on for several hundred years and had many children.
quote:
Please quote me the scripture verse in Gen. where God says that he created man "with" an immortal soul, or that man "is" an immortal soul. I would be eager to see that verse.
I don't operate in the realm of proof text theology. I prefer to look at the whole of scripture and determine what it teaches. If one thing is not taught in Genesis, but is taught in Jude, should we assume that it is of any less worth? Should we assume that what is taught in Proverbs is more inspired by the Holy Spirit than what is taught in Esther? No. Of course not. Stop trying to paint me in the corner with this stuff.
I will answer the rest of your post, tomorrow. It's 10:26pm, here in the Middle East, and I'm tired.
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Clifford
Community Member
Member # 7264
|
posted
Billy:
I wrote:
quote:
I think that we have to first establish that when I quote the scriptures, I am NOT quoting from the Jehovah's Witnesses bible. I use only the interlinear Hebrew and Greek translation and the Companion bible. The Hebrew and Greek interlinear translation, gives the words as they appear on the ORIGINAL Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, i.e, the Books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, and the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Both used and endorsed by Paul (Acts 28:23)and (II Tim. 4:13).
To which you replied:
quote:
I never said that you did
All through your response you compare my statements with what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, such as:
quote:
This is why I continue to compare your arguments with the Jehovah's Witnesses
True, you never directly said I quote from Jehovah's Witnesses bible, but you imply that I have somehow derived a doctrine from the original Greek and Hebrew that conforms to what they believe, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses did not even exist when the original scriptures were written.
If you believe that God inspired the men who wrote the original documents and that if his word is inerrant and infallible, then how can you assert that I am arguing from that position? Also, I never argue. I quote the word.
I do not purport to teach anything to anyone. I have quoted scripture to you and you refuse to acknowledge the verses I have quoted. True the exact word used in Gen. 2:7 is "formed" not "composed", but we are not talking here about the molecular composition of the body, although one can certainly determine by modern methods what, the constituent elements of the "dust of the ground" are at any specific location. The point is this, God only lists two things that he used to form man, 1. dust of the earth, and 2. breath of life. No mention anywhere about an "immortal" soul. You don't even address the issue of the banishment from the tree of Life. Why did God prevent Adam and Eve from eating of the one tree in the garden that could grant them everlasting life, if both of them were already immortal?
You said:
quote:
because matter is not naturally animated, but animated through the work of God
God is not talking about matter here, but about a person, a living soul. The animation of matter is not the subject of the verse and in fact is not even referenced by this verse. The verse is talking about what God used to form man, granted matter is part of the equation, but it is the whole person that is being addressed, not separate parts. The living soul is formed as was Adam from only two things, dust of the earth and breath of life. Please quote me the scripture verse in Gen. where God says that he created man "with" an immortal soul, or that man "is" an immortal soul. I would be eager to see that verse.
Nowhere in your response did I find that you have addressed the following verse:
quote:
I Tim. 6:16 Who ONLY hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; Whom NO MAN HATH SEEN , nor can see; to Whom be honor and power everlasting
Who do you suppose it is that ONLY hath immortality? Man? Does man dwell in the light which "no man can approach unto", if this verse is correct, then no man has ever yet approached unto the glory of God, yet you propose that man, having an "immortal" soul, and going directly to heaven when he dies, goes immediately into the glory and presence of God, which this verse says no man has yet done (nor can see).
Additionally you don't even approach the verses quoted in 1 Cor. 15, nor Acts 2:34 which states: "FOR DAVID IS NOT ASCENDED into the heavens . . ." (I will not quote all of I Cor. 15 here, please everyone, read the references)
David was a man after God's own heart, if he has not yet ascended to the heavens, then either man does not have an immortal soul that does, or Peter, who had just been anointed by the Holy Spirit was lying to the people of Israel.
It seems to me that you have ignored a preponderance of evidence that man must "put on" immortality, please read I These. 4, and I Cor. 15, these chapters teach us through the inspired word that man only becomes immortal at resurrection and not before. What you are implying is that there is no need for Christ to come to us and resurrect us, we, being already immortal, are coming to him at or upon our death. Christ and Christ alone "gives" us immortality, at resurrection. If that were not true, where is Lazarus? He was a believer, did he not have immortality? Was he not raised to everlasting life? Where is he now? How come he is not among is? Could it be he died again? How can that be if he was immortal? Immortality itself implies the in-ability to die. How can something that is or has immortality die? If you believe that the body is the only thing that can die, and that man has an immortal soul that goes on to heaven when he does die, please quote those verses to me. Also please consider all the other instances of scripture (some already given in earlier posts) where the dead were raised. Consider the ones in Hebrews 11 who wanted a better resurrection and did not accept the first one, and were returned to their womenfolk. Where are all those dear saints now, if they were raised to life everlasting? Did they all die again? How come they died again if they were already immortal? Is scripture telling us lies? The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is in direct conflict with the evidence of scripture. How about the young man Paul raised when that young man fell out of the window and was taken up dead? Where is he now if he were raised to everlasting life? Was he not immortal?
Scripture is not ambiguous in its teaching regarding immortality. Paul wrote 50+ verses in I Cor. 15 about resurrection, not about man's immortal soul going directly to heaven when he dies. I can quote scripture to you all day, that says man has to "put on" immortality, but if you refuse to even address those verses, then the whole thing is an exercise in futility. Please tell me Billy, what are you going to do with I These. 4, I Cor. 15, I Tim. 6:16, and this statement of our Lord in John:
quote:
John 3:13 "AND NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Please note what this verse says and can it be any plainer, this is Christ talking and this is his teaching: AND NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven. Christ is saying that no one has ever ascended to heaven "but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man". What more can you say? Was Christ telling a lie?
This is my last post on this issue, until you address the verses quoted here. What to you have to say about John 3:13?
In Christian Love
Clifford
Posts: 11 | From: Sacramento, CA USA | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
All flesh is raised immortal at the day of the Lord.
Some will go into everlasting torments and those who have been purchased into everlasting Life.
This is Scriptural. ALL FLESH shall see Him, EVEN those who pierced Him, ALL FLESH shall see Him together, the dead WILL BE RAISED immortal!
Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world, therefore ALL will be raised immortal, for only HE has immortality.
2 Corinthians 5:15
And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
The thing is;
Do they have Life? ![[Bible]](graemlins/bible.gif)
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Now, all these sayings [above] are SCRIPTURAL, and if on ANY point you differ, PLEASE ASK for a witness and I will expound with SCRIPTURE!
2 Timothy 1:10
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
Life and immortality there are two different things, Life being ETERNAL LIFE, immortality being the indestructability of the body, and thereby the soul. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93751/What-is-meant-by-Conditional-Immortality-and-what-if-any-is-the-Biblical-basis-for-it
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
quote:
Clifford wrote:
I think that we have to first establish that when I quote the scriptures, I am NOT quoting from the Jehovah's Witnesses bible.
I never said that you did.
quote:
I use only the interlinear Hebrew and Greek translation and the Companion bible. The Hebrew and Greek interlinear translation, gives the words as they appear on the ORIGINAL Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, i.e, the Books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, and the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Both used and endorsed by Paul (Acts 28:23)and (II Tim. 4:13).
This is a good study tool though, unless you know Greek and Hebrew very well, it is very difficult to discern the original essence of what is being conveyed in the Scriptures. This is why we have translations such as the NKJV and the NASB. Do you perceive their to be flaws in the translation methods used in these translations? I assure you that they take from only the best of manuscripts, and are translated by scholars of high esteem within evangelical Christianity. Manuscripts used, that I know of off the top of my head, include, but are not limited to;
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated to 300 years B.C. over 1,000 years earlier than the manuscripts that we had before their discovery, in the early 20th century. Of note; the dead sea scrolls do not contradict the earliest manuscripts that we had before their discovery in the areas of essential doctrine or messianic prophecy. The areas where they do differ typically have to do with grammar, but do not change the meaning of any given passage.
The Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that was used in Jesus' time. Of note; Jesus and His disciples often quoted from the Septuagint. You can tell which translations use the Septuagint in their translation processes by looking at scripture quoted from the Old Testament in the New. Where the Holman Christian Standard Bible will typically use the mirror image technique when the Old Testament is quoted in the New (obviously not employing the Septuagint), the New American Standard Bible will have slightly different wording to show that the version used by the saints in the NT (the Septuagint) is not the same version of the OT that we use, today. This is a sound argument for why it is valid for there to be many different versions of the Bible, today. Different versions reveal different ways and means of translating different words.
quote:
First from Gen. 2:7, we learn what the living "soul" is composed of which is "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (neshamah, or breath (that is) life), and man became a living soul."
This tells us nothing about the composition of the body and the soul. There is nothing scientific being taught, here. God formed our bodies from matter. We know this already. God breathed into us the breath of life. We know this, too, because matter is not naturally animated, but animated through the work of God. However, the verse does not say, "Through this process, man's body and soul, which are one and the same, was created." This is an imposition on the text. You can not extrapolate that from the text with a straight reading. You must first implant such a meaning into the text in order to derive it. This is all around bad hermeneutics. Yet, this is the only verse that you quote in which you claim that there is any teaching on the composition of body and soul that you ascribe to. All the other verses you use are in an attempt to teach that hell is not in the Bible.
quote:
Mat. 10:28 says "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". (Hell here is the word Gehenna, which is the transliteration of the Hebrew Gai' Hinnom, i.e., the valley of Hinnom, where were the fires through which children were passed in the worship of Moloch, a pagan God which originated in Babylon.).
So, you are saying that Jesus was teaching, here, that God destroys body and soul in place of pagan worship? A form of pagan worship that is repeatedly condemned by God throughout the Old Testament? Therefore, you are saying that God is going to kill bad people, physically, in a way that is displeasing to Himself, and thus He is contradicting Himself? Hmmm... And here I always thought that Jesus was using Gehenna metaphorically to speak about a greater SPIRITUAL truth. Thank you for weakening the meaning of the verse for me.
This is why I continue to compare your arguments with the Jehovah's Witnesses. They do the same thing that you do. If a verse does not fit their theological framework, they tear it down. However, they give no alternative for what the verse is speaking about. Why did Jesus talk about Gehenna and Hades at all? Was He just babbling? Did these verses have no purpose?
quote:
Now in Mat. 10:28, the "body" in the first clause, is the dust of the ground, the soul which is referenced after that is the flesh (dust of the ground) and the breath (that is) life.
Sounds like you are really reading a lot into the text. Have you ever just read it?
quote:
Remember in Gen. 2:7, there is no mention of an "immortal soul", only a living soul...
So, now we are building doctrines off of the silence of the Bible. Nice. Hermeneutics, man. I'm telling you. You should look into it.
quote:
...which GOD says is composed of dust of the ground and breath of life.
No. You said that the soul was composed of the dust of the ground and the breath of life. Genesis 2:7 never uses the word 'compose'. So, while we are building doctrines around silence, I guess we could say that if Genesis 2:7 doesn't use the word 'compose', there is not such composition. Let's stay consistent, now.
quote:
So Mat 10:28 says fear NOT those which kill the dust of the ground, but fear Him, God, who can destroy BOTH dust of the ground and breath of life, which GOD can do.
"...kill the dust of the ground..."
Okay... Whatever, man. You just completely lost me. If I saw a man trying to kill the dust of the ground, I would deduct that he was insane. Explain yourself.
quote:
See John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not PERISH, but have everlasting life". Here the word used in contrast with everlasting life, is PERISH, not be tormented in Hell! God says what he means and means what he says.
This just goes to show that you and I have two different understandings of what happens when you die.
My belief:
The righteous go to be with the Father, in heaven, in spirit form. The unrighteous go to hell to be tormented forever. At the end of the world, God will raise all that have ever lived from their graves. He will give them all knew bodies, the righteous will live in the new heaven, on the new earth, because they will no longer be separate, but God will once again walk among His children as He did in the garden. The unrighteous will be cast, in their new bodies, into the lake of fire. Just as the righteous will never perish on the new earth, the unrighteous will never perish in the lake of fire. The end.
Your belief:
The spirit dies with the body. On the day of judgment, God will 'recreate' all mankind, because they ceased to exist when they died, so they cannot be resurrected, but recreated. The righteous will live forever with Christ, wherever. The unrighteous will never be punished for their deeds, but will be cast into the lake of fire for instant annihilation.
Does that sound about right?
Also, are you trying to imply with this statement...
quote:
Here the word used in contrast with everlasting life, is PERISH, not be tormented in Hell! God says what he means and means what he says.
...that Jesus is contradicting His own words:
Daniel 12:2
Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace {and} everlasting contempt.
Matthew 25:46
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
quote:
Please read scripture as it is written and please read it in context and in the light of what God has revealed elsewhere.
I think it would be proper to say that perhaps you should listen to your own advise.
quote:
It will bring to light and clarify many misunderstandings that have been made in Satan's attempt to substitute his lie, Gen. 3:4 "Ye shall not surely die". This has ever been Satan's lie to man, that God did not really say that man would die, but that man would not die. Who do you want to believe? God, who said that man would "surely" die, or Satan, who said man would "not surely" die? The choice is yours.
God said that the very day that Adam ate of the fruit he would surely die. Did he physically die, on that very day? No. Thus, we must conclude that he died, spiritually. This is why you have the triune composition of man represented by evangelicals, today; body, soul and spirit. The body being the material man. The soul being the essence (or mind) of man. And the spirit being that part of man that communes with God. On the day that Adam sinned, his spirit died, but his body and soul lived on. His body unto physical death, and his soul unto eventual, everlasting torment, if he did not in fact repent and trust in Yahweh (Jesus) to save him from his sins.
I must repeat an earlier question, though. What do you believe that God has saved you from, if not eternal torment in the lake of fire?
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
quote:
apilgrim2 wrote:
Hi Billy . . . I notice that you quote the cult of the 'witnesses' often in response to the postings of others.
In contrast, I show how similar the teachings of some are to the teachings of the Watchtower, and then I offer my argument against said teachings. If I feel as though someone has made the argument better than I can, I quote them. If it just so happens that the excerpt comes from a book that focuses on the deceptions of the Watchtower, I don't feel as though it should exclude it from being used to counter someone that holds to the same belief, but is not necessarily of the same body. I was in no way calling you a Jehovah's Witness, but pointing out that your argument about punctuation is straight from the Jehovah's Witness handbook.
quote:
Are you hoping to paint me as a 'witness', and thereby devalue the content of my post?
Not at all. I believe that the exerpt I used adequately addressed your argument, even though it was in reference to Witnesses and not "Christian" annihilationists, if there is such a thing.
quote:
If so, do you believe I will turn from what the Spirit has revealed simply because there appears to be a similarity between what the 'witnesses' teach and what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me in Scripture?
2Corinthians 11:14
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
1John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
quote:
Rather than labeling me as a "known commodity" by pointing out such similarities, I hoped that my postings would be read in light of the Scriptural Truth I am prayerfully attempting to convey.
Did you even read the exerpt. It answered your "Scriptural Truth" to the letter. I hold to the understanding that we will live on a new earth, in the hereafter. If you wanted to point out that that is a belief held by Jehovah's Witnesses, I would whole heartedly agree, but I would take the opportunity to point out that they also believe that the new heaven and the new earth described in Scripture are two separate places where two separate groups of God's children go. I would also show scripture that denies this. Comparison with the cults is not a bad thing, as long as you know why it is that you agree and where it is that you should definitely not agree.
quote:
Please consider taking them for what they are [my postings] rather than tucking them into a cubby-hole of preconception labelled 'the witnesses' and their ilk.
