|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,214
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
9 registered members (dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,524
guests, and 9
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Where Really Are The Dead?
#46182
04/04/03 10:38 PM
04/04/03 10:38 PM
|
|
|
quote:
As I said, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. If it says that the thoughts perish at death, then the thoughts perish at death. Nothing being personified about that in the verse in Psalms 146:4.
Not so fast Daryl, that text was just an example, there are many more that are not as figurative. For example:
“17 In the twelfth year, on the fifteenth day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: 18 "Son of man, wail for the hordes of Egypt and consign to the earth below both her and the daughters of mighty nations, with those who go down to the pit. 19 Say to them, 'Are you more favored than others? Go down and be laid among the uncircumcised.' 20 They will fall among those killed by the sword. The sword is drawn; let her be dragged off with all her hordes. 21 From within the grave the mighty leaders will say of Egypt and her allies, 'They have come down and they lie with the uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword.'” Ez 32
Like I stated, this issue is far from clear. I also want to say that I don’t disagree with you as much as I find conflicting information that does not support the “death is a sleep” doctrine. I can’t in good conscience just believe in that doctrine with so many other conflicting texts.
For example, Jesus in Luke 16 talks about Lazarus going to heaven and a rich man going to hell when they die. I’m sure you will say this was a factious story Jesus was telling to make a point. However, then I need to ask you:
1. If this is a made up story, why is this the ONLY parable of Jesus that has a REAL persons name in it (Lazarus)?
2. If the ideas in this story are not correct with scriptural truth, why would Jesus teach unscriptural ideas or base a story on unscriptural ideas?
3. If these ideas were unscriptural or foreign to the disciples, why did they not question Jesus about this story afterwards?
4. If Jesus doesn’t want people to believe the ideas presented in this story, why did He use them?
Now combine this with what Jesus stated about the body being killed and not the soul, it seems to indicate that Jesus supported the soul being alive separate from the body.
|
|
|
Re: Where Really Are The Dead?
#46183
04/05/03 05:12 AM
04/05/03 05:12 AM
|
|
|
For example, Jesus in Luke 16 talks about Lazarus going to heaven and a rich man going to hell when they die. I’m sure you will say this was a factious story Jesus was telling to make a point. |
| quote: Lobo |
Hello, Lobo.
A question for you. You indicate here that you believe the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to be a literal story of factual and true events. In that story, the rich man in hell was very aware and cognizant of what was happening in heaven, as also was Abraham in heaven aware and cognizant of the goings-on in hell. In fact, people in hell was conversing with people in heaven.
Yet earlier, you stated a belief which contradicts elements in the story in Luke 16 which you believe to be literal. You had stated that you believe that Ecc 9:5,6 means that the dead are not conscience of anything that happens under the sun, but is aware of what happens in heaven.
If this is true, then how could Abraham be conscience of what is happening in hell?
Do you think we'll be seeing the wicked and their suffering all thoughout eternity, talking with them, etc? If so, then heaven wouldn't be much of a heaven, would it?
|
|
|
Re: Where Really Are The Dead?
#46184
04/05/03 05:37 AM
04/05/03 05:37 AM
|
|
|
Paul understood that the soul can be away from the body in heaven:
{ 2 Corinthians 5:1-9 was quoted }
So we see that scripture indicates that the soul can a does exist away from the body. |
| quote: Lobo |
Greetings, Lobo!
I do not believe that Paul was at all saying that the soul can exist away from the body.
In reading 2 Cor. 5:1-9, I note the following:
- Paul mentions two bodies:
- sinful body; our earthly house, this tent
- glorified body; a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens
- Paul mentions three states
- at home in this body; this tent; our existence in our sinful bodies
- naked; not being clothed in either our earthly house, nor with the house from God; the state of death
- further clothed; clothed with our habitation which is from heaven; when God gives us our glorified perfect bodies
- Paul explicitly mentions in verse 4 that he does not want to be found naked; in other words, he does not wish for the state of death
- Also in verse 4 Paul explicitly mentions that he wants to be further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life
In Pauls first letter to the Corinthians, he tells them when this mortal shall put on immortality, and when this corruptible shall put on incorruption: 1 Cor 15:51-55 "at the last trump ... For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."
If I am away at a conference in a city far away from home, and I comment, "I would rather be away from this city and be present with my wife." Does that mean that the moment that I leave the city limits, that I am immediately with my wife? No, I would have several hundred miles to cover first, and I may have to stop at the office to drop off paper work, etc.
