The Immortality of the Human Soul [Archive]

View Full Version : The Immortality of the Human Soul

MichaelB

July 26th 2010, 11:53 AM

Among various pseudo-Christian movements such as the Watchtower Society and the Christadelphians, there has been an apologetic effort to posit the notion of the conditional immortality (or "CI") of the human soul. In light of the propositions of those who purport CI, Christians must find the basis for their belief in the revelation of the Almighty God. Should the Scriptures concur with either view, the incorrect view must be surrendered and given unto the trash heap of demonic doctrines and fallible traditions (2Cor 10:5). It is my position that the orthodox view is not only substantiated in Scripture, but assumed. Therefore, I will provide some of the most clear and obvious proofs for the immortality of the soul as provided by the Spirit of truth.

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

To even the most ardent of critics, this text provides an important look into how the Lord Jesus understood the afterlife. I contend that within this text, the Lord Jesus tells the thief that indeed, "today you will be with me in paradise." Incredibly, even given the explicit nature of this statement, there are arguments to the contrary. David Burge, a unitarian CI apologist offers the following arguments:

"In the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament there was no punctuation. We are at liberty to read the text, “I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). There are a number of reasons for preferring this option:

1. The thief actually asked Jesus to remember him “when you come into your kingdom”(Luke 23:42), that is when he begins his future Messianic reign;
2. The “paradise” of Scripture is the New Heavens and the New Earth (Rev. 2:7, 22:1-5), Eden restored! It is yet future, when Christ shall come in his kingdom;
3. Had Luke intended the word “today”to belong to the latter clause and not the former he might have put the Greek word hoti as he does in Luke 4:21 and 19:9. He does not.
4. Phrases such as “I command you this day” are used frequently in the book of Deuteronomy, for example, to give emphasis to solemn utterances. “This day” goes with verb preceding it in both Matthew 6:11 and Luke 2:11 for other New Testament examples of this."(1.)

While I commend Burge's acknowledgement that the punctuation we now employ in our English translations was not present in the ancient witnesses, I do wonder whether or not Burge has considered the translator's methodology for employing the comma where it resides in nearly ever recognized English translation in existence. Firstly, one must consider the textual basis for the rendering; every single time our Lord has preceded a discourse with the clause "amên legô umin" or "truly I say to you" the following word belongs in the latter clause. If Burge were correct, out of the seventy-two times the phrase is used, this would be the only exception.

Burge begs the question in presupposing the thief's understanding of the time and place of Jesus' "kingdom." Certainly the kingdom of Christ will consist of the new heavens and new earth, but it is by no means limited to that. The Lord Jesus when speaking to Pilot stated " My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36)." In addition, given the Apostolic timing of Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:32-35, Heb 10:12-13), it is undeniably clear that Jesus is currently ruling as Lord in His kingdom. There is of course, a sense of the "all ready not yet" when it comes to the kingdom of Christ. The great consummation and the realization of the new heavens and new earth do not constitute the beginning of Christ's reign, but the zenith of it.

The paradise of God is simply the literal presence of God, unbridled and unaffected by one's own sin. Therefore, for the Lord Jesus to state "today you will be with me in paradise" is simply another way of stating that "today you will be in my presence free of sin and it's effects and consequences." What greater paradise is there, than enjoying the glorious presence of our great God and Savior (Titus 2:13) free from the sinful flesh and subsequent judgement? This is why Jesus in His High Priestly prayer petitions the Father "I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory (John 17:24)." Christ's request was for His own to be with Him in His glory; the paradise of God. What makes the new heavens and the new earth paradise? Surely it is the fact that the dwelling place of God will be among His people (Rev 21:3-4). Therefore, to say that the thief will be with Christ post mortem is to say that the thief will be free of sin in paradise because Christ is God (John 1:1c, 2Cor 12:3). Notice the wording employed by our Lord in verse 46, "“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." The Lord Jesus used the term "paratithemi" or "commit," which literally means "to set forth(2)." The text echoes the sentiments of Stephen in Acts 7:59 when he stated "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Stephen uses the word "dechomai" which literally means "to take hold of (3)." The CI adherent must ask, what was the Lord Jesus to take hold of if Stephen was to reside solely within the grave? Surely the petition was pointing to the fact that although Stephen's flesh met the grave, his spirit was going to be with Christ (Phil 1:23).
Burge's attempt to provide a contrast between the usage of "today" in Luke 4:21 and 19:9 over and against it's usage in Luke 23:43 is a desperate one. Firstly, 4:21 and 19:9 employ different syntactical constructions intended to communicate entirely different ideas. The conjunction "hoti" means "since" or "because" (4). Therefore, the statement in Luke 4:21 "hoti sêmeron peplêrôtai ê graphê autê en tois ôsin umôn" is the equivalent of saying "because of today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.(5)" This conjunction would be completely out of place in Luke 23:43, and it would import a notion that is foreign to the verse. Burge's suggestion would render the statement "because of today you will be with me in Paradise;" clearly not the rendering that Burge suggested would result. Although the addition of the conjunction would relegate "semeron" to the second clause, it would only do so by means of changing the plain meaning of the verse. The word "semeron" or "today" literally means "this very day (6)." Either way, the word "today" belongs to the second clause, and there is no textual or grammatical basis to suggest otherwise.

Burge's plea to the usage of "semeron" in Matthew 6:11 and Luke 2:11 is utterly without contextual warrant. These texts are completely different syntactical constructions by two different authors. The appeal to these two texts can only be viewed as an ignorant attempt at buttressing a failed argument. One need only to take a cursory glance at how Jesus used the phrase "truly I say to you" to see just how differently the two cited texts are. It seems as though Burge simply searched the New Testament for places in which the word "today" was used following a verb to provide credibility for his position.

2Corinthians 12:2-3 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—

Paul's description in the above text presupposes the possibility that one may exist outside of the physical body. For if the person of the Apostle could have experienced the third heaven outside of the body that would denote a recognition of non-physical existence. His lack of knowledge provides insight into his belief that such a spiritual experience would have been a possibility or even likely. Should conditional immortality be true, such a possibility would have been inevitably precluded thereby introducing error into the Apostolic interpretation of a miraculous experience. Note the plain similarity in description between the paradise the Lord Jesus spoke of, and the one Paul presumably experienced.

Philippians 1:19-26 for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Should the CI position be correct, Paul is suggesting that ceasing to possess conscious existence for an indefinite period of time is better than living (Matt 24:36), or that Paul is equivocating to "be with Christ" with the resurrection of the believer. The preceding sentence indicates that Paul is yearning to, or longing to "be with Christ." It is this state, "with Christ," that is far better. Paul gives no indication that to die, or to depart, leads to an unconscious state, but rather a conscience state to enjoy Christ. This is inevitably why the Apostle states "to die is gain" (Phil 1:22), as opposed to importing the resurrection into his discourse. Paul juxtaposes continuing to live in the flesh with dying and being with Christ. Both are a state of living; the latter a spiritual existence with Christ. There is a sense of immediacy communicated by Paul in his statement "to depart and be with Christ." The Apostle recognizes no unconscious intermediate state. The CI proponent must import the notion of the resurrection onto the text, ignoring the cause and effect clearly stated by the Apostle.

2 Corinthians 5:6-9 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.

Similarly to Philippians 1:22-23, the Apostle provides a contrast between being in the body or with the Lord. He explicitly states that a person can be away from the body and at home with the Lord. The differences between the doctrine of conditional immortality and the above text are irreconcilable.

Matthew 29:33 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching

Although the context of the text is on the topic of the resurrection of the dead, the Lord Jesus provides us with an important insight that transcends the immediate context by virtue of the fact that it is grounded in the identity of God. The Lord Jesus stated "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living" in reference to the patriarchs who had long since died. This precept is undeniably clear and confirmed in Matthew 17:3 when Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke with Christ. Should CI be correct, the Lord Jesus is not only incorrect in His teaching, but the occurrence of the transfiguration should be called into question.

James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

God has described in the Scriptures an immaterial aspect of mankind. The above text notes this. Perhaps it may be argued that "pneuma" and "ruach" simply refer to the breath of life, or a particular aspect of the flesh. Why then is the immaterial Spirit of God described as He is? We see very clearly in Genesis 1:26-27, that God created man in a superior fashion as compared to the beast, fish, or fowl. For man was created in the image of God, and it was God Himself who breathed into man's nostrils and gave him life (Gen 2:7). Job recognized this immaterial aspect and stated "But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand" (Job 32:8). The late Primitive Baptist commentator Sylvester Hassell provided an excellent description of the human spirit: "as God is immaterial, so is there an immaterial principle in man, endowed with thought and will and conscience (7)." It is this entity that the Scriptures speak of existing after physical death. Although the body decays, the spirit lives on. Solomon spoke of this when he stated "and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (Ecc 12:7). This inner self is that which was mysteriously created by God when He formed us in the womb (Ecc 1:5, Zec 12:1), and it is that which undergoes sanctification (2Cor 4:16).

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life

There is a parallel drawn in the above text by the Lord Jesus. The word "aionios" or "eternal" is employed in both clauses. The word literally means eternal or everlasting (8). Should the CI adherent suggest that eternal punishment in it's literal sense is not in view here, consistency demands that it eternal life is also not in view.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

The believer possesses eternal life. Should the CI position be correct, this powerful statement by the Lord Jesus could not be true. How can a person possess eternal life, and yet exist in a conscienceless state bound by the constraints of the grave? While physical death is the temporal ending of the fleshly life of the believer, the spirit of the believer lives on and is with Christ.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Here the Apostle clearly delineates between the flesh and the spirit. He echoes the sentiments of the Lord Jesus when He stated "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt 10:28). Incredibly, the quoted text is used to support conditional immortality, when in fact it speaks of an everlasting destruction (2Thes 1:9) that consists of fiery eternal torment (Rev 20:10/20:15).