This is not what I did at all. The best argument that I knew of against your interpretation of a particular scripture happened to be in a book that shows how to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses. Thus, in order to set it up, I simply pointed out that the argument that you were making was an argument typical of Jehovah's Witnesses. This is a statement that I hold to.
quote:
I spent years trying to get my father to open his eyes to the Truth, rather than rely upon the false teachings of a cult that just happened to arrive at his door first, at one of the rare times when he was concerned about the well-being of his adulterous second family. But, as with so many who either cannot or will not take Scripture for what it says, he held on to what he learned through years of "study" with the witnesses, and so he was effectively blinded to the Truth.
I'm sorry to hear that. Not to change the subject, but could you please answer the excerpt that I quoted, now? I believe it is a sound rebuttal, not only against the Jehovah's Witnesses, but the argument that both you and them have made.
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Clifford
Community Member
Member # 7264
|
posted
Dear Billy:
I think that we have to first establish that when I quote the scriptures, I am NOT quoting from the Jehovah's Witnesses bible. I use only the interlinear Hebrew and Greek translation and the Companion bible. The Hebrew and Greek interlinear translation, gives the words as they appear on the ORIGINAL Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, i.e, the Books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, and the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Both used and endorsed by Paul (Acts 28:23)and (II Tim. 4:13).
So many words that are in the Witnesses bible are not in the original manuscripts, such as the Syriac, which was written about A.D. 150, but have been added or changed. Another example is the NIV which has omitted 350,000 plus words that are in the original manuscripts and added about 150,000 that are not there.
That being said:
Mat. 10:28 says "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". (Hell here is the word Gehenna, which is the transliteration of the Hebrew Gai' Hinnom, i.e., the valley of Hinnom, where were the fires through which children were passed in the worship of Moloch, a pagan God which originated in Babylon.).
First from Gen. 2:7, we learn what the living "soul" is composed of which is "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (neshamah, or breath (that is) life), and man became a living soul."
Now in Mat. 10:28, the "body" in the first clause, is the dust of the ground, the soul which is referenced after that is the flesh (dust of the ground) and the breath (that is) life. Remember in Gen. 2:7, there is no mention of an "immortal soul", only a living soul, which GOD says is composed of dust of the ground and breath of life. So Mat 10:28 says fear NOT those which kill the dust of the ground, but fear Him, God, who can destroy BOTH dust of the ground and breath of life, which GOD can do. See John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not PERISH, but have everlasting life". Here the word used in contrast with everlasting life, is PERISH, not be tormented in Hell! God says what he means and means what he says.
So in the face of the evidence of scripture, Mat. 10:28 says, fear NOT those who can kill only the dust of the ground, i.e., body, but fear Him who can destroy BOTH dust of the ground AND breath of life, like those who do not believe on the Son of God, and who PERISH. When God says PERISH, he does not mean that some part of man still exists somewhere in a disembodied state. So Mat. 10:28 does not prove that man HAS an immortal soul, especially if God can destroy both dust of the ground, or body, AND breath of life.
Please read scripture as it is written and please read it in context and in the light of what God has revealed elsewhere. It will bring to light and clarify many misunderstandings that have been made in Satan's attempt to substitute his lie, Gen. 3:4 "Ye shall not surely die". This has ever been Satan's lie to man, that God did not really say that man would die, but that man would not die. Who do you want to believe? God, who said that man would "surely" die, or Satan, who said man would "not surely" die? The choice is yours.
In Christian Love,
Clifford
Posts: 11 | From: Sacramento, CA USA | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
apilgrim2
Advanced Member
Member # 7182
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Billy:
Another Jehovah's Witness argument.
Hope that helps.
In Christ,
Billy. [/QUOTE]
_____________________________________________________
Hi Billy . . . I notice that you quote the cult of the 'witnesses' often in response to the postings of others.
Are you hoping to paint me as a 'witness', and thereby devalue the content of my post? If so, do you believe I will turn from what the Spirit has revealed simply because there appears to be a similarity between what the 'witnesses' teach and what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me in Scripture?
Rather than labeling me as a "known commodity" by pointing out such similarities, I hoped that my postings would be read in light of the Scriptural Truth I am prayerfully attempting to convey. Please consider taking them for what they are rather than tucking them into a cubby-hole of preconception labelled 'the witnesses' and their ilk.
I spent years trying to get my father to open his eyes to the Truth, rather than rely upon the false teachings of a cult that just happened to arrive at his door first, at one of the rare times when he was concerned about the well-being of his adulterous second family. But, as with so many who either cannot or will not take Scripture for what it says, he held on to what he learned through years of "study" with the witnesses, and so he was effectively blinded to the Truth.
Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
In Christ alone,
-apilgrim2
--------------------
"Relativity applies to physics, NOT ethics." - A. Einstein
Posts: 49 | From: Sacramento California | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
quote:
apilgrim2 wrote:
Another example is by the unfortunate addition of punctuation to the original Greek, which it DOES NOT USE, but which was directed by King James as it appears in the KJV, and which turns Scriptural Truth into one of a very few verses which, under torture, become a favorite of those who support the evangelical (pentecostal) idea of "Sudden Death, sudden Glory":
Luke 23:43 - And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Few, if any other verses in Scripture can be made to convey the idea that is conveyed by the simple addition of a comma in the WRONG PLACE. Many examples of the same pattern of expression may be found in Scripture as is found in the following:
Luke 23:43 - And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee To day, thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Another Jehovah's Witness argument.
quote:
This is a clear case of the Jehovah's Witnesses changing the Bible to fit their doctrines. Without any warrant whatsoever, they have forced a comma into a part of the sentence that changes entirely the meaning of Jesus' words.
It is helpful to observe how the phrase, "Truly I say to you" is used in Scripture. This phrase-which translates the Greek words amen soi lego-occurs 74 times in the Gospels and is always used as an introductory expression. It is somewhat similar to the Old Testament phrase, "Thus says the Lord." Jesus used the phrase to introduce a truth that was very important.
Now here's the important point: In 73 out of the 74 times the phrase occurs, the New World Translation places a break-such as a comma-immediately after the phrase, "Truly I tell you." Luke 23:43 is the only occurance of this phrase in which the New World Translation does not place the break after it. Why? Because if the break-such as a comma-was placed after "Truly, I say to you," the word "today" would then belong to the second half of the sentence, indicating that "today" the thief would be with Jesus in Paradise. But this would go against Watchtower theology. Hence, the relocated comma.
Apologist Robert Bowman notes that if Jesus really wanted to say, "Truly I say to you today," He could have done this by using a different construction of the Greek language. But based upon the usage of amen soi lego throughout Scripture, it is clear that the word "today" belongs to the second part of the sentence. Not the first.
Related to all this, Watchtower expert Marian Bodine points out that the phrase, "Truly I say to you today," does not make good sense: "It would have been needless to say, 'Today, I am telling this to you.' Of course He was! What other day would He have been speaking to the thief on? Jesus never added the word 'today' when speaking to anyone."
Now, according to orthodox scholars, this thief apparently believed that Jesus would eventually come into His kingdom at the end of the world. He therefore asked to be remembered by Jesus at that time. Jesus' reply, however, promised him more than he had asked for: "Today [not just at the end of the world] you will be with me in Paradise."
And what is this "Paradise"? First-century Jews believed Paradise was a place of blessedness occupied by the souls of righteous people who had physically died. This place of blessing was considered to be a compartment of Hades. Thus, when Jesus promised the thief that he would go to Paradise, He was promising the thief that he would be in the blessed resting place of the righteous dead. Later, at the Ascension, Christ took the occupants of this compartment to heaven with Him (2Corinthians 12:4).
From the above, it is clear that Luke 23:43 argues strongly agains the Watchtower position that there is no immaterial nature that consciously survives death. As is true with other Bible verses, a thorough look at the text unmasks the Watchtower deception.
Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses, pp 327-330
Hope that helps.