I, too, feel as Paul did. I also would rather be absent from this body and be present with my Lord, being further clothed by Him with my habitation which is from heaven. I personally would prefer this happens by my translation at Christ's second coming; but if I should die before then, He will raise me up on that last day and clothe me in that house not made with hands at that time, as described and explained by Paul in 1 Cor 15:51-55. [ April 05, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: DenBorg ]
|
|
|
Re: Where Really Are The Dead?
#46185
04/05/03 10:55 AM
04/05/03 10:55 AM
|
|
|
Another fact to remember is that as we are not conscious of the passing of time between the time that we fall asleep at night to the time when we awaken in the morning several hours later, neither is Paul conscious of the time (centuries in his case) in which Paul lays asleep in the grave or dust of the earth (using Christ's own definition of death). So, without being conscious of the passing of time in death, Paul's last thought at death would be fresh on his mind centuries later which would just as quickly be replaced by the realization that he is being lifted into the air to meet his Lord in the sky at the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. As Paul wasn't conscious of the passing of time in between, to Paul the resurrection after his death was instantaneous, just as our awakening from an evening of sleep also seemed instantaneous as it sometimes seems, especially when in a solid deep sleep, that no sooner that we went to bed and into a deep sleep that the morning has so quickly arrived seeing that we were not conscious of the passing of time during the hours in which we were in a deep sleep. There isn't any deeper sleep than the sleep of death. That is why Jesus said that Lazarus was asleep and that He was going to awake Lazarus from his sleep. By the way, I think Jesus Christ knew what he was doing when he used the name of Lazarus in that story or parable about Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man.
|
|
|
Re: Where Really Are The Dead?
#46186
04/07/03 12:05 AM
04/07/03 12:05 AM
|
|
|
quote:
A question for you. You indicate here that you believe the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to be a literal story of factual and true events. In that story, the rich man in hell was very aware and cognizant of what was happening in heaven, as also was Abraham in heaven aware and cognizant of the goings-on in hell. In fact, people in hell was conversing with people in heaven.
Denborg, I think you misunderstood my point. I don’t believe Luke 16 is a literal story, but I do believe that the precepts of the story are true and correct. In other words, Jesus would not use falsehoods to teach truth. So the idea of people going to heaven and hell is true, Jesus just added some drama to it by saying they see each other.
As far as 2 Cor 5, I see your point. But I think you missed some of what Pauls stated.
First, what did Paul mean by this: “So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.”
This indicates Paul feels that right now, or when he wrote this, I could please God in or away for my body. If I die now and am in the grave, how can I do anything at that time to please God?
Now notice Paul’s next statement: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”
Notice that we are not awarded what “due” for things done “away from the body”, only in the body. This again would indicate that this state (away from the body) has already sealed our fate and we can please God during that time, but it won’t relate to our reward. So since Paul’s context was things done before the judgment, as this idea leads up to the judgment, “away from the body” must mean in heaven before the judgment.
quote:
That is why Jesus said that Lazarus was asleep and that He was going to awake Lazarus from his sleep. By the way, I think Jesus Christ knew what he was doing when he used the name of Lazarus in that story or parable about Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man.
Daryl,
Two things:
1. Why did the disciples of Jesus not understand that death was synonymous with sleep in John 11? Yet, they fully understood Jesus story in Luke 16?
2. Yes, Jesus knew what He was doing by using Lazarus name in Luke 16, because the entire story was based on biblical precepts. There is no place in scripture where Jesus taught a biblical principle using unbiblical precepts. This would be like saying the ends justify the means. So all of what Jesus stated was biblical truth.
I would like to ask both of you a question: do you believe that the “breath of life” leaves a person when they die and goes back to God? If yes, does that life force specific to it’s previous owner? If not, why would God need it back? God is the origin of all life and would not need the “breath of life” back, as if He would run out without it, He would just give more out who needed it.
So please explain what goes back to God at death; what is is and why God needs it back.
|
|
|
Re: Where Really Are The Dead?
#46187
04/07/03 07:19 AM
04/07/03 07:19 AM
|
|
|
Lobo:
Thank you for your thought-provoking comments and dialoge. I truly appreciate it. The following is a bit lengthy, but I hope you take the time to read it and contemplate on it.
Denborg, I think you misunderstood my point. I don’t believe Luke 16 is a literal story, but I do believe that the precepts of the story are true and correct. In other words, Jesus would not use falsehoods to teach truth. So the idea of people going to heaven and hell is true, Jesus just added some drama to it by saying they see each other. |
| quote: Lobo |
I guess I did misunderstand your point. Thank you for your clarification. At first, you seemed to be echoing what I've heard many others say, and that is that the story in Luke 16 is a very literal account of what truly happened.