It has been argued Luke 16:19-31 is parabolic. This is not the case. Unlike parables, the Lord Jesus used the names of actual persons; Lazarus, Abraham, and Moses. The account also coincides with the notion of fiery torment for the reprobate as seen in other texts such as Isaiah 50:11 and Revelation 14:9-10. This detailed account also does not by nature employ a parabolic meaning. Parables consist of a story wherein lies a second meaning. There is no second meaning present in the account. One Christadelphian commentator argued "The parable condemns Caiaphas the chief Shepherd of Israel for his selfish irresponsibility in neglecting the spiritual and material needs of Jews in Israel. Lazarus represents this neglected class. The parable is a further indictment of the Sadducees (who denied the resurrection of the body and were about to reject the miraculous resurrection of Lazarus) in their disbelief of Moses and the prophets.(9)" This argument amounts to a crass allegorization of scripture that finds it's basis in bold eisegesis. Would the Lord Jesus really veil the suggested meanings in such a tale? Hardly. The narrative is meant to be understood just as it was told. Should the account be simply a fallacious story, Jesus would have been attributing things to Abraham that he did not actual say (vs 29). This presents an impossibility, since the Lord Jesus is incapable of deceit. Even if one accepted the notion that the text is a parable, Jesus always utilized real world scenarios in parables. Therefore, if parabolic, the passage would be utilizing a scenario that has no basis in truth; hardly the method of the Truth (John 14:6). What of the five brothers, and the vain attempt of the rich man to reach them? Can this also be explained away with allegory? No, in fact it speaks to the inevitable thoughts that any damned person would consider having been placed in such a horrific state. Perhaps one may argue that the account exists within a section of scripture that is laden with parables. Although this is true, the passage is also riddled with non-parabolic texts, including the texts before and after Luke 16:19-31.

Hebrews 12:18-24 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.-

The author of Hebrews speaks of the spirits of the righteous made perfect. These people are in communion with the angels, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus. As clear and obvious as this text is, there remains the objection from the proponent of conditional immortality. David Burge for example argues that "the 'spirits of just men made perfect' are living believers (when Paul was writing) who, figuratively or spiritually speaking, are worshipping 'in the spirit' in heaven (10)." Burge has resorted to attempting to misconstrue the text to protect his doctrine. Firstly, it is news to the theological world that Paul wrote Hebrews. Secondly, the context removes the possibility of Burge's suggestion. The author is speaking of those who are present in the "heavenly Jerusalem." The realm in which "angels in festal gathering, God, the judge of all, the spirits of the righteous made perfect" and Jesus" co-exist. The author of Hebrews places Jesus in "Heaven" (12:25), and therefore the "spirits of the righteous" coincide in that place. Furthermore, Burge's attempt at convuluting the text to fit in his doctrine meets is demise within the phrase "the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven." This assembly consists of those who are of Christ, the "firstborn" (Col 1:15), who are enrolled in heaven, but not yet present in heaven. This assembly is the church on earth, and they are clearly differentiated from those who are actually present in heaven; "the spirits of the righteous made perfect," part of which are the "great cloud of witnesses (12:1)." Should Burge's explanation be accepted, there would be a silly redundancy within the text.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten

Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

The above texts are some of the most often used to prop up conditional immortality. When ripped out of context, and considered absent of the remainder of scripture, the texts can be taken to support CI. However, the genuine meaning of both texts are easy to ascertain. Consider the spiritual state of the author of Ecclesiastes: he considers life to be meaningless or vain (Ecc 1:2), he places emphasis on temporal trappings (5:185, 10:19), and he possesses what is best described as an agnostic view of the afterlife (3:21-22). Judging from this, it is obvious that 9:5 is a reflection of death from the author's worldview. From his perspective, the dead know nothing, and the memory of the dead is forgotten. Verse six underscores the fact that verse five is only the perspective of the author who is concerned with that which "is done under the sun." Verse ten carries on that same theme. It is not a description of the actual state of the dead, but a description of the author's perspective of those who are in the abode of the dead. Should the CI apologist disagree, one need only examine the themes of the book and the other positions of the author. Solomon himself professed explicit agnosticism when he stated "Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? (Ecc 3:21)" The attempts of the CI adherent in utilizing the above texts can only be considered contrived and driven by preexisting doctrinal positions.

The ultimate victim in the propagation of conditional immortality is God Himself. The doctrine infringes upon His holiness, His excellence, and perfect justice. For it is God who is infinitely holy, perfect, and righteous. God has created humanity with reason (Is 1:18), volition (Joshua 24:15), logic, and a knowledge of His law (Rom 2:15). Therefore, humanity is obligated to obey the decree of God. Or as the great puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards put it, "our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority" and "His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him (11)." Hence, a singular sin is an act of treason. A sin is an act of rebellion against an infinitely holy God of whom humanity is obligated to honor and obey. It is because God is infinitely holy, a single sin committed against Him is an infinitely heinous crime. Justice demands that a crime be met with a commensurate punishment that is in direct accordance to the offense. Consequently, the just punishment for sin is an infinite one. The Scriptures bear this out; "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name" Revelation 14:1. The eternality spoken of in the phrase "they have no rest, day or night" is inescapable. The linguistic parallel provided in Revelation 4:8 undoubtedly leads to the acceptance of the notion of eternality of action; these creatures never cease praising the Living God. Compare this language, with the finitude of annihilation. The sufferings of those annihilated ceases. Their punishment stops; for those annihilated are no more. They do possess a sense of rest that is in direct contradiction to the fiery torment of which the Scriptures speak.

Perhaps the CI adherent would ask why God would engage in such an activity as the eternal torment of the reprobate. Other than the demands of His justice as seen above, God has made it known that He desires to display the power of His wrath. Or as the Apostle states "what if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" Romans 9:22. God displays (12) the full strength of His incomprehensible wrath justly (Rom 2:5) to amplify the extent of glory and mercy to those of whom He has saved from sin (Rom 9:23). A great many who refuse to acknowledge the stated texts appeal to Ezekiel 18:23, 32, and 33:11 wherein it is said that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. This plea finds it's fault in that it fails to recognize the fact that God finds pleasure not in the act of death of the wicked, but the upholding of His perfect judgement and excellent justice.
In conclusion, there is no question as to the biblical reality that God has sovereignly created and ordained that man possess a spirit that exists in a conscious state after physical death. This state will consist of either eternal life for the redeemed person, or eternal torment for the person who does not bend the knee to Christ and repent.

1. "The Penitent Thief" article by David Burge

2.Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Paratithemi". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon"

3.Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Dechomai". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon"
4. Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Hoti". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon"

5. The Complete Jewish translation gets the sense right when it translates Luke 4:21 "He started to speak to them: "Today, as you heard it read, this passage of the Scripture was fulfilled!" Thus my translated is further substantiated.

6. Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Semeron". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon".

7. "Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Denying the Immortality and Endless Duration of the Soul" an article from "The Gospel Messenger—August, 1894" by Sylvester Hassell

8. Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Aionios". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon".

9. Excerpt from "Christadelphian handbook: Wrested Scriptures" by Ron Able

10. "Twisted Scripture: Hebrews 12:23" by David Burge

11. Excerpts from "The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners," by Jonathan Edwards

12. God's wrath is currently being revealed: Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

37818

July 30th 2010, 11:59 PM

Immortality of the human soul is NOT biblical. But neither is the notion that the death of the soul is extinction of consciousness. The proof of this is Jesus' death on the cross. It was completed on the cross (John 19:28) before His physical death. Isaiah tells us that it was His soul He gave (Isaiah 53:6, 10, 12.)

This is important in that it shows in the second death, there is the death of the soul, where the soul remains conscious, because in the second physical death after resurrection of the dead (Revelation 20:11-) includes ruin or death of the soul (Matthew 10:28), And that Matthew 10:28 also shows killing of the body is not the killing of the soul. (Hence many mistakenly believe in the immortality of the soul. But it does speak of the destruction/ruin of the soul in Gehenna (i.e. lake of fire).)

Revelation 14:10 reveals the conscious suffering of the lost will be eternal.

And it is important to note that Christ's death of His soul was by means of His shed blood (1 Peter 1:18,19), by reason that He was resurrected both in body and soul (Acts 2:27).

. . . the person who does not bend the knee to Christ and repent. I should add that every knee will bend to Christ (Philippians 2:11. Romans 14:9-11). And biblical repentance precedes faith in God's grace (Mark 1:15, 2 Timothy 2:24-26. Ephesians 2:8,9. 1 John 5:9-12.).

Glenn P

July 31st 2010, 07:45 AM

MichaelB

July 31st 2010, 09:52 PM

MichaelB, I want to come across as encouraging people on to better things and making genuine suggestions, rather than seeming overly critical, so I want to be careful how I word this (even though my assessment of this article is not a positive one). Let me put it this way:

You've commented on some specific comments by David Burge (who, incidentally, passed away in recent months). But given your interest in the subject, you must certainly be aware of the wealth of writing that has been done on the issues and texts you address.

When writing a critical article, it's always a good idea to try to, as they say, "advcance the debate." The reality is, every claim you've made has already been addressed multiple times in the literature. How do you address the arguments? We just don't know, because you don't mention them.

It's a bit like seeing a science professor getting up in front of an audience and announcing criticisms of a view that was published a century ago - and presenting, word for word, criticisms that were offered a century ago, even though there have been many books writtien on those criticisms and the responses tot hem since then.