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
quote:
Matthew 10:28
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy BOTH soul and body in hell."
This verse teaches us two things.
1) The body and the soul are separate. The body CAN be killed WITHOUT killing the soul.
2) The Bible speaks of destruction, not annihilation, of the body and soul.
Point One:
Jehovah's Witnesses, strict adherents to the annihilation doctrine, teach that the terms used for body and soul, in Hebrew, are interchangeable, and thus the body and the soul must be one and the same. Jesus teaches that the body and the soul are separate entities. One can die while the other goes on living. Who is right? Jesus or Jehovah's Witnesses?
Point Two:
Can / has anything ever been annihilated? Scientific evidence points to the negative. Matter does not disappear. It merely changes form. Thus, when Jesus talks about destroying the body, He is not talking about annihilating it, but simply about its break down; its decay. On the same token, the 'destruction' of the body is set in direct comparison to the 'destruction' of the soul, in this verse. Thus, we can conclude that when Jesus talks about the destruction of the soul, He is not talking about its annihilation, but its decay.
Hope I've been helpful.
In Christ,
Billy.
Clifford and apilgrim2,
Please explain to me how this post is wrong. There also seems to be a concensus among Jehovah's Witnesses and others that, because Jesus decides to use Hades and Gehenna as a means of describing the realities of hell, hell must not be a real place. In response to this, I wrote the following, and I would appreciate it if one, or both, of you would respond.
quote:
There are many places in scripture where the terms Hades and Gehenna are not even used to describe the place of "Weeping and gnashing of teeth, where their worm never dies." Take for example...
Daniel 12:2
Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace {and} everlasting contempt.
Matthew 25:46
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
John 5:28&29
"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."
In all of these instances, the eternality of God's wrath which abides on sinners is equated to the eternality of the love that He bestows upon His children. Just as the grace that we receive in the afterlife is of an eternal, conscious quality, so the torment endured by those that have not been reconciled to God has an eternal, conscious quality. The Bible does not mince words on this issue.
Another issue this raises is the issue of our understanding of the eternally holy nature of God. Holiness is not an attribute of God that He can just turn on an turn off as He wills. It is an attribute that is embedded in His nature. A just judge must punish sin. The eternally just Judge must therefore punish sin eternally. Also, have you ever thought of the purpose behind God raising both the saved and the unsaved, on the last day, as is talked about in the above verses? He raises us into perfected, glorified bodies which will never rot or decay, but what kind of bodies do you think He will raise the unconverted into? Well, it could be argued that, if He were to raise them into bodies that likewise do not rot or decay, they would provide the fuel for an eternal lake of fire just like the one that is mentioned in Revelation.
I once asked a Jehovah's Witness if he would be willing to trust in a God that was wrathful toward sin and demonstrated that wrath upon the sinners that commited that sin for an eternity, in hell. I asked him, "If you were provided with proof, from the Bible, that such a God is the one described in its pages, would you trust in Him?" He said, "No." Then, he proceeded to judge the image of God that I'd painted for him. I tell you, today, that this is the God of the Bible, and if you are believing in any other god, than you are believing in an idol that suits your own desires.
Jesus did not die on the cross to save us from annihilation or from earthly consequences to our sins. Anyone that adheres to these doctrines does not know the Jesus of the Bible. Jesus died as a ransom for our sins. Without that ransom sacrifice, the eternal, holy wrath of God abides upon us. And no, hell is not separation from God, for God is omnipresent. God is everywhere and sees everything. Hell is a place where His wrath is executed on the wicked. There is no longing for God, in hell. There is only an ever growing hatred for Him there. This is all in the Bible. The whole of scripture testifies to these doctrines, and if you have ever read through the whole Bible, I pray that God use this as an opportunity to remind you of the passages about which I speak.
In Christ,
Billy.
Clifford,
I currently own an interlinear Bible with Strong's numbers, as well as a Strong's dictionary and most modern translations of the Bible, to include the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NLT, HCSB and NIV. I even own a copy of the Jehovah's Witness' New World Translation. What specific words would you have me look up. I promise, I will look them up and get back to you.
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
apilgrim2
Advanced Member
Member # 7182
|
posted
Dear Brother Clifford,
Thank you for citing an abundance of Scripture as the basis for your postings. It can be clearly seen that the assertions you made are clearly supported by Scripture in each and every case. Your arguments are supported solely by and are reasoned exclusively from Scripture.
Reliance upon the traditions of men is often used by those who are not interested in learning Scriptural Truth, but rather are only interested in making the Bible affirm their preconceptions.
This is so sad, because the Truth is there in the Scriptures for those who will allow the Spirit to lead them into "all Truth". Alas, many have latched onto traditional ideas, and will not allow the Spirit to reveal the Truth as it is given in God's Word unless it fits those pre-conceived and ardently defended notions.
How blessed I was, when I was first saved, to have been lead to believing saints who learned (and therefore taught) the Word of God rightly divided.
But, clearly, whether based upon Scripture that has been selectively interpreted, i.e., upon the traditions of men and their denominations, we see numerous examples of how Holy Scripture can be interpreted so as to make it appear to support the point of view being presented.
One example is "eternal punishment" being made to mean "eternal punishING", hence the idea of eternal conscious torment in the orthodox "hell" (which, by translation means THE GRAVE):
Matthew 25:46 (NLT) “And they will go away into eternal punishment , but the righteous will go into eternal life.”
Another example is by the unfortunate addition of punctuation to the original Greek, which it DOES NOT USE, but which was directed by King James as it appears in the KJV, and which turns Scriptural Truth into one of a very few verses which, under torture, become a favorite of those who support the evangelical (pentecostal) idea of "Sudden Death, sudden Glory":
Luke 23:43 - And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Few, if any other verses in Scripture can be made to convey the idea that is conveyed by the simple addition of a comma in the WRONG PLACE. Many examples of the same pattern of expression may be found in Scripture as is found in the following:
Luke 23:43 - And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee To day, thou shalt be with me in paradise.
In addition we see a tendency toward selective presentation of the reasoning using the language of "science" in an attempt to advance a point of view based upon what the writer already believes, and a tendency to ignore completely Scripture references that clearly refute secular reasoning.
Thank you for your courage and conviction.
In Christ,
-apilgrim2
--------------------
"Relativity applies to physics, NOT ethics." - A. Einstein
Posts: 49 | From: Sacramento California | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Clifford
Community Member
Member # 7264
|
posted
Fellow saints:
It has been both interesting and informative for me to read the various responses to my posting. First it is clearly evident that there is a general poverty of knowledge regarding the correct translation of specific Hebrew and Greek words, such as hell and everlasting. I urge all of you to get a Greek and Hebrew interlinear translation of the scriptures in order to know the correct meaning of certain words used in scripture. Also, a Companion Bible might be of some use to you.
But that aside, my question was, is man immortal?
No one cited any scripture verse that states that man is immortal. In fact there is a preponderance of evidence that man does not have, was not created with immortality. I repeat Gen. 2:7, "and man BECAME a living soul. What items constituted man becoming a living soul? The dust of the ground, and the breath of life. And what does Genesis say about the end of the living soul? In Gen. 3:19 God said to Adam "In the sweat of they face shalt thou eat bread till thou return UNTO THE GROUND ; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and UNTO DUST shalt thou return." This is clear and simple. The flesh given to Adam by God was dust of the ground and that flesh would return to dust when Adam died. You believe God or not, its that simple. Note: Adam WAS NOT TOLD you will go to hell. The sentence was (from dust you were created to dust you will return). Pretty clear, yes?