But I do not understand why you view the idea of dead people in heaven and dead people in hell seeing and conversing with each other as "added drama", while you view the idea of people going to heaven or hell immediately at death as a "true precept"
If you believe that people must go straight to heaven or to hell simply because Jesus used that idea in a parable, why do you not also believe that people in heaven and in hell both see and talk to each other since He also used that idea in the same parable?
What makes the first thought a "true precept" and the other merely "added drama"?
Assuming just for a moment that neither idea was literally true and that Jesus was using the parable to teach a spiritual truth, why would the one idea make Jesus a liar while the other idea would not?
First, what did Paul mean by this: “So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. |
| quote: Lobo |
It seems to me that you are making the assumption that whenever Paul says "away from the body" that he always means the "naked" or "unclothed" state. Upon what do you base that assumption?
When Paul says "away from the body", you must ask yourself:- Paul mentions two bodies in his dialoge. Which of the two bodies is he referring to here? (I think we both agree that in verse 8 "absent from the body" means absent from this tent, our sinful body)
- Paul also mentions three different states: a) at home in this body, b) naked, c) further clothed with our glorified body.
"At home in the sinful body" is one of the three states, so which of the other two states does Paul mean when he says "away from the body" (It really does not matter which of the two bodies you are away from, if you are away from either of the two bodies, that still leaves two other possible states; but simply being absent from one of the two bodies does not mean that you are necessarily absent from both bodies)
All throughout his comments, Paul talks about being in this sinful body and absent from the Lord or being further clothed in our glorified body and being present with the Lord. But absolutely nowhere does he indicate that we are with the Lord while being found naked. Neither does Paul make any comment about our being able to do anything while being naked.
Paul's only comment about being naked is found in verses 3 and 4: having been clothed, we shall not be found naked, and not because we want to be unclothed. With this brief exception where he says that we won't be found naked if we are further clothed and that we don't want to be unclothed, Paul repeatedly talks exclusively about us being in this body or in our glorified body.
Even his brief mention of the state of nakedness is given in the context of being in our glorified bodies. "If we have our new body, we won't be naked. We are burdened while in this body, not because we want to be naked, but because we want our glorified body instead of this old tattered sinful body"
He talks about this in verse 1, in verse 2, in verse 3, and in verse 4. Then, in verse 5 Paul reveals to us Who it was Who has prepared us for this very thing. (what very thing? the promise of a body replacement, a better building from God should our earthly tent be destroyed, the very thing which Paul had been talking about all along in the first four verses. In other words, Paul has been talking about the assurance and promise of the resurrection, which is precisely when we will receive our glorified bodies, as explained in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.)
So, in the first 7 verses, Paul talks about nothing except us either being at home in our sinful body (absent from the Lord) or being clothed with our habitation from heaven (present with the Lord) and now all of a sudden, in verse 8, being absent from our sinful body is supposed to mean something altogether different than what he had been saying all along?
In the first 7 verses, Paul talks about our sin-ridden bodies being replaced by immortal sinless perfect bodies which God will give us, and suddenly in verse 8 Paul is supposedly talking about being with the Lord in neither of the two bodies?
How can Paul describe "groaning, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked, being burdened not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed with immortality, and God has prepared us for this very thing and gave us the Spirit as a guarantee", and then all of a sudden change his mind and become "well pleased" to be found naked?
Now notice Paul’s next statement: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”Notice that we are not awarded what “due” for things done “away from the body”, only in the body. This again would indicate that this state (away from the body) has already sealed our fate and we can please God during that time, but it won’t relate to our reward. |
| quote: Lobo |
The first thing I would like to comment on, is that to say "each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body" is not the same thing as saying, "It is possible to do things while you have no body", neither is it to say that we exist, or have conscience thought when we have no body.
If your boss tells you, "Every year, you will appear before me so that I may award you according to your performance and according to how well you've pleased me while in my employ" is not the same thing as your boss telling you that it is possible for you to please him with your job performance while you are not in his employ (and that he just won't base your raise upon your pleasing him with your job performance while not in his employ).
I would agree with you, however, that the state of being away from our sinful body does seal our fate. In other words, whether a person is saved or lost cannot be changed after that person's death.