In order to directly answer your objections, the proponent of conditional immortality would be regurgitating rebuttals that have been given before, and the standard responses to them have been heard many times before, and the answers to those have been heard many times before, and so on. In short, a huge volume of water has passed under the bridge since these very old criticisms were first heard, and in my estimation, the current score well and truly favours the proponents of conditional immortality. As such a believer, I read your arguments and was not in the least bit worried, because they have for many years now been part of the museum of arguments against conditional immortality that did not work the first time, and are no better now.

I know, that all sounds very negative, but the thing to do, I think is this: Get a handle on the contempiorary scholarly literature on the subject - and there's plenty out there. Then come up with a way of rebutting the arguments that has not yet been done. Or if it has been done and the scholars who defend conditional immortality have already answered it, show specifically where their arguments have flaws.

There are people here at Theologyweb who can point you in the direction of some of that literature if you're interested in looking further into it.

Given the fact that CI proponents are still propogating the type of argumentation I addressed, I felt the need to do just that. I have spoken with a number of unitarians within the last few months including Dr. Anthony Buzzard and I have found that this type of argumentation is still utilized. In fact, it was my interaction with Buzzard that inspired me to write the article, among other things. Should you feel that your position is superior then please feel free to give that answer in accordance with the command (1Pet 3:15). I'd love to see you attempt to refute what I have provided in the article. Your claim of being a Calvinist and holding this unbiblical view is both odd and worthy of a sincere smack-down. I am nearly entirely uneducated, so far as formal education. I don't possess the resources to purchase many books, especially those of theological errror. Since you possess quite a few "letters" after your name, let us address the text in a cordial fashion. I'm feeling pretty confident on this issue; but I am open to hear a brother who possesses a better education than I. BTW do you do a podcast?

MichaelB

July 31st 2010, 10:11 PM

Glenn P

July 31st 2010, 10:17 PM

Your claim of being a Calvinist and holding this unbiblical view is both odd and worthy of a sincere smack-down.Well if that's to be your approach then I'm not about to indulge that desire of yours.

Fortunately for those who hold my view, if that's going to be your approach, you also won't persuade anyone.

EDIT: OK, I thought I'd add something else too: Another reason that I would not indulge your request is already spelled out in my earlier comment. To do so would simply be to repeat old debates that have already been had. There's an avalanche of response to your arguments already out there, and there's no need to reinvent the wheel by having those old arguments here in this thread. It's like asking me to prove that the eart is not flat, or asking me to prove that Acts was written by Luke. Those debates are history. The world has already seen those debates play out, and there's nothing new here to make proponents of conditional immortality worry. You haven't offered a challenge to the arguments that have already been used to soundly rebut the claims you made, so the status quo has not changed.

gharfish

August 1st 2010, 06:06 AM

So the damned have eternal life of their own ?

>

37818

August 1st 2010, 02:54 PM

Firstly, when the wrath of the Father was satisfied, that is when He spoke "It is finished."
The redemption was finished, that "all things were now accomplished" (v.28) prior to Jesus saying, "It is finished" (v.30). And Jesus having declared "It is finished" prior to His physical death. The redemption was fully completed prior to His physical death. Isaiah wrote, "hath poured out his soul unto death" that His soul died on the cross through the payment for sins with His shed blood. (The soul is mortal see Ezekiel 18:4, "the soul that sinneth it shall die.") The written word of God explicitly teaches conditional immortality of the soul. Only those who have placed their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ have life (John 3:16, 1 John 5:12.)

Jesus' death of His soul and conscious suffering on the cross demonstrates the conscious suffering that the lost will face for all eternity. (Psalm 22:6.)

Secondly, Is 53:6 has nothing to do with this topic. On the contrary, I referenced also verses 10 (". . . make his soul an offering for sin. . ." and 12 (", , , poured out his soul unto death . . . ."). Which makes it (v.6) very relevant in my view.

Thirdly, He possessed two natures, see Chalcedon 451. First, Chalcedon 451 has no valid authority in my view (i.e. baptist). Secondly, Yes, but He has always had two natures (John 1:1, both "with" and "was God"), which is even prior to His incarnation (John 1:14).

He gave His human soul unto death; but it was this soul that was present with the Father post mortem (Luke 23:46). Yes. His soul died on the cross before His physical death (John 19:30), But, in so doing, He did not cease being a human soul (Acts 2:27. 1 Timothy 2:5. Isaiah 53:12.)

And, I too believe that repentance precedes faith, I am Reformed.Good, we agree on this.

37818

August 1st 2010, 03:40 PM

So the damned have eternal life of their own ?
>No. The lost have in the second death both a second death of the body and an eternal death of their souls. (John 15:6, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 10:28, Revelation 20:11-15.) What lives on is their worm of consciousness. Their worm will never die. (Mark 9:48, Isaiah 66:24. Revelation 14:10, Revelation 21:8.)

gharfish

August 1st 2010, 05:44 PM

37818,

Hello.

Let me just dive in...
Where in the scriptures could I find something that says that the disembodied human souls who are called forth from Sheol ('Hades') to Heaven for the final judgement are given bodies ?

Physical death is eternal - that is, it's permanent and final unless God resurrects [us]. Does God do anything for these in The Rev. 20: 12 & 13, beyond just calling them to His presence in their essential human form: soul ? They are given newly created mortal bodies in order that that body can be destroyed too ? ...Anyway, this is not my main point.

I can agree with you that those who are condemned to the otherworldly hell do live on, but only for some time - not forever. I believe that they are eventually destroyed everlastingly by some means that the Bible doesn't reveal to us.

You say that they in their consciousness will never cease to be; right ? How can what you call the 'eternal death' of a person - a human soul - be an undying death ?

And consciousness is metaphorically a worm ?

"The worm" is from Jesus quoting Isaiah 66: 24. That worm is consuming the bodies of the actual rebellious people that God had killed, in v. 16. Their corpses remain there, unburied, for numerous months to be viewed (v. 23). The worms are maggots, like the maggots that consumed dead men in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) from which we get our word, hell.

From Isaiah 66, the worms that dieth not are like the fire that is not quenched. How ? The destroying fire cannot be put out, and neither will the worms on corpses be restrained from doing their eating, because they represent the actual judgement and punishment of God. His punishment cannot be escaped nor stopped and it stands irreversibly.

>

MichaelB

August 2nd 2010, 10:01 AM

Well if that's to be your approach then I'm not about to indulge that desire of yours.

How convenient.

Fortunately for those who hold my view, if that's going to be your approach, you also won't persuade anyone.

I doubt that anyone who holds your position and is aware of the related texts can be persuaded by anything other than an act of God the Holy Spirit. Not only do I find your position contrived, I believe it to be blasphemous. Of course, you already knew that I am sure.

EDIT: OK, I thought I'd add something else too: Another reason that I would not indulge your request is already spelled out in my earlier comment. To do so would simply be to repeat old debates that have already been had. There's an avalanche of response to your arguments already out there, and there's no need to reinvent the wheel by having those old arguments here in this thread. It's like asking me to prove that the eart is not flat, or asking me to prove that Acts was written by Luke. Those debates are history. The world has already seen those debates play out, and there's nothing new here to make proponents of conditional immortality worry. You haven't offered a challenge to the arguments that have already been used to soundly rebut the claims you made, so the status quo has not changed.

Again, entirely convenient. Theological high-browism, and a bit of circular reasoning thrown it too.

MichaelB

August 4th 2010, 12:52 AM

No. The lost have in the second death both a second death of the body and an eternal death of their souls. (John 15:6, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 10:28, Revelation 20:11-15.) What lives on is their worm of consciousness. Their worm will never die. (Mark 9:48, Isaiah 66:24. Revelation 14:10, Revelation 21:8.)

Indeed.

MichaelB

August 4th 2010, 01:11 AM

The redemption was finished, that "all things were now accomplished" (v.28) prior to Jesus saying, "It is finished" (v.30). And Jesus having declared "It is finished" prior to His physical death. The redemption was fully completed prior to His physical death. Isaiah wrote, "hath poured out his soul unto death" that His soul died on the cross through the payment for sins with His shed blood. (The soul is mortal see Ezekiel 18:4, "the soul that sinneth it shall die.") The written word of God explicitly teaches conditional immortality of the soul. Only those who have placed their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ have life (John 3:16, 1 John 5:12.)

Yes I agree that His death brough finality to redemption so far as the PSA aspect goes. However, His statement was like that of the High Priestly prayer. He speaks as one who has completed that which He is about to do. Your appeal to Ez 18:4 carries with it a wooden presupposition. The prophet does not remark that the actual soul shall die. Consider the semantical range of the term. Soul is synonomous with an individual identity. Certianly, the person who sins shall die; but this death is one that is physical. The non-physical aspect of humanity is not dependent upon the flesh for life; as this is the repeated declaration of the Scriptures as I have demonstrated in the article.

First, Chalcedon 451 has no valid authority in my view (i.e. baptist). Secondly, Yes, but He has always had two natures (John 1:1, both "with" and "was God"), which is even prior to His incarnation (John 1:14).

Chalcedon has no authority? Your out of line. Chalcedon is the statement of orthodoxy by the Christian church; the body of believers who hold to orthodox Christology. Being Baptist does not somehow exclude you from recognizing the creeds. In John 1:1c we are provided with an anarthrous construction. The Word is given the definite article ("ho") and therefore the clause is descriptive of the Word and not an identification of the Word. The Apostle tells us that this Word is as to His nature identical with the God of the second clause; the Word is as to His nature deity. The Word does not become flesh until 1:14. Both the second and third clauses are pre-incarnate truths that lend no (read zero) weight to your odd position. I would gladly bring your odd position out to pasture should you wish to subject it to the riggors of formal debate (I can assure you, we'd be eating steak for dinner).