What about the breath of life that God gave Adam. Where did it come from? Again Genesis is very specific. Gen. 2:7 "and breathed (the LORD GOD mentioned earlier in the verse) into his nostrils the breath of life," So, God gave the breath of life, and it must return to its maker, as the Lord Jesus Christ commended his "spirit" (the same word used for breath of life, check and see)to the Father when he died on the cross. The Hebrew word used is N'Shamah, which is translated "breath (that is) life. So the flesh returns to dust, and the breath (that is) life returns to the Father (God). No other components are listed in Genesis as forming part of Adam who became a living soul. So the "soul" as defined by Genesis is the body (formed of the dust) given to Adam and the breath (that is) life also given to Adam. No mention here anywhere of immortality.
Additionally, God had to prevent Adam from eating of the one tree that could give him immortality.
Now I pass on to two other situations. First, the death of Lazarus the brother of Mary and Martha. The whole context of John Chapter 11 was to show forth the glory of God as Jesus said in verse 40. If you, as a christian, one who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as your own personal savior, believe that upon death a part of you can exist, apart from the body, which is exactly what the unbelieving Pharisees taught the Jews; and this part of you is enjoying himself in this state, then tell me why did the Lord bring back Lazarus to this realm of woe and sorrow?
Also, why the command given to the twelve in Mat. 10:8 to raise the dead? And again why did Elijah the prophet raise from the dead the widow's son in I Kings 17:17-24? And why did Paul in Acts 20:10 bring to life Eutychus, who was taken up dead? There is no place in the Scriptures where any who were raised from death ever spoke of being in Heaven or in a place of bliss.
Additionally, in the case of David in Acts 2:34, the scriptures clearly state, " FOR DAVID IS NOT ASCENDED INTO THE HEAVENS ". How much clearer can a statement be? David was dead, buried, his grave (sepulchre) was still visible to the people to whom Peter was speaking. If David were born with an immortal soul, and if he went directly to heaven when he died, then Peter was lying to those people in Acts 2. Do you believe Peter, who was divinely inspired, and upon whom the Holy Spirit had rested was a liar? Look at what happened to Aninias and Saphria when they lied to the Holy Spirit.
The next case is Hebrews Chapter 11. Hebrews 11 contrasts those who were "raised to life again" during the time of persecution, and were restored to their women folk, with the attitude of others, who "were tortured", not accepting (that kind of) deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection". Nowhere do we read that any of those so raised told others of the joy and rapture of the Heaven they had just left, nor of any other place of bliss or glory. They knew nothing of where they had been. If they had been in Heaven SURELY these raised ones, would have announced abroad with great joy the glories of the place that they had just left. If they had been conscious and in the presence of the risen Lord, they certainly would have shouted it abroad and it would have been recorded for our benefit and faith. But there is no record of them ever doing so. Do you believe Paul lied?
Also, consider the whole of I Cor. 15 and I Thes. 4. In both of these chapters, Paul writes about the coming of the Lord again. The main theme, especially, of I Cor. 15, is the " PUTTING ON " of immortality, AT THE TIME OF RESURRECTION I Cor. 15:51-55. I 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." I Cor. 15:53 "for this CORRUPTIBLE must PUT ON INCORRUPTION , and this MORTAL must PUT ON IMMORTALITY ."
These statements are clear and concise. Do you believe Paul is lying to us? He too was inspired by the Holy Spirit and if he were lying the Holy Spirit would not have tolerated it.
No where in scripture does God invite us to opine on his word, or to critique his word. He does however, ask us to either believe or not believe, and I leave you with this statement;
I Tim. 6:15, 16 "Which in His times He shall shew, Who is the blessed and ONLY potentate, King of kings, and Lord of lords;
Who ONLY hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; Whom NO MAN HATH SEEN , nor can see; to Whom be honor and power everlasting."
Either we believe scripture or we don't. Under divine inspiration, scripture says that Christ only has immortality, whom no man hath seen (this means, no man has gone to where He is yet). I didn't say it, God did, through his divinely inspired mouthpiece, the apostle Paul. All of these verses, clearly show forth that Christ only is immortal. We are not!
Thank you for letting me post again to you, and please, please, search the scriptures, do not listen to men, but be instructed by the Holy Spirit. Tradition was what ruined Israel, and it can ruin us.
In Christ's love,
Clifford
Posts: 11 | From: Sacramento, CA USA | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
quote:
Zeena wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billy:
Can / has anything ever been annihilated? Scientific evidence points to the negative. Matter does not disappear. It merely changes form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the soul is 'immaterial'.
I answer this in the same paragraph from which you quote.
quote:
Thus, when Jesus talks about destroying the body, He is not talking about annihilating it, but simply about its break down; its decay. On the same token, the 'destruction' of the body is set in direct comparison to the 'destruction' of the soul, in this verse. Thus, we can conclude that when Jesus talks about the destruction of the soul, He is not talking about its annihilation, but its decay.
Jesus is basically claiming that the soul and the body undergo the same type of destruction. The body is material, thus it cannot be annihilated. Thus, it's destruction is alluding to torment and agony. If the destruction of the soul is to be carried out in the same way as the destruction of the body, we can conclude the same; that it's destruction is alluding to torment and agony.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Soul
(generally the rendering of Heb. nepesh, a “breathing” creature; Gk. psuchē, “breath,” etc., the equivalent of nepesh). One meaning of psuchē is the soul as an essence that differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (Matthew 10:28); the soul freed from the body, a disembodied soul (Acts 2:27; Revelation 20:4).
(The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary)
quote:
But the soul is 'immaterial'.
1. If souls die, they must die either by decomposition or by annihilation.
2. But what is not composed cannot decompose.
3. And souls are not composed.
4. Therefore souls cannot decompose.
5. And nothing is annihilated as a whole.
6. Therefore souls are not annihilated as a whole.
7. Thus souls do not die either by decomposition or annihilation.
8. Thus souls do not die.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
1 Timothy 6:16 KJV
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
I don't believe that man is immortal, but that God keeps him.
2 Peter 2:4-9 ESV ['Cuz they say Tartarus instead of hell -P]
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into Tartarus and committed them to pits of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,
quote:
Billy:
Can / has anything ever been annihilated? Scientific evidence points to the negative. Matter does not disappear. It merely changes form.
But the soul is 'immaterial'.
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Billy ![[thumbsup2]](graemlins/thumbsup2.gif)
apilgrim2
Haven't you ever heard of Apologetics?
The Soul’s Power to Objectify the Body
Major premise: If there is a power of the soul which cannot come from the body, this indicates that the soul is not a part or a function of the body. That, in turn, indicates that it is not subject to the laws of the body, including mortality.
Minor premise: Such a power of the soul exists which could not come from the body. It is the power to objectify the body. The body cannot objectify itself, be its own object of knowledge, or know itself.
Conclusion: Therefore the soul is not subject to the body’s mortality.
To objectify X, I must be more than X. I can know a stone as an object only because I am not merely a stone as object. The projecting machine can project images on the screen only because it is not merely one more image. I can remember my past only because I am more than my past, I am a present knower. (My present is alive, my past is dead.) I can know my body as object only because I am more than my body. The knowing subject must be more than the known object.
A surprising corollary of this argument seems to be that I can never know my soul, as an object, at least completely, for I do not transcend it. If I do, if I am really some “soul of my soul,” then I cannot know that as object. My senses can know the world, my mind can know my senses, but only Another can know my mind, my soul, my I, my self, my subject—as his object. A God who is pure subject, “I AM WHO I AM,” could know everything as object.
(Handbook of Christian Apologetics)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
Did someone say, "Bible verse"?
Matthew 10:28
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy BOTH soul and body in hell."
This verse teaches us two things.
1) The body and the soul are separate. The body CAN be killed WITHOUT killing the soul.
2) The Bible speaks of destruction, not annihilation, of the body and soul.
Point One:
Jehovah's Witnesses, strict adherents to the annihilation doctrine, teach that the terms used for body and soul, in Hebrew, are interchangeable, and thus the body and the soul must be one and the same. Jesus teaches that the body and the soul are separate entities. One can die while the other goes on living. Who is right? Jesus or Jehovah's Witnesses?