So since Paul’s context was things done before the judgment, as this idea leads up to the judgment, “away from the body” must mean in heaven before the judgment. |
| quote: Lobo |
I respectfully disagree, for the reasons given above.
Again, to be awarded according to the things done while in the body, is not the same thing as saying that it is possible to please God while absent from the body.
Also remember, there are two states we can be in while being absent from the sinful body:- Absent from the body and naked, or
- Absent from the body and being further clothed with our glorified body
Yet in spite of all of Pauls talk about, and his focus on, being with the Lord in our glorified bodies, you still assume that in verse 8, 9, and 10 that whenever Paul talks about being present with the Lord or absent from this body that he means our naked state.
1. Why did the disciples of Jesus not understand that death was synonymous with sleep in John 11? Yet, they fully understood Jesus story in Luke 16? |
| quote: Lobo |
Where does it say that they fully understood Jesus' story in Luke 16?
I would like to ask both of you a question: do you believe that the “breath of life” leaves a person when they die and goes back to God? If yes, does that life force specific to it’s previous owner? If not, why would God need it back? God is the origin of all life and would not need the “breath of life” back, as if He would run out without it, He would just give more out who needed it. So please explain what goes back to God at death; what is is and why God needs it back. |
| quote: Lobo |
That is a good question. The word used in Ecc 12:7 "ruah", which means "breath or wind"
Let me ask you, if the "breath of life" that returns to God at death is specific to one person, where was this "breath of life" before God gave it to that person?
If God gave it, was it not with God before He gave it?
Therefore, if one believes that the "breath of life" returning to God at death means that we do not die but instead go to be with God, then wouldn't it also be true that we existed before creation as well?
If it is "us" that returns to God at death, and it was "us" that God gave our body at creation, then we were with God before creation, before He gave us these bodies we have now.
That would mean that we have no beginning and no end, just like God.
When you turn off a light in your room, the power returns to the electric company who gave it. Does that mean then, that the power company has to have that power back and is incapable of creating more power?
Neither does it mean that God requires the breath of life to return to Him because he needs it for His survival, or because he needs it so that He doesn't run out.
And this touches upon one last point in this post:
The issue of death is closely tied with creation: When we were created, when God joined the dust of the ground (body) with the breath of life, did God give man a living soul, or did man become a living soul? (See Genesis 2:7)
|
|
|
Re: Where Really Are The Dead?
#46188
04/07/03 07:56 AM
04/07/03 07:56 AM
|
|
|
I would like to ask both of you a question: do you believe that the “breath of life” leaves a person when they die and goes back to God? If yes, does that life force specific to it’s previous owner? If not, why would God need it back? |
| quote: Lobo |
Just to note a couple other verses that uses "breath of life" or "breath of God":
All in whose nostrils was teh breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. |
|  Genesis 7:22 |
As long as my breath is in me, and the breath of God in my nostrils, |
| Job 27:3 |
Does this mean that the being's consciousness (spirit), or whatever it may be called, is located in the nose?
|
|
|
Re: Where Really Are The Dead?
#46189
04/07/03 03:06 PM
04/07/03 03:06 PM
|
|
|
quote:
If you believe that people must go straight to heaven or to hell simply because Jesus used that idea in a parable, why do you not also believe that people in heaven and in hell both see and talk to each other since He also used that idea in the same parable?
Because in my assessment, the idea of peoples souls in heaven or hell does not conflict with other scripture, but the idea of people seeing each other from heaven to hell does.
quote:
What makes the first thought a "true precept" and the other merely "added drama"?
Because Jesus stated someone can have a soul that is alive while the body is dead. So that idea goes along with that distinction here. The added drama was the visualization of Abraham’s bosom (very comforting to Jews) and then torment in hell.
quote:
Assuming just for a moment that neither idea was literally true and that Jesus was using the parable to teach a spiritual truth, why would the one idea make Jesus a liar while the other idea would not?
You don’t see a difference between the descriptions or visualization used to make heaven more inviting and hell more terrible, and the possibility of going to heaven or hell that doesn’t exist?
For example, I tell you I just saw a car drive by and the car was red. You don’t see the difference between no car really driving by and a car did drive by but it was actually gray (I just added the “red” for interest)?
The point is that you and other SDA’s seem to feel that the “state of the dead” issue is very important. If that is true, why would Jesus teach something that was untrue in that regards? I mean it’s one thing to use symbolize that is not controversial like Abraham’s bosom, but it’s entirely different to use concepts like going to heaven directly after death.