Yes. His soul died on the cross before His physical death (John 19:30), But, in so doing, He did not cease being a human soul (Acts 2:27. 1 Timothy 2:5. Isaiah 53:12.)
Good, we agree on this.

Your conclusion based upon John 19:30 is eisegesis of the highest order. His death was His actual death. He did not die twice. Your tampering with some very sensitive doctrines. And your Christology is way off.

Why don't you address what I actually wrote in the article?

AllisonLeslie

August 4th 2010, 12:07 PM

AllisonLeslie

August 4th 2010, 12:11 PM

Are we trying to see as high as God? Are we trying to understand as deep as God? Isn't it nice that we can trust God to take care of eternity as well as morality.

gharfish

August 5th 2010, 03:00 AM

Death means separation - eternal separation from God wouild be eternal death, right?Physical death does separate us from the living on earth. It needn't separate us from God, of course.

The issue here is what is the second death, right ? It's what we know as Hell. It's finally, in The Rev., symbolically given to us to think about as being like a volcanic lake. It corresponds with the fiery ravine/valley of..Gehenna that Jesus spoke alot of.

Some say the second death is only this: eternal separation from God - no actual death. I say that Yes it surely is this separation. But it is death. And it is not somehow an undying death.

People perish in Hell. To be destroyed everlastingly is to die entirely and irreversibly as a human person, and our essence is soul. The human person is soul. The second death is the death of us, as souls.

The damned are everlastingly separated from God, from the time when at first they are cast way from Him into the otherwordly hell and until they do come to perish eternally (permanently) and remain in this dead state forever.

>

37818

August 5th 2010, 03:20 PM

37818,

Hello.

Let me just dive in...
Where in the scriptures could I find something that says that the disembodied human souls who are called forth from Sheol ('Hades') to Heaven for the final judgement are given bodies ?

Revelation 20:12-13, ". . . And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; . . . .death and hell [Hades] delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. . . ."

Physical death is eternal - that is, it's permanent and final unless God resurrects [us]. Does God do anything for these in The Rev. 20: 12 & 13, beyond just calling them to His presence in their essential human form: soul ? They are given newly created mortal bodies in order that that body can be destroyed too ? ...Anyway, this is not my main point.

I can agree with you that those who are condemned to the otherworldly hell do live on, but only for some time - not forever. I believe that they are eventually destroyed everlastingly by some means that the Bible doesn't reveal to us. No you do not agree with me. And I had given the asnower which you here deny. So it is we really do not agree.

You say that they in their consciousness will never cease to be; right ?Yes. So I had aalready explaned.

How can what you call the 'eternal death' of a person - a human soul - be an undying death ?No. You are making things up. Jesus soul died on the cross before He physically died. (Isaiah 53:10, 12. John 19:30.) And after His physical death He rose from the dead in body and soul (Act 2:27.)

And consciousness is metaphoricall[y a worm ?No. The worm is what lives on of the persons. Both body and soul being destroyed/ruined (Matthew 10:28.) They remain conscious for eternity even as Christ was conscious on the cross before He physically died (John 19:30).

"The worm" is from Jesus quoting Isaiah 66: 24. That worm is consuming the bodies of the actual rebellious people that God had killed, in v. 16. Their corpses remain there, unburied, for numerous months to be viewed (v. 23). The worms are maggots, like the maggots that consumed dead men in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) from which we get our word, hell. No. Jesus did not say "worms" as of many, but "their worm" in the singular as of one per individual. (Mark 9:48.)

Godislove

August 5th 2010, 11:47 PM

The “paradise” of Scripture is the New Heavens and the New Earth (Rev. 2:7, 22:1-5), Eden restored! It is yet future, when Christ shall come in his kingdom

Could it still remain logical to believe that paradise is not the kingdom to come in the 1000 year reign, but a more temporary place for souls to rest before the reign. After all, Rev 2 says the tree of life "is" in paradise to the church, which is before the reign. Although, the kingdom is within you already. Luke 17:20-21

gharfish

August 6th 2010, 12:53 AM

Revelation 20:12-13, ". . . And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; . . . .death and hell [Hades] delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. . . ."You said (post #8) that these each had second bodies by this point, that were going to die. I asked for some scriptural support; that's all.

No you do not agree with me. And I had given the asnower which you here deny. So it is we really do not agree.Which is why I emphasized with italics that we agree only that they live on. I know that you believe the damned live forever. I think that they live on for some time in Hell, but will come to perish there, everlastingly dead once this happens. This is their punishment. It is eternal - permanent in time.

No. You are making things up. Jesus soul died on the cross before He physically died. (Isaiah 53:10, 12. John 19:30.) And after His physical death He rose from the dead in body and soul (Act 2:27.)I only asked you how what you call the "eternal death" of a person can be an undying death, so...why the talk of 'me making things up' ?

Now, here, I will take issue with you that Jesus' soul died, ever. In fact, He wasn't a soul (had a soul). We are souls. He is God incarnate. God is a Spirit, so Jesus was human body and this same Spirit. Jesus is God.

Again: humans like you and I are, in our essence, soul. However, Jesus in His essence, is Spirit. He is God. God is a Spirit.

No. The worm is what lives on of the persons. Both body and soul being destroyed/ruined (Matthew 10:28.) They remain conscious for eternity even as Christ was conscious on the cross before He physically died (John 19:30).If God can destroy both body and soul in the otherwordly Hell (Mt. 10: 28), what would / could survive of a person once they are killed, body and soul ?
Someone who perishes, both body and soul in Hell has consciousness ? And we can refer to that consciousness that lives on as "the worm" of Isaiah 66 and Mark 9 ? (your references). Our consciousness resides not just in our body and soul, but elsewhere..outside too ?

And Jesus was conscious on the cross before He died because He was not yet dead physically and was still thinking. I don't know why you bring that up to me as a proof of sorts.

No. Jesus did not say "worms" as of many, but "their worm" in the singular as of one per individual. (Mark 9:48.)Jesus is relaying Isaiah 66: 24 to His audience. The "worm" there is not human consciousness. Neither is it in Mark 9: 48. Jesus is taking us back to a view of "the dead bodies of the [rebellious] men who have stepped over against Me;" (the Lord God)... God has slain these men and now it is declared "their worm shall not die. their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind."

If you want to say the worm is not the kind of a worm that devours the dead but is human consciousness instead, then I'd like to know why ! So there is definitely "one per individual," for we see no plural "s" ?
Is there one fire per individual too ? What will you say is this counterpart to the worm: fire, of Isaiah 66: 24 and Mark 9: 48 ?

>

MichaelB

August 6th 2010, 08:03 AM

Why don't any of you critics address what was written in the OP?

AllisonLeslie

August 6th 2010, 09:11 AM

What about the second resurrection of John's vision as recorded in chapter 20 - or I should say "implied" by the first resurrection? Whatever the second death is, it is permanent.

gharfish

August 6th 2010, 02:21 PM

Why don't any of you critics address what was written in the OP?Indeed. Indeed ?

>

37818

August 9th 2010, 01:12 AM

Yes I agree that His death brought finality to redemption so far as the PSA aspect goes. However, His statement was like that of the High Priestly prayer. He speaks as one who has completed that which He is about to do.No, that is to impose an extra biblical interpretation. Jesus was (v.30) factually expressing what was already fully completed, as John reports, "Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished." (19:28.)

Your appeal to Ez 18:4 carries with it a wooden presupposition.You are sure about that? Give me one holy scripture which states that the soul is immortal. Just one.

The prophet does not remark that the actual soul shall die. Consider the semantical range of the term. Soul is synonymous with an individual identity. Certainly, the person who sins shall die; but this death is one that is physical. The non-physical aspect of humanity is not dependent upon the flesh for life; as this is the repeated declaration of the Scriptures as I have demonstrated in the article. Your argument does not make sense with the context of argument the LORD says through Ezekiel, saying, "Again, when the wicked [man] turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die." (Ezekiel 18:27, 28.)

Do you think the LORD is speaking to Ezekiel about the carrying out or not carrying out of capital punishment of just being a sinner or turning from just being a sinner?

Chalcedon has no authority? Your out of line. Chalcedon is the statement of orthodoxy by the Christian church; the body of believers who hold to orthodox Christology.Sure, if to be orthodox is to be Roman Catholic and holy scripture is not the finial authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Being Baptist does not somehow exclude you from recognizing the creeds.Your not a baptist![**] Baptist churches all autonomous congregational bodies. Where the pastor is the bishop elected by the congregation. There are no sacraments. Baptists observe only believes immersion (baptism) and the Lord's supper as a remembrance. And the 66 books of the Bible are the sole finial authority in all matters of faith and practice.

[** in fact MichaelB is a professed Baptist, I'm wrong here. It is certain as professed baptists we do not agree here either.]

In John 1:1c we are provided with an anarthrous construction. The Word is given the definite article ("ho") and therefore the clause is descriptive of the Word and not an identification of the Word. The Apostle tells us that this Word is as to His nature identical with the God of the second clause; the Word is as to His nature deity. The Word does not become flesh until 1:14. Both the second and third clauses are pre-incarnate truths that lend no (read zero) weight to your odd position. I would gladly bring your odd position out to pasture should you wish to subject it to the riggors of formal debate (I can assure you, we'd be eating steak for dinner).

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος. ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον.

[John 1:1, 2 in fact refers to the "Word" as both being "with God" and "was God." This is indicative of preexistence of the Word as the Son of God, as both being "of God" and being "God." And yes, this is interpretive.]

Remember, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8.)

And that the LORD does not change, "I change not." (Malachi 3:6,) Now the incarnation was a change. The death of His soul on the cross was a change (Isaiah 53:10, 12). His physical death was a change. His resurrection was a change. His placement as intercessor was a change (1 Timothy 2:5.)