Point Two:
Can / has anything ever been annihilated? Scientific evidence points to the negative. Matter does not disappear. It merely changes form. Thus, when Jesus talks about destroying the body, He is not talking about annihilating it, but simply about its break down; its decay. On the same token, the 'destruction' of the body is set in direct comparison to the 'destruction' of the soul, in this verse. Thus, we can conclude that when Jesus talks about the destruction of the soul, He is not talking about its annihilation, but its decay.
Hope I've been helpful.
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
apilgrim2
Advanced Member
Member # 7182
|
posted
Dear Carol,
Gen 2:7 - 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.
Man IS a living soul, he does not HAVE a soul which lives on after the flesh dies. Your highly developed "proof" is made up of man's words and concepts gathered from here and there, but you offer NO SCRIPTURE, rightly divided or otherwise, to support your assertions.
"...since it is the new nature that sleeps in Christ, and which, according to Scripture, is renewed day by day and is quickened at our resurrection, the new nature is mortal, and is renewed day by day between the moment we receive salvation to the moment of our resurrection. That which must PUT ON incorruption and immortality cannot be anything but that which is quickened upon our resurrection: the new nature."
Trust in HIM and His WORD of Truth, or trust in tradition and reap its fruits.
In Christ,
-apilgrim2
--------------------
"Relativity applies to physics, NOT ethics." - A. Einstein
Posts: 49 | From: Sacramento California | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Clifford
quote:
That false teaching is "THE IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL",
The term "immortality" refers only to the body. However, the soul does not die.
The Argument from the Soul’s Simplicity
Major premise: What is not composed cannot be decomposed. Whatever is composed of parts can be decomposed into its parts: a molecule into atoms, a cell into molecules, an organ into cells, a body into organs, a person into body and soul. What is not composed of parts cannot be taken apart.
Minor premise: The soul is not composed of parts. It has no countable, quantifiable parts as the body does. You can cut a body in half but not a soul; you can’t have half a soul. You don’t cut an inch off your soul when you get a haircut.
Conclusion: Therefore the soul is not decomposable.
Now there are only two ways of being destroyed: by being decomposed into parts, as the body is, or by being annihilated as a whole. But we know of nothing that is ever annihilated as a whole. Nothing simply pops out of existence. If the soul dies neither in parts (by decomposition) nor as a whole (by annihilation), then the soul does not die.
Formal argument:
1. If souls die, they must die either by decomposition or by annihilation.
2. But what is not composed cannot decompose.
3. And souls are not composed.
4. Therefore souls cannot decompose.
5. And nothing is annihilated as a whole.
6. Therefore souls are not annihilated as a whole.
7. Thus souls do not die either by decomposition or annihilation.
8. Thus souls do not die.
(Handbook of Christian Apologetics)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
I have not read the above posts thoroughly as yet, but have understood the subject to be that of the false notion of the immortality of man.
Man is not immortal, does not have nine lives, and is not an island.
All mankind will be raised immortal after the millenial reign at the coming of Christ.
Those who have accepted Jesus as the propitiation for thier sins and have received Him as thier Lord will be welcomed into Heaven for Eternity. They will Live with Him forever and ever.
Those who have rejected Jesus as the propitiation for thier sins and have refused Him as thier Lord will we thrown alive into the Lake of Fire for Eternity. They will be burned alive forever and ever.
There are those professed Christians who have accepted the propitiation of Jesus as atonement for their sins, but have refused Him Lordship over them. These will pass through the purifying flame, and they will suffer loss. For no sin can enter Heaven.
I do realise that Scripure has not been posted to attest to these facts [due to time contraints atm]. But should you need a witness on any particular point, do feel free to ask. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
I cannot speak for what Lazarus' sisters allowed or didn't allow in their fallen state. We don't know how much time passed between the resurrection of Lazarus and the feast that Martha prepared for Jesus in her home, or what financial endeavors may have transpired. Thus, we don't even know if they were financially equipped to help their brother at that time, anyway. There is not talk of who purchased the tomb or burial clothes.
And Jesus had a more perfect will for Lazarus (the glory of God being shown through his resurrection), and thus He let him die. Why would He let him die and not let him suffer? Do you see any cases in the Bible where Jesus offers to put someone up in a condo and give them money for groceries and bills, at any point? The love of God is not demonstrated by His willingness to enact our fallible will, but in the fact that He died to save us from eternal torment in the life to come. That is the stuff of Word of Faith theology. Let us not even entertain those thoughts for a moment.
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
At any rate, the Lazarus stories teach about conscious existence after death, and resurrection.
Praise to our Lord Jesus Christ!
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Billy, is this what you believe?
Luke 10:38 - 40 (NLT)
38As Jesus and the disciples continued on their way to Jerusalem, they came to a certain village where a woman named Martha welcomed them into her home. 39Her sister, Mary, sat at the Lord’s feet, listening to what he taught. 40But Martha was distracted by the big dinner she was preparing. She came to Jesus and said, “Lord, doesn’t it seem unfair to you that my sister just sits here while I do all the work? Tell her to come and help me.”
1. Lazarus' sisters could afford to have a big dinner
John 11:3 - 7 (NLT)
3So the two sisters sent a message to Jesus telling him, “ Lord, your dear friend is very sick.” 4But when Jesus heard about it he said, “Lazarus’s sickness will not end in death. No, it happened for the glory of God so that the Son of God will receive glory from this.” 5So although Jesus loved Martha, Mary, and Lazarus , 6he stayed where he was for the next two days. 7Finally, he said to his disciples, “Let’s go back to Judea.”
2. Jesus knew and loved Lazarus
John 11:38 - 39 (NLT)
38Jesus was still angry as he arrived at the tomb, a cave with a stone rolled across its entrance . 39“Roll the stone aside,” Jesus told them. But Martha, the dead man’s sister, protested, “Lord, he has been dead for four days. The smell will be terrible.”
3. Lazarus" sisters could afford grave clothes and a tomb
John 12:1 - 3 (NLT)
1Six days before the Passover celebration began, Jesus arrived in Bethany, the home of Lazarus—the man he had raised from the dead. 2A dinner was prepared in Jesus’ honor . Martha served, and Lazarus was among those who ate with him. 3Then Mary took a twelve-ounce jar of expensive perfume made from essence of nard, and she anointed Jesus’ feet with it, wiping his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance.
4. Another dinner, and expensive perfume
Luke 16:19 - 21 (NLT)
19Jesus said, “There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury. 20At his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus who was covered with sores. 21As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man’s table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores.
5. But his family and Jesus let Lazarus lay in the dirt starving and covered with sores until he died?
Is this what you are saying?
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
Forgive me. I'm don't believe I'm getting what you're trying to convey. If you are trying to convey that this passage is stating that Lazarus had a home (of whatever construction) in which his sisters resided, I don't believe that is the case. More accurately, John is simply pointing out that Bethany was the home of Lazarus, and that he and his sisters both lived there. Perhaps other versions shed more light on this, not to downplay the NLT. I will look into it. If you are trying to point out something else, please make it plain, so that I may learn.
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
John 11:1 - 3 (NLT)
1 A man named Lazarus was sick. He lived in Bethany with his sisters , Mary and Martha. 2 This is the Mary who later poured the expensive perfume on the Lord’s feet and wiped them with her hair. Her brother, Lazarus, was sick. 3 So the two sisters sent a message to Jesus telling him, “Lord, your dear friend is very sick.”
John 12:1 - 3 (NLT)
1 Six days before the Passover celebration began, Jesus arrived in Bethany, the home of Lazarus—the man he had raised from the dead . 2 A dinner was prepared in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, and Lazarus was among those who ate with him. 3 Then Mary took a twelve-ounce jar of expensive perfume made from essence of nard, and she anointed Jesus’ feet with it, wiping his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
John 11:1 - 3 (NLT)
1 A man named Lazarus was sick. He lived in Bethany with his sisters, Mary and Martha. 2 This is the Mary who later poured the expensive perfume on the Lord’s feet and wiped them with her hair. Her brother, Lazarus, was sick. 3 So the two sisters sent a message to Jesus telling him, “Lord, your dear friend is very sick.”