Also, I challenge you to give me just one other parable where Jesus used unscriptural “symbolism” (or whatever you want to call it).
There is no other story of Jesus that includes unscriptural ideas. Yet, because this story conflicts with what you believe you just conclude that it is all made up. If that is true than this parable is an anomaly, one of a kind. And that in itself is very telling as well.
One last thing on this issue, as Jesus ministry at that time was, by His own assessment, for Israel first and foremost, do you know what orthodox Jews believe about the state of the dead? They believe that the soul goes to heaven or hell on death. That is why the disciples didn’t bat an eye when Jesus told this story.
quote:
It seems to me that you are making the assumption that whenever Paul says "away from the body" that he always means the "naked" or "unclothed" state. Upon what do you base that assumption?
No, I feel the “naked” symbolism means hell. So being "found naked" would mean that the person was not saved. Remember, the point of Paul’s passage was to please God a do what is right. So he was contrasting those that do right with those that don’t. Do right = heavenly house and don’t do right = naked or hell.
quote:
Paul also mentions three different states: a) at home in this body, b) naked, c) further clothed with our glorified body.
Yes, “at home in the body” = alive on earth in your old sinful body, “naked” = hell (i.e. “don’t be found naked”), and “glorified body” = heaven or heavenly dwelling.
Being naked cannot mean just death, because then Paul’s statement about we should not be found naked would not make sense. There is no shame in being found dead, it happened to Paul. So “naked” has to be hell.
quote:
Where does it say that they fully understood Jesus' story in Luke 16?
It doesn’t, but based on all the other stories of Jesus in which the disciples were not shy about questioning him, and this states nothing. In fact, when Jesus told them that things a person eats cannot make them unclean they kept bugging Him about it until He called them “dull”.
So the disciple “MO” was to ask questions. Yet in Luke 16, no questions.
quote:
Let me ask you, if the "breath of life" that returns to God at death is specific to one person, where was this "breath of life" before God gave it to that person?
I don’t know, scripture doesn’t say. I suppose it’s part of God’s essence. I imagine it’s part of the river of life as well.
quote:
Therefore, if one believes that the "breath of life" returning to God at death means that we do not die but instead go to be with God, then wouldn't it also be true that we existed before creation as well?
This seems like circular logic to me. Did your body exist before you were born? If I build something, did it exist before I built it? This sounds like eastern philosophy to me?
So it's just like man did not exist before God created Adam. Our life (breath) is a gift that comes from God. Prior to it being our life it was with God as just a part of Him, but not individual to anyone else. Then, once given, like creating Adam, it is then part of the person.
quote:
When you turn off a light in your room, the power returns to the electric company who gave it. Does that mean then, that the power company has to have that power back and is incapable of creating more power?
Neither does it mean that God requires the breath of life to return to Him because he needs it for His survival, or because he needs it so that He doesn't run out.
i understand this analogy, but it doesn’t seem consistent with scripture. Using this same logic we must then also conclude that the river of life flowing out from the throne of God in the new earth will at some point run uphill back to God who gave it?
I understand your point here, but with all due respect, you have not answered the question of why the “breath of life” needs to go back if it’s not specific to an individual?
quote:
The issue of death is closely tied with creation: When we were created, when God joined the dust of the ground (body) with the breath of life, did God give man a living soul, or did man become a living soul? (See Genesis 2:7)
The combination of the body and spirit makes a living soul. You assessment of this text conflicts with Jesus statement about how a body can die but soul live on in Matt 10:28.
|
|
|
Re: Where Really Are The Dead?
#46190
04/07/03 05:04 PM
04/07/03 05:04 PM
|
|
|
What about the verse that says that a soul that sinneth, it shall die in Ezekiel? quote:
Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
It says that the soul that sins will die, therefore, how can that soul live on?
|
|
|
Re: Where Really Are The Dead?
#46191
04/07/03 07:47 PM
04/07/03 07:47 PM
|
|
|
quote:
It says that the soul that sins will die, therefore, how can that soul live on?
Good point Daryl, but I believe that it is also answered by Matt 10:28
“28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Who can kill the body but can’t kill the soul? Humans, or man.
Who can destroy both the body and soul in hell? Satan! Following Satan will not only result in the loss of your physical body, but also your soul.
As I stated before, there is no scriptural evidence to suggest that the soul (of those not saved) lives beyond the second death. So while there may be souls currently in hell, those souls will die at the second death.
So don’t accept salvation and your soul will die at the second death. Your soul may live on after the death of your body, but will not live on past the second death.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