Your conclusion based upon John 19:30 is eisegesis of the highest order.No, it is an exegesis based on the immediate context, ". . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished." (v.28.)

His death was His actual death. He did not die twice. Your tampering with some very sensitive doctrines. And your Christology is way off.The redemption was completed before His physical death, and this is an essential. Anything less is a FALSE gospel.

Isaiah wrote, "he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death [Hebrew is plural here]; . . ."

Why don't you address what I actually wrote in the article?The subject of your article was supporting and supposing an unbiblical view of the immorality of the soul over against unbibical views held by claimants on conditional immorality.

Your article does not start out to establish immorality of the soul as an explicit biblical doctrine, but presupposes this false doctrine, And starts off attacking the heresies from an unbiblical view.

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

To even the most ardent of critics, this text provides an important look into how the Lord Jesus understood the afterlife. I contend that within this text, the Lord Jesus tells the thief that indeed, "today you will be with me in paradise."

There is no question, that Jesus meant that they would meet in paradise that that very day. Paradise being, by interpretation, the upper compartment of Sheol/Hades, where Abraham had held Lazarus in his arms (Luke 16:23). The lower compartment of Hades being from where the rich man found himself looking up. (Deuteronomy 32:22. Psalm 86:13. Luke 16:31.)

2Corinthians 12:2-3 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—

Paul's description in the above text presupposes the possibility that one may exist outside of the physical body. For if the person of the Apostle could have experienced the third heaven outside of the body that would denote a recognition of non-physical existence. His lack of knowledge provides insight into his belief that such a spiritual experience would have been a possibility or even likely. Should conditional immortality be true, such a possibility would have been inevitably precluded thereby introducing error into the Apostolic interpretation of a miraculous experience. Note the plain similarity in description between the paradise the Lord Jesus spoke of, and the one Paul presumably experienced.
Here you are arguing from the false presupposition of immorality of the soul. Where as what the Apostle Paul expressed by his experienced, shows, by interpretation, that the location of paradise had moved from the upper compartment of Hades to the third heaven with the ascension of Christ (Acts 1:9) to be our intercessor in the presence of God for us. (Isaiah 53:12. Hebrews 9:12, 24.) So the Apostle Paul had earlier expressed, "We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Corinthians 5:8.) So we as believers, upon our physical death, know we will be present in heaven with our Lord. (1 John 5;12.)

Glenn P

August 9th 2010, 07:56 AM

How convenient.
If someone makes it clear right away that a discussion with me is intended as a "smack down," then why on earth would I be interested? It's not "convenient," and there's no need to try to goad someone into a fight, which is obviously your intention with comments like your previous one.

Starting thinking about different ways to do theology if this is your current mindset. It will help.

MichaelB

August 12th 2010, 10:25 AM

If someone makes it clear right away that a discussion with me is intended as a "smack down," then why on earth would I be interested? It's not "convenient," and there's no need to try to goad someone into a fight, which is obviously your intention with comments like your previous one.

Starting thinking about different ways to do theology if this is your current mindset. It will help.

Perhaps the the purposeful juvenile humor was lost in translation. I have heard folks from your neck of the woods sometimes don't get our crude elementary school humor. I apologize if I offended you. I have listened to a great deal of your matierial. I began listening long before our communication here, and I would like to let you know that your various presentations have benefitted me in many ways. Particularly some of your presentations on presuppositional apologetics. So far as CI, I remain unconvinced. Special pleading, turning a blind eye to relevant texts, theological inconsistency in view of grammatical usages, and various and sundry issues place your position in the weeds. And, I do not agree that the above article has already been addressed or refuted, at least, not by your various presentations. Several tweaks and sharpening a few points would readily put out to pasture some of the various points your arguments hinge on. I did however find it humorous that you cited a codex that had a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43. Too funny.

MichaelB

August 12th 2010, 10:27 AM

No, that is to impose an extra biblical interpretation. Jesus was (v.30) factually expressing what was already fully completed, as John reports, "Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished." (19:28.)

You are sure about that? Give me one holy scripture which states that the soul is immortal. Just one.

Your argument does not make sense with the context of argument the LORD says through Ezekiel, saying, "Again, when the wicked [man] turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die." (Ezekiel 18:27, 28.)

Do you think the LORD is speaking to Ezekiel about the carrying out or not carrying out of capital punishment of just being a sinner or turning from just being a sinner?

Sure, if to be orthodox is to be Roman Catholic and holy scripture is not the finial authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Your not a baptist![**] Baptist churches all autonomous congregational bodies. Where the pastor is the bishop elected by the congregation. There are no sacraments. Baptists observe only believes immersion (baptism) and the Lord's supper as a remembrance. And the 66 books of the Bible are the sole finial authority in all matters of faith and practice.

[** in fact MichaelB is a professed Baptist, I'm wrong here. It is certain as professed baptists we do not agree here either.]

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος. ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον.

[John 1:1, 2 in fact refers to the "Word" as both being "with God" and "was God." This is indicative of preexistence of the Word as the Son of God, as both being "of God" and being "God." And yes, this is interpretive.]

Remember, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8.)

And that the LORD does not change, "I change not." (Malachi 3:6,) Now the incarnation was a change. The death of His soul on the cross was a change (Isaiah 53:10, 12). His physical death was a change. His resurrection was a change. His placement as intercessor was a change (1 Timothy 2:5.)

No, it is an exegesis based on the immediate context, ". . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished." (v.28.)

The redemption was completed before His physical death, and this is an essential. Anything less is a FALSE gospel.

Isaiah wrote, "he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death [Hebrew is plural here]; . . ."

The subject of your article was supporting and supposing an unbiblical view of the immorality of the soul over against unbibical views held by claimants on conditional immorality.

Your article does not start out to establish immorality of the soul as an explicit biblical doctrine, but presupposes this false doctrine, And starts off attacking the heresies from an unbiblical view.

There is no question, that Jesus meant that they would meet in paradise that that very day. Paradise being, by interpretation, the upper compartment of Sheol/Hades, where Abraham had held Lazarus in his arms (Luke 16:23). The lower compartment of Hades being from where the rich man found himself looking up. (Deuteronomy 32:22. Psalm 86:13. Luke 16:31.)

Here you are arguing from the false presupposition of immorality of the soul. Where as what the Apostle Paul expressed by his experienced, shows, by interpretation, that the location of paradise had moved from the upper compartment of Hades to the third heaven with the ascension of Christ (Acts 1:9) to be our intercessor in the presence of God for us. (Isaiah 53:12. Hebrews 9:12, 24.) So the Apostle Paul had earlier expressed, "We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Corinthians 5:8.) So we as believers, upon our physical death, know we will be present in heaven with our Lord. (1 John 5;12.)

I have both addressed and utterly refuted your ridiculous heresy in the thread you asked me to start in the Comm 101 section.

37818

August 13th 2010, 12:32 AM

I have both addressed and utterly refuted your ridiculous heresy in the thread you asked me to start in the Comm 101 section.

So you refute that the Word was "with God?" That being with someone does not make that one the other someone. I'm sure we agree that the Word "was God."

'A' being with 'B' does not make 'A' to be 'B'. In fact it excludes 'A' from being 'B.' Yet with the Word, the Word was both "with God" (John 1:1, 2) and "was God" (John 1:1, 3).

_____________________________________________________

Nevertheless your article presupposes immortality of the human soul. It fails to present the biblical basis for this nor present evidence that it is even a biblical truth. The biblical truth is of course, is the mortality of the human soul.

Dwane Jackson

August 13th 2010, 06:24 AM

Hi all,

I don't know what everyone's theological background is and in some ways I am not interested. I appreciate the author's comment's because I have not seen a summary of texts like this for some time, I commend the use of the entire scripture to find a unifying thread of what the Bible teaches on life after death. I also note, unfortunatetly, the lack of serious redress to the texts postulated and whilst I agree it is unlikely to change the authors position given the fact that it has been implied that this debate has been around since the garden of Eden the question has been raised - is there a serious Biblical alternative. So here is another viewpoint, addressing some problems with the author's reasoning.

1. Genesis 3:4 - apart from the obvious temptation to distrust God and try to earn salvation by one's own actions, the first temptation of mankind was to suggest immortality of the "soul" and the Devil has been using this grand argument for approximatetly the next 6000 years to destroy people's relationship with God. So what does the Bible teach.

2. Genesis 2:7 provides the very framework for the understanding from the rest of Scripture, which the author discusses, almost correctly. Dust + Breath/Spirit = Living Being or Living Soul (the word being translated differently in different versions of the Bible). A review of Psalms 104:29 shows the same pattern but in reverse - Living Soul - Breath/Spirit + Dust. In fact the author before dismissing Solomon because it doesn't fit with his pre-conceived idea, quite readily proves this Biblical understanding of death by quoting from Ecclesaistes 12:7. Dust goes to dust and spirit/breath goes back to God (see also Genesis 3:19). . Hence why this is used in funerals. Interestingly, it is also correct colloquially as well - "they expired", "they breathed there last (see Genesis 25:8 - same Hebrew word for spirit and breathed" and "no breath left in them" (see 1 Kings 17:17 - same root word again). We all know that living souls or people once they stop breathing or lose their spirit are dead! Many more Biblical texts support this viewpoint such as Job 33:4 - he is alive all the while when his breath is in him and the spirit of God is in his nostrils. Job 27:3 and Job 34:14 and 15. Also to clarify Ecclesiastes 3:19-21. The problem is not for those who believe that death is a sleep state until the second resurrection but those who buy Satan's lie of an immortal soul becuase there is only word Hebrew word - "ruach" used throughout these three verses, so either Solomon contradicts himself in the space of 1 verse (man is no better than beasts and then man is better than beasts) or he simply challenges the reader to provide proof, if he can, that there is a difference in destination. Now the real problem is this - if "ruach" is used for both animals and humans - do animals have an immortal spirit (see also Genesis 7:15 and 22)? Why when the word spirit is applied to man do people argue that it means an immortal entitiy but when the exact same word is applied to beasts everyone is content to define it simply as the principle of life. Note this is only a brief overview but nowhere of the 377 times ruach is used in the Old Testament does it denote an inteliigent entitiy capable of sentinent existence apart from a physical body.