Does this passage give us enough information about Lazarus to conclude that he was not a beggar? All we know from this passage is...
1) Lazarus was sick.
2) He lived in Bethany.
3) Mary and Martha were his sisters.
4) Mary, at some point, got ahold of some 'expensive' perfume, but that doesn't necessarily suggest that they were well off, or that they shared the wealth with their brother. This could have been a 'widow's mite' instance, meaning; Mary could have spent all she had on that bottle of perfume.
5) Lazarus was Jesus' friend.
Thus my suggestion, that the two Lazarus' could be one and the same, is in tact.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
Often, when I read the words of others, even when they bear a striking resemblence to my own, I am confronted with the fact that I have a long way to go in my literary education. In the process of trying to convey certain ideas, I never realize how scatter-brained I sound until I read the same ideas expressed by the more scholarly. That was a good excerpt, Carol. Keep them coming.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
HELL
THE WICKED WILL BE BANISHED INTO ENDLESS MISERY
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
REVELATION 20:14-15
The sentimental secularism of modern Western culture, with its exalted optimism about human nature, its shrunken idea of God, and its skepticism as to whether personal morality really matters—in other words, its decay of conscience—makes it hard for Christians to take the reality of hell seriously. The revelation of hell in Scripture assumes a depth of insight into divine holiness and human and demonic sinfulness that most of us do not have. However, the doctrine of hell appears in the New Testament as a Christian essential , and we are called to try to understand it as Jesus and his apostles did.
The New Testament views hell (Gehenna, as Jesus calls it, the place of incineration, Matt. 5:22; 18:9) as the final abode of those consigned to eternal punishment at the Last Judgment (Matt. 25:41-46; Rev. 20:11-15). It is thought of as a place of fire and darkness (Jude 7, 13), of weeping and grinding of teeth (Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30), of destruction (2 Thess. 1:7-9; 2 Pet. 3:7; 1 Thess. 5:3), and of torment (Rev. 20:10; Luke 16:23)—in other words, of total distress and misery. If, as it seems, these terms are symbolic rather than literal (fire and darkness would be mutually exclusive in literal terms), we may be sure that the reality, which is beyond our imagining, exceeds the symbol in dreadfulness. New Testament teaching about hell is meant to appall us and strike us dumb with horror, assuring us that, as heaven will be better than we could dream, so hell will be worse than we can conceive. Such are the issues of eternity, which need now to be realistically faced.
The concept of hell is of a negative relationship to God, an experience not of his absence so much as of his presence in wrath and displeasure . The experience of God’s anger as a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29), his righteous condemnation for defying him and clinging to the sins he loathes, and the deprivation of all that is valuable, pleasant, and worthwhile will be the shape of the experience of hell (Rom. 2:6, 8-9, 12). The concept is formed by systematically negating every element in the experience of God’s goodness as believers know it through grace and as all mankind knows it through kindly providences (Acts 14:16-17; Ps. 104:10-30; Rom. 2:4). The reality, as was said above, will be more terrible than the concept; no one can imagine how bad hell will be.
Scripture envisages hell as unending (Jude 13; Rev. 20:10). Speculations about a “second chance” after death, or personal annihilation of the ungodly at some stage, have no biblical warrant.
Scripture sees hell as self-chosen; those in hell will realize that they sentenced themselves to it by loving darkness rather than light, choosing not to have their Creator as their Lord, preferring self-indulgent sin to self-denying righteousness, and (if they encountered the gospel) rejecting Jesus rather than coming to him (John 3:18-21; Rom. 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 32; 2:8; 2 Thess. 2:9-11). General revelation confronts all mankind with this issue, and from this standpoint hell appears as God’s gesture of respect for human choice. All receive what they actually chose, either to be with God forever, worshiping him, or without God forever, worshiping themselves . Those who are in hell will know not only that for their doings they deserve it but also that in their hearts they chose it.
The purpose of Bible teaching about hell is to make us appreciate, thankfully embrace, and rationally prefer the grace of Christ that saves us from it (Matt. 5:29-30; 13:48-50). It is really a mercy to mankind that God in Scripture is so explicit about hell. We cannot now say that we have not been warned.
(Concise Theology)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Hi Billy
quote:
Fourthly, we don't know much about Jesus' friend, so it is not a far stretch to assume that he could have been a poor beggar.
John 11:1 - 3 (NLT)
1 A man named Lazarus was sick. He lived in Bethany with his sisters, Mary and Martha. 2 This is the Mary who later poured the expensive perfume on the Lord’s feet and wiped them with her hair. Her brother, Lazarus, was sick. 3 So the two sisters sent a message to Jesus telling him, “Lord, your dear friend is very sick.”
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
Good post, Carol.
I just wanted to add one thing to my last post, because it occured to me that someone might come to me with a certain argument, and I wanted to answer it ahead of time.
It might be argued, "Well, how can God be present in Hell if He cannot be in the presence of sin."
This is a falacitic statement, though it is one that I've asked myself. If we claim God's presence on this earth, and the earth is full of sin and sinners, it is not a far stretch to say that God is also actively present in hell. Though, I would say that, just as our sin on earth keeps us from being able to recognize the presence of God in our lives, so the inhabitants of hell will not be able to experience it either. Also, it could be said that, though God is there, because He is everywhere, His grace is not. God's grace is the only thing holding back His wrath, and so the absence of His grace means the presence of His wrath. That is what make hell so tormenting.
Exhortation:
For Christians; Consider the grace of God that has been bestowed upon you, in that Christ died on the cross to save you from such a place, and spend some time on your knees, today, thanking Him for His grace.
For the lost; Consider the price paid so that you may be able to flee from the wrath that is to come. Christ died on the cross and took the wrath of His own Father upon Himself. He did this to pay your fine, so that you could go free. Considering all that He's done for you, is it so much for Him to ask of you that you repent of your sins and trust Him with your eternal salvation? Don't waste another second. Repent and trust in Jesus, this very moment. Your life depends on it.
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Billy
Advanced Member
Member # 7193
|
posted
Let me see if I can paint a picture for you...
Philippians 1:21-24
21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. 23 But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; 24 yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.
Paul did not ascribe to annihilationism. To him, to be apart from the body did not mean that he would be annihilated until the coming ressurection, but that he would be immediately transcended into the presence of Christ. Furthermore, how can you be with Christ apart from the body, if you are not alive apart from the body?
Luke 23:40-43
40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
Jesus did not tell the thief on the cross, "After a long period of annihilation, which will seem like an unconscious sleep, you will be awakened in a newly resurrected, glorified body to be with Me in paradise, on a future date." Rather, he said, "TODAY you will be with Me in Paradise."
Luke 16:22-24
22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 "And he cried out and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'"
Here we see Jesus teaching that the rich man, whose gate Lazarus sat at, is in conscious torment, in hell. Now, maybe this is the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead and maybe it isn't, but there are a few things that allude to the former. Firstly, Jesus knew a Lazarus. Secondly, Jesus knew a Lazarus that died. Thirdly, there is talk of resurrecting Lazarus, in this very story, and we know that Jesus resurrected His friend, Lazarus. Fourthly, we don't know much about Jesus' friend, so it is not a far stretch to assume that he could have been a poor beggar. Fifthly, Jesus always starts His parables by saying something to the affect of, "Let me tell you a parable." This is not the case with this story. He just launches right into it. Thus it is not a far cry to assume that He is talking about actual events. Sixthly, even if it were a parable, Jesus was not occustomed to using spiritual language in his parables. Sure, He used figurative language, but it was always an earthly, tangible language. One which His contemporaries could understand and one which was based in realistic themes. According to Jehovah's Witnesses, and others that adhere to the annihilation doctrine, Jesus is using fantasitical language, here. This is very out of character for the Son of God to do, even in parables. Thus, we can safely assume with a large degree of certainty that Jesus is talking about the literal events surrounding the death of His friend, Lazarus, and is thus descibing a place of literal torment in which sinners are cast.
There are many places in scripture where the terms Hades and Gehenna are not even used to describe the place of "Weeping and gnashing of teeth, where their worm never dies." Take for example...
Daniel 12:2
Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace {and} everlasting contempt.
Matthew 25:46
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
John 5:28&29
"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."
In all of these instances, the eternality of God's wrath which abides on sinners is equated to the eternality of the love that He bestows upon His children. Just as the grace that we receive in the afterlife is of an eternal, conscious quality, so the torment endured by those that have not been reconciled to God has an eternal, conscious quality. The Bible does not mince words on this issue.
Another issue this raises is the issue of our understanding of the eternally holy nature of God. Holiness is not an attribute of God that He can just turn on an turn off as He wills. It is an attribute that is embedded in His nature. A just judge must punish sin. The eternally just Judge must therefore punish sin eternally. Also, have you ever thought of the purpose behind God raising both the saved and the unsaved, on the last day, as is talked about in the above verses? He raises us into perfected, glorified bodies which will never rot or decay, but what kind of bodies do you think He will raise the unconverted into? Well, it could be argued that, if He were to raise them into bodies that likewise do not rot or decay, they would provide the fuel for an eternal lake of fire just like the one that is mentioned in Revelation.
I once asked a Jehovah's Witness if he would be willing to trust in a God that was wrathful toward sin and demonstrated that wrath upon the sinners that commited that sin for an eternity, in hell. I asked him, "If you were provided with proof, from the Bible, that such a God is the one described in its pages, would you trust in Him?" He said, "No." Then, he proceeded to judge the image of God that I'd painted for him. I tell you, today, that this is the God of the Bible, and if you are believing in any other god, than you are believing in an idol that suits your own desires.
Jesus did not die on the cross to save us from annihilation or from earthly consequences to our sins. Anyone that adheres to these doctrines does not know the Jesus of the Bible. Jesus died as a ransom for our sins. Without that ransom sacrifice, the eternal, holy wrath of God abides upon us. And no, hell is not separation from God, for God is omnipresent. God is everywhere and sees everything. Hell is a place where His wrath is executed on the wicked. There is no longing for God, in hell. There is only an ever growing hatred for Him there. This is all in the Bible. The whole of scripture testifies to these doctrines, and if you have ever read through the whole Bible, I pray that God use this as an opportunity to remind you of the passages about which I speak.
In Christ,
Billy.
--------------------
Test yourselves to be sure that you are in the faith.
- The Apostle Paul
Posts: 217 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Genesis 3:22 (NKJV)
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life , and eat, and live forever”—
Matthew 25:46 (NLT)
“And they will go away into eternal punishment , but the righteous will go into eternal life.”
James 3:7 - 10 (NLT)
7 People can tame all kinds of animals, birds, reptiles, and fish, 8 but no one can tame the tongue. It is restless and evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Sometimes it praises our Lord and Father, and sometimes it curses those who have been made in the image of God . 10 And so blessing and cursing come pouring out of the same mouth. Surely, my brothers and sisters, this is not right!
Revelation 20:10 (NKJV)
The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Revelation 20:15 (NLT)
And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire .
Revelation 22:14
Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life , and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
That's a whole lot of subjection, for a 'fundie'..
Where's the Scripture to back any of those words?
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
FundamentalCharlie
Community Member
Member # 7290
|
posted
The Bible, itself teaches that our eternal state is everlasting, either in Heaven as one of the church, or in eternal torment. I do not know how you can get around this fact. As for the tree of life, I believe that it referred to mortal physicality. I think that had Adam eaten of it, we could get in line to ask him some pretty tough questions today, because he would still be here. I do not think that God would snuff out the spiritual image of even the lost, because there is some quality in the lost soul that still represents intrinsic worth by virtue of God's image in them. I do not think that Satan need be redeemed though and as the Word states, he will be thrown into the lake of fire. With Hell being realized as the absolute separation from God, I can envision eternal solitary suffering, not at the hands of God, but rather as the reasonable outcome of a rebellious nature that remained unrepentant.
Posts: 12 | From: NW Missouri | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Clifford
Community Member
Member # 7264
|
posted
Dear Saints:
I am posting this thread because I believe that there is in the "Corporate Church" today, a false teaching that has invaded the preaching of the Gospel and has mutated that Gospel from the one which Paul "received" and which he "delivered" to the saints as stated in Gal. 1:11, 12.
Paul's Gospel was "received" as he states above "by the revelation of Jesus Christ", and "is not after man" nor did he receive it "of man". Therefore, it was divinely given by revelation to him and could therefore, as divine inspiration, contain no mistakes or errors, if we believe that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim. 3:16". That false teaching is "THE IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL", which is the basis for the modern view of resurrection, i.e., if man "has" or "is" an immortal soul, then resurrection is completely unnecessary, in that we go to Christ, without the need of his coming to us, as the 15th chapter of 1 Cor. so beautifully describes.
First, when God created Adam, scripture says "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." Note carefully what it says here, man "became" a "living" soul, NOT an immortal soul. Additionally, scripture says the following: "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the "TREE OF LIFE" also, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:9"; and "Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the "TREE OF LIFE", and 'live for ever': Therefore the Lord God sent him from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Gen. 3:22, 23"
I ask you all the following questions: Was man created immortal? Was he created with an immortal soul? What does Gen. 2:7 say? "IF" man was created immortal, why did God plant the Tree of Life in the garden? What was the need for such a tree if man was already immortal? Also, if man were already immortal, why was God concerned about man taking from the Tree of Life and "living for ever" if he were already immortal and therefore expecting to live forever? Why did God drive man from the Garden and place angelic guards at the entrance so man could not get back in and eat of the Tree of Life, if man were already immortal?
Scripture clearly paints a picture of a creature that did not already have immortality, but which could have had immortality, had he not sinned, by eating of the Tree of Life. Think about what scripture says, and discard tradition. Please read these verses carefully.
Also consider the following statements: "Rev. H. A. Barnes; at an early period in the Christian church it became fashionable to believe that there was much similarity between the teaching of Plato and that of Christianity, until it actually came to pass that the authority of the heathen philosopher was recognized almost as if he had been a teacher of the true religion" (Kalamos p. 625); Dr. E. Petavel; "the rising tide of Platonic theory was made to triumph in the Christian church by false Clementines; Tertullian, Minusclus Felix, Cyprian, Jerome, and especially by St. Augustine, but the primitive (true) teaching was manifested here and there" (The Problem of Immortality p. 242)and in conclusion; Rev. H. A. Barnes, "some of the consequences of the infiltration of the Platonic tradition into Christian teaching are: (1) the theory of the inalienable immortality of every human soul is treated as an axion of orthodox belief; (2) it teaches that the embodied state one of humiliation, that the body is a prison of the soul, something to be rid of; (3) it introduces the idea of purgatory; (4) it teaches the doctrine of eternal torment in hell (Gehenna); (5) although it uses the same terms as those of scripture for destruction, etc., it teaches in opposition to scripture that the wicked are not destroyed, grants immortality to Satan, and causes perversion of the meaning of important scriptural terms; and (6) the strange confusion of minds regarding souls that have never died, could not possibly die, living on in an unseen world, and then at a given time returning to a body, is a result of Platonic teaching, i.e., that the soul cannot die, and that the body is a mere prison or tomb of the soul, which results in the modern disregard of, and unbelief in the resurrection."
Thank you all for letting me post in this forum. I pray the Holy Spirit will grant you all understanding of the deeper things of the Word of God, to his praise and glory.
In Christian Love
Clifford
Posts: 11 | From: Sacramento, CA USA | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