3. Soul - the word in Genesis 2:7 is from the Hebrew root 'nephesh'. It is not part of the person, it is the person and in many instances nephesh is simply translated person (Genesis 14:21, Numbers 5:6, Deuteronomy 10:22) or self (Leviticus 11:43, 1 Kings 19:4, Isaiah 46:2 etc). In more than 100 cases of the 755 occurences in the Old Testament nephesh in the KJV is simply translates as life. The usuage of the greek word 'psuche' is similar to nephesh in the Old Testament and once again is translated 40 times simply as life or lives and not only that in can be destroyed (see Revelation 16:3 and Matthew 10:28). Nowhere does the usuage show that man has two seperate and distinct parts.

4. To address the initial text raised - quite rightly does the author point out that there is no punctuation and that it must be applied by the context. The question one must ask if the thief went to heaven that very day to be with Jesus is can God be trusted? The devil is oh so cunning, at creation he tempted are parents to distrust God but believing in the immortality of the soul and now at our salvation he tries to get us to distrust God over the immortality of the soul. But note, the thief with the correct grammar as supplied by the author was simply promised redemption and salvation (which in the context of the discussion with the other theif was what he was asking for) not to be with Jesus in heaven. How you ask do you believe that - well the author missed the key text which is found in John 20:17. Jesus had not ascended to paradise (Revelation 2:7 cf Revelation 22:1 & 2) days later so how on earth could the thief be in heaven with Jesus that day - either there is no immortal soul and the grammar is wrong or Jesus cannot be trusted. I am going to trust my Saviour. Matthew 28:6 - Jesus lay in the tomb over the Sabbath. Asleep. Dead. He was then called to life on that glorious Sunday morning what hope we can have in the promise of being called to life to join the thief on that great procession to heaven.

5. What about death? Well correctly pointed out - Ecclesiastes (;5 and 6 support the above fact that the dead are resting until Jesus calls them not partying on beforehand as is also borne out in the following texts Psalms 115:17 - all those "spirits" in heaven and not one of them praising God for his great sacrifice for them. Perplexing. Psalms 146:4 - they are just etheral in their existence. No plans, but we will build houses and plant vineyards. Acts 2:29 and 34 - man if David who God calls His friend did not ascend into the heavens but could have, what hope do I have. But if I take Paul's viewpoint from Hebrews 11:13 that all these great men of faith had not made it to heaven then I can join them as well because God is not ashamed to be called my God.

6. Now to address the grossest of errors because as already pointed out there are significant discussions surrounding all the texts mentioned by the author in other literature. Firstly the transfiguration is one of the best examples of the fact that there is no immortal soul - it could only be Moses, Elijah or Enoch because these were the only ones in heaven, no-one else was there yet. If everyone was in heaven why not Adam, Abraham, David, Daniel, Joseph etc. Texts to support this are 2 Kings 2:11 - Elijah went to heaven without seeing death. Jude 1:9 - Michael (Christ) raised Moses from the dead. Thus Moses and Elijah came for two reasons - one because they wanted to encourage Jesus so that they wouldn't have to return to this earth and die and two because they represented all those who make it to heaven - those who are translated without seeing death and those who are raised at the second resurrection. Secondly - the parable in Luke 16 - seriously if you wish to use this as a literal story then heaven is in Abraham's bosom, you can dip your finger in water and reach "hell" to wet the lips of burning sinners, so either you have long arms or this fire is very close and really all eternity potentially watching my loved ones burn in torment is supposed to be heaven for me. As if touched by the Holy Spirit the author notes that this is probably a parable not a literal story - please don't destroy your arguments or fight against God by adding silliness to the discussion. The point of parables is to answer questions - not to give exacts. The parable was simply a redress to the Pharisees about rejecting the Saviour.

Anyway - this is a brief summary as I said and every other text you mention fits with the Biblical interpretation of the body being a whole entity. If you really want an answer to a specific question or text as the Holy Spirit convicts your heart of the truth about life after death please re-post that one indvidually and then we can look at them. If you have already made up your mind, God bless. I will tell God that I blew the trumpet (Ezekiel 33:6) but actually I want you to join me there.

AllisonLeslie

August 13th 2010, 04:01 PM

Dwane, Jude said (verses9-11) that the Archangel Michael and the Devil fought over the body of Moses and Moses' death is recorded in Deuteronomy 34:5-6. Jesus is the Christ, Michael is the Archangel. I don't believe I have ever seen your translation of the book of Jude. Scripture tells us that Enoch (Genesis 5:24) walked with God and then one day he was no more because God took him. I won't pretend that I know where he is or where heaven is, or where my life will go when it leaves this earthly body of flesh, but I do know that I will be present with the Lord; and I know that I won't be dead from God, just my body. I couldn't argue for or against eternal anything besides eternal life (with the God I love) and eternal death (separation from the God I love); but thank God, I have his promise of eternal life.

Dwane Jackson

August 15th 2010, 07:44 AM

I won't pretend that I know where he is or where heaven is, or where my life will go when it leaves this earthly body of flesh, but I do know that I will be present with the Lord; and I know that I won't be dead from God, just my body. I couldn't argue for or against eternal anything besides eternal life (with the God I love) and eternal death (separation from the God I love); but thank God, I have his promise of eternal life.

Jude said (verses9-11) that the Archangel Michael and the Devil fought over the body of Moses and Moses' death is recorded in Deuteronomy 34:5-6.

Jesus is the Christ, Michael is the Archangel. I don't believe I have ever seen your translation of the book of Jude. Scripture tells us that Enoch (Genesis 5:24) walked with God and then one day he was no more because God took him.

Hey Alison,

I think you are spot on the money. I certainly wasn't arguing that people don't have the choice between eternal life and eternal death - there is no question that this is the most important choice one needs to make in this life. There is also no question that the only was to gain eternal life is through a saving relationship with our loving Saviour - Jesus Christ. My response was purely on the timing of such an event and the character of God. Whilst the Bible teaches a God of justice as well as mercy, the question is would a God of love, who wept over Jerusalem and wished He could do more to show His love, then burn people eternally for sufferring under the curse of sin and being decieved by the devil? Secondly, the very promise of a new creation and world cleansed of sin it that the fires on earth stop burning so God can re-create paradise for us. But this is an entire different discussion. Back to the original question though - the timing of the event. Which would be your preferance - everyone makes there choice in this life and then sleeps in the grave until Jesus comes again, when they are resurrected either to eternal life or eternal death but unaware of what is happening in the interim. Or alternatively, as would be the case if you went to heaven as soon as you died - some people in heaven agonizing over the trials and troubles of their loved ones on earth or even worse seeing them reject their Saviour and burning in eternal torment. I don't think this fits with mine or your picture of a loving Saviour, I would suggest that this would not even be heaven. Lastly, if you are present with the Lord at death, wouldn't you like to praise Him for what He has done for you, if this is the case, you will need to provide an adequate explanation of the text in Psalms I have listed above. Also why is David, a man after God's heart not in heaven but dead and buried as decribed in the book of Acts, and why have all teh great heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 not recieved the prize yet. Also to answer your first question - I agree I don't know where God is but I do know what He is doing - John 14:1-3. I hope for those who went before, if you believe they are spirits in heaven that they had somewhere to live - you see I am open to being convinced, because the sooner I can get to heaven and see Jesus the better but I need the texts to make sense, so I am not being decieved by the devil into believing I will not die because 3 times in Matthew 24 Jesus says be careful let no-one decieive you when describing the last days. If you take an overarching theme from Genesis to Revelation, it seems to fit better with God's character that you live once, you make a decision, you die, your body rests in the dust (asleep) until Jesus returns, your breath/spirit ceases and based on your choices when Jesus comes again you are raised to either immortal life or death and eternal seperation from God as you correctly point out.

Whilst I agree, that the story of Enoch is limited, it fits with the rest of Scripture and also with the story of Elijah that God can translate some people to heaven without seeing death, I merely put Enoch in for completeness. The two who were there were Elijah - clearly translated without seeing death and Moses - who as you correctly point out clearly died and was buried in the story in Deuteronomy. But as described above - He was raised by Christ as an example of His power over death. This was the frist time this had ever happened and the devil was at a loss, because he claimed that all who fell in sin on this world were his prisoners but Christ disagreed (see Luke 4:16 - He came to set the captive free and break the hold of death - 1 Corinthians 15:54 - note also as a side issue that Paul says when the mortal is clothed with immortality and in vs 53 he suggests that it is a future event why is this the case if we already have inherent immortality ?) Thus in Jude - Christ and the devil argued over this but Christ prevailed. Hence Moses and Elijah - those who recieve immortality at the second coming without seeing death and those who are raised to immortality after sleeping for a short time in the dust. Fits with the theme of scripture from Genesis from Revelation - explains the passage. But if you don't agree with this commentary (which others do - including many OT commentators and Jewish tradition) I am more than willing to listen to your thoughts as to why Michael (Jesus - see below) and the devil were fighting over the body of Moses. What was it all about?

Michael - the meaning of the name is "Who is like God" or "Gift from God" which if you compare with John 3:16 the most well known of Bible passages clearly refers to Jesus. I can think of two other occasions that Michael is used and both in the context fit better with Jesus than with an angel. Here they are for your perusal:

1. Daniel 12:1-5 - the protector of God's people who is coming to bring final deliverance I hope is Christ Jesus. Secondly it fits so well, that after ascending to heaven to sit down at the right hand of God after securing our salvation (Hebrews 10:12) that He now stands up to come and take us home to be with Him. What a Saviour!

2. Revelation 12 - the devil has always coveted the Son's position in heaven, his selfishness and selfcentredness lead to his downfall. He was corrupted by his beauty as the prophets tell us. I suggest that in the grand scheme of the Bible that the war in heaven was, as it continues to be on this earth between the devil and Jesus (Ephesians 6:12). I think you will agree that it is unlikely that Satan was fighting against another angel and the other angel prevailed - after all He was the covering cherub, the morning star, the greatest of God's creation. The only way that Satan could lose, is because of the Godhead (Jesus) which is exactly what is recorded for us in Revelation. This is great news - if Jesus prevailed in heaven, prevailed at the cross, He can prevail in my life too.

For more in depth study who may wish to look at Daniel 10:13, 20 and 21 (to understand who the prince of persia is look also at when satan is described as the king of other nations - babylon, tyre etc Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 but clearly it is lucifer who is being talked about). Gabriel (an angel) couldn't prevail against him, the devil, but Michael could. Therefore Michael must be greater than the angels - which only leaves Jesus. It was Michael who supported Gabriel in overcoming the devil - He is in control of the affairs of this world.

MichaelB

August 16th 2010, 10:59 AM

Hi all,

Hello Dwane,
Nice to meet you.

1. Genesis 3:4 - apart from the obvious temptation to distrust God and try to earn salvation by one's own actions, the first temptation of mankind was to suggest immortality of the "soul" and the Devil has been using this grand argument for approximatetly the next 6000 years to destroy people's relationship with God. So what does the Bible teach.

This is a fallacious point. Firstly, since death was introduced at the fall, the immortality of humankind is presupposed. There was no need to earn salvation before the fall, since there was no wrath and judgment to be saved from because mankind had no sin. Therefore, your argument in this instance fails right out of the gate. Secondly, the lie of the accuser was not "eat of the tree and you shall have immortality of the soul." No, the lie of the accuser was "for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." What you have done is eisegetically introduce a foreign topic into the text of Gen 3:5. Personally, I find this kind of thing typical with CI proponents, save one.

2. Genesis 2:7 provides the very framework for the understanding from the rest of Scripture, which the author discusses, almost correctly. Dust + Breath/Spirit = Living Being or Living Soul (the word being translated differently in different versions of the Bible). A review of Psalms 104:29 shows the same pattern but in reverse - Living Soul - Breath/Spirit + Dust. In fact the author before dismissing Solomon because it doesn't fit with his pre-conceived idea, quite readily proves this Biblical understanding of death by quoting from Ecclesaistes 12:7. Dust goes to dust and spirit/breath goes back to God (see also Genesis 3:19). . Hence why this is used in funerals. Interestingly, it is also correct colloquially as well - "they expired", "they breathed there last (see Genesis 25:8 - same Hebrew word for spirit and breathed" and "no breath left in them" (see 1 Kings 17:17 - same root word again). We all know that living souls or people once they stop breathing or lose their spirit are dead! Many more Biblical texts support this viewpoint such as Job 33:4 - he is alive all the while when his breath is in him and the spirit of God is in his nostrils. Job 27:3 and Job 34:14 and 15. Also to clarify Ecclesiastes 3:19-21. The problem is not for those who believe that death is a sleep state until the second resurrection but those who buy Satan's lie of an immortal soul becuase there is only word Hebrew word - "ruach" used throughout these three verses, so either Solomon contradicts himself in the space of 1 verse (man is no better than beasts and then man is better than beasts) or he simply challenges the reader to provide proof, if he can, that there is a difference in destination. Now the real problem is this - if "ruach" is used for both animals and humans - do animals have an immortal spirit (see also Genesis 7:15 and 22)? Why when the word spirit is applied to man do people argue that it means an immortal entitiy but when the exact same word is applied to beasts everyone is content to define it simply as the principle of life. Note this is only a brief overview but nowhere of the 377 times ruach is used in the Old Testament does it denote an inteliigent entitiy capable of sentinent existence apart from a physical body.

You failed to respond to my point regarding the author of Ecclesiastes. Should I apply your same approach to your assertions, I would possess a contradiction. Examine the following:

Ecc 3:21-22 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?

The text identifies the fact that the author is agnostic when it comes to the issue. So, instead of attempting to derive theological imperatives from someone who admittedly is ignorant, we ought to consider the entirety of what has been said. You must acknowledge that the relevant term possesses a semantical range that is not limited to the actual breath that is present in a human being's lungs. One must wonder whether your wooden literalism prevents you from acknowledging the Spirit (Ruach) of God as a living, volitional, active, divine person or simply some kind of divine air.

So too, Job identifies the spirit as the immaterial self that separates us from that of the beast:

Job 32:8 "But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand"

3. Soul - the word in Genesis 2:7 is from the Hebrew root 'nephesh'. It is not part of the person, it is the person and in many instances nephesh is simply translated person (Genesis 14:21, Numbers 5:6, Deuteronomy 10:22) or self (Leviticus 11:43, 1 Kings 19:4, Isaiah 46:2 etc). In more than 100 cases of the 755 occurences in the Old Testament nephesh in the KJV is simply translates as life. The usuage of the greek word 'psuche' is similar to nephesh in the Old Testament and once again is translated 40 times simply as life or lives and not only that in can be destroyed (see Revelation 16:3 and Matthew 10:28). Nowhere does the usuage show that man has two seperate and distinct parts.

Again, you insist on a limitation within the sematical range of the term nephesh that the text does not support. While I readily admit that the term can mean the entirety of a person, it also can refer to the immatierial part of a person's existence. For example:

Gen 35:18 And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

Certianly the above text is not utilizing the term soul to mean the entirety of the person.

1Sam 2:35 "But I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest who will do according to what is in My heart and in My soul ; and I will build him an enduring house, and he will walk before My anointed always ."

Notice the popular idiom "in my hear and in my soul." Should the soul be the totality of the person, the above idiom would be little more than hyperbole. But, this type of language is used by the Living God Himself to describe those who are to worship Him.

Job 30:16 "And now my soul is poured out within me; Days of affliction have seized me."

There is no question that Job understood the soul to be the inner man; the immatierial self.

4. To address the initial text raised - quite rightly does the author point out that there is no punctuation and that it must be applied by the context. The question one must ask if the thief went to heaven that very day to be with Jesus is can God be trusted? The devil is oh so cunning, at creation he tempted are parents to distrust God but believing in the immortality of the soul and now at our salvation he tries to get us to distrust God over the immortality of the soul. But note, the thief with the correct grammar as supplied by the author was simply promised redemption and salvation (which in the context of the discussion with the other theif was what he was asking for) not to be with Jesus in heaven. How you ask do you believe that - well the author missed the key text which is found in John 20:17. Jesus had not ascended to paradise (Revelation 2:7 cf Revelation 22:1 & 2) days later so how on earth could the thief be in heaven with Jesus that day - either there is no immortal soul and the grammar is wrong or Jesus cannot be trusted. I am going to trust my Saviour. Matthew 28:6 - Jesus lay in the tomb over the Sabbath. Asleep. Dead. He was then called to life on that glorious Sunday morning what hope we can have in the promise of being called to life to join the thief on that great procession to heaven.

This is quite interesting and quite revealing. To suggest that Jesus, Theanthropos (the Godman) existed only in the tomb is blasphemous. The Lord Jesus didn't say that He had not ascended to "paradise" as you contend from John 20:17. You have conflated the situational conditions of Christ pre and post resurrection. Christ's spirit went to be with His Father after His death, hence His statement " Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" The text of John 20:17 is dealing with Christ in human flesh. The flesh of the Son had never ascended to the Father; these are two completely different catagories during two different times.

Now, perhaps you can address the above before we go on.

headheart

August 16th 2010, 11:36 AM

Christ's spirit went to be with His Father after His death, hence His statement " Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!"

The Message (Bible in Contemporary Language), has a slightly different take on this:

Luke 23:46
Jesus called loudly, "Father, I place my life in your hands!" Then he breathed his last.
Matthew 27:46
Around mid-afternoon Jesus groaned out of the depths, crying loudly, ["Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"] which means, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?"
Mark 15:34
The darkness lasted three hours. At three o'clock, Jesus groaned out of the depths, crying loudly, ["Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"] which means, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?"

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer

p.s., I don't possess a good library of commentaries, but I would interested to read, the following, with regard to the passages I quoted:

a. Marshall, I Howard, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC, 1978
b. France, R.T., Matthew, TNTC, 1985.
c. France, R.T., The Gospel of Mark NIGTC, 2002..

headheart

August 16th 2010, 11:58 AM

It seems that John Reece, in BL301, surrendered the RT France commentary of the passage, I quoted from Matthew: (27 May 2010)

From The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), by R. T. France:

Matthew 27:45-46 But from the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus shouted out with a loud voice, "Ēli, ēli lema sabachthani?"1 which means "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?"

1 The form of the translated words given above (which appears to be part Hebrew, part Aramaic, but see note2 below) is that of most manuscripts, but several assimilate to Mark's probable form ἐλωί ἐλωί instead of ἠλί, so that the whole utterance becomes a clearly Aramaic quotation, while others have λαμά (Hebrew) instead of λεμά (Aramaic). D and a few Old Latin manuscripts give the fourth word as ζαφθάνι (Hebrew) instead of σαβαχθάνι (Aramaic). There was probably considerable speculation in the early church over the exact form of Jesus' words, which was complicated by uncertainty over which language he had used and by the unfamiliarity of these foreign words to Greek-speaking Christians.

The words are taken directly from the opening of Psalm 22,2 to which we have already seen allusions in verses 35-36, 39, 43; the psalm expresses the spiritual desolation of a man who continues to trust and appeal to God in spite of the fact that his ungodly opponents mock and persecute him with impunity. In the end, the psalm turns to joyful thanksgiving for deliverance in verses 22-31, and some interpreters have suggested that it is the latter part of the psalm that Jesus had in mind as well as its traumatic beginning, so that this is in effect a shout of defiant trust in the God whom he fully expects to rescue him. But that is to read a lot between the lines, especially after Gethsemane where Jesus has accepted that he must drink the cup to the full; he did not expect to be rescued. The words Jesus chose to utter are those of unqualified desolation, and Matthew and Mark (who alone record this utterance) give no hint that he did not mean exactly what he said.

2The transliterated words are commonly understood to represent a version in which the address to God, ηλι ηλι, is in Hebrew while the remainder is in Aramaic, whereas in Mark the whole utterance is Aramaic ― though the considerable textual variations [see note1 above and Metzger below] do not allow certainty on the text form in either gospel. But the targum of Psalm 22:1 has the form ἠλί ("an accepted Hebraism"; ...), so that it seems that the "Hebrew" form could also be used in Aramaic. If both forms were available in Aramaic, the form ἠλί would have an an obvious advantage here, as it offers a more plausible basis for the following suggestion that Jesus is calling for Elijah (...). Both λεμά and σαβαχθάνι approximate more closely to Aramaic lᵉmāʾ and šᵉbaqtanî than to the Hebrew lāmâ and ʿᵃzabtānî'. It is likely, then, that Matthew, like Mark understood Jesus to have used his vernacular Aramaic at this moment of supreme personal crisis.
From A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger:

27.46 ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι : Instead of ηλι (or ηλει), representing the Hebrew ‏אֵלִי‎ (“my God”), the text of several witnesses, including ℵ B 33 copsa, bo eth, was assimilated to the reading ελωι of Mk 15.34, representing the Aramaic ‏אֱלָהִי‎ (“my God”), the ω for the α sound being due to the influence of the Hebrew ‏אֱלֹהַי
‎ The spelling λεμα (ℵ B 33 700 998 al) represents the Aramaic ‏לְמָא‎ (“why?”), which is also probably to be understood as lying behind λιμα (A K U Γ Δ Π 090 al) and λειμα (E F G H M S V al), whereas λαμα (D Θ 1 22 565 1582 al) represents the Hebrew ‏לָמָּה‎ (“why?”).
As in Mk 15.34, most witnesses read σαβαχθανι or something similar (σαβαχθανει, ℵ A Δ 1 69; σαβακτανει, B 22 713 1402), which represents the Aramaic ‏שְׁבַקְתַּנִי‎ (“thou hast forsaken me”). Codex Bezae, however (as also in the Markan parallel), reads ζαφθανει, representing the Hebrew ‏עֲזַבְתַּנִי‎ (“thou hast forsaken me”; for the spelling, see the comment on Mk 15.34), and thus this manuscript in both Matthew and Mark is consistent in giving a transliteration representing a Hebrew original throughout, instead of part Hebrew (the first words) and part Aramaic (the last word). (See also the comment on Mk 15.34.)

From: Matthew 27:45-46, My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me? (post 3 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2995891&postcount=3))

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer

headheart

August 16th 2010, 01:06 PM

This is quite interesting and quite revealing. To suggest that Jesus, Theanthropos (the Godman) existed only in the tomb is blasphemous. The Lord Jesus didn't say that He had not ascended to "paradise" as you contend from John 20:17. You have conflated the situational conditions of Christ pre and post resurrection. Christ's spirit went to be with His Father after His death, hence His statement " Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" The text of John 20:17 is dealing with Christ in human flesh. The flesh of the Son had never ascended to the Father; these are two completely different catagories during two different times.

Now, perhaps you can address the above before we go on.

MichaelB,
I am bored today. :blush:
As I was searching the BL301 Archives, I came upon another quote by John Reece, addressing a related passage: Luke 23:43 -

From The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible), by Joseph A. Fitzmyer:

The Lukan passion narrative is unique in having a scene in which one of the criminals crucified with Jesus joins in the mocking of Jesus explicitly. He is corrected by the other criminal, who acknowledges Jesus' innocence and begs to be remembered when Jesus comes into his kingly heritage. Jesus answers with the promise that he will be with him in Paradise that very day (23:39-43). — page 1507.

shmeron met' emou esh (sēmeron met' emou esē): today you shall be with me. The criminal phrased his request vaguely, "when you come ...," but Jesus' answer replies specifically, not when, but "today," with the adverb sēmeron placed emphatically immediately after the asseverative clause ["Believe me" = Fitzmyer's rendering of amhn soi legw (amēn soi legō) —JR]. "Today" refers not to "the calendar day of the crucifixion" (E. E. Ellis, "Present and Future," 37) but to the day of "messianic salvation inaugaurated by" the death of Jesus. The criminal will share the kingly condition of Jesus that very day. "For life is to be with Christ because where Christ is, there is the kingdom (Ambrose, Expos. ev. sec. Luc. 10:121) [...]. — page 1510.

From: Luke 23:43 "...,today" or "today" (Post 38 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2265083&postcount=38))

I find your thinking, most stimulating, and am in no way in opposition, to the full thrust of your thinking but as in this linked thread, and your thread, I noticed that Dr. Jack Bauer, who has a very different take on this, stepped away. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=3042258&postcount=6) Pity, he does have some rather interesting thoughts about this, though perhaps a bit on the fringe. :teeth:

In particular:
'The world has already seen those debates play out, and there's nothing new here to make proponents of conditional immortality worry. You haven't offered a challenge to the arguments that have already been used to soundly rebut the claims you made, so the status quo has not changed.'

Sincerely,
Eric J.Sawyer

Dwane Jackson

August 17th 2010, 04:37 AM

Thanks Michael,

Once again you are almost correct but you slightly misunderstood or I failed to explain adequately. Let me clarify - there is no question that the most obvious first temptation for Eve was to distrust God. God had said that everything was very good and that eating from this particular tree would lead to death (Genesis 2:16 and 17) however the devil challenged Eve that God could not be trusted to take care of her and that she needed to take care of herself. Obviously the clear correlation with the first temptation of Jesus recorded for us in Matthew 4:3 becomes very poingnant - will Jesus fail to trust God to care for Him in the same way Adam and Eve did - no He will stand firm on God's promises. But does that mean that there can be only one possible topic addressed in each text or can one glean a deeper understanding by further study. I was merely suggesting that there was the possibility that other issues may also have a role to play. So, secondly - of course there was no need to earn salvation before the fall (in fact I would argue, and I think that you would agree that never has there been a time when salvation can be earned - it is a free gift of God bestowed liberally on all those who accept His atoning death) but that doesn't mean that selfishness cannot be used as a temptation. The discussion was not whether Eve needed to earn access to the tree of life (she didn't - God had freely given it to her) but simply whether the devil tempted her into thinking that she could get more for herself - as you point out: "... you shall be like God ...". For example compare with the second temptation Jesus faced (Matthew 4:6) - was He the Son of God - of course He was but does that mean that the devil's temptation of, "If you are the Son of God ..." couldn't occur because it wasn't true of course not. But this is a side issue really and I hope that you will agree that there can be more than one interpretation to a text and that some temptation occurs around things that aren't necessarily true - hence why Jesus calls the devil a liar from the beginning.

Lastly to address the issue at hand - I haven't introduced a foreign concept into the passage, but you have failed to read the scripture in context and thus have missed the bigger picture. Yes, for Adam and Eve, immortality of the "soul" (if you wish to use this term - but equally applicable would simply be Adam and Eve the living people) was presupposed before the fall but fascinatingly in complete opposite to your argument it was conditional on access to the tree of life. Wow - even in the one argument where you actually find "immortal" humans - it is still conditional which I am sure comes as a shock to you given your initial opposition to the Biblical interpretation of the entire passage of Genesis 1-3. Before you argue that I have no evidence for this, please read Genesis 3:21-24 - God clearly states that man could have lived forever on the one condition that he continued to have access to the tree of life. Thus even their initial presupposed immortaility was conditional. Also - it would seem to suggest from a simple reading of the text that God clearly did not want people to have immortality in the presence of sin. So although this clearly proves that although not necessarily the primary issues that this is not a foreign topic in the initial controversy between Jesus and satan. But to make it abundantly clear since your insinuation is that I have misquoted scripture let me clearly identify this topic for you (which I am sure that you already realize but have convientely avoided): Genesis 2:17 - "but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" Genesis 3:4 - "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman." Please for everyone's sake retract you statement that it is a completely foreign topic that part of the discussion between Eve and the satan, part of the temptation was about death. God said you will die (i.e. your mortality is conditional on accepting/trusting Me), satan said you won't die (i.e. God is lying - you are immortal) and then there is further temptation in Genesis 3:5.

Now let's look at teh entire passage of Ecclesiastes 3. And I will only do this once because as per usual people always argue their supposed positive texts without ever defending the glaring holes. Hence, this is the defense of the position, but to continue you need to at least address some of the issues identified in my original post.

1. The most correct translation of the text from more original documentation than was used for the King James Version is given below as in the American Standard Version:

17I said to myself, "God will judge both the righteous man and the wicked man," for a time for every matter and for every deed is there.
18I said to myself concerning the sons of men, "God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts."
19For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath (ruach) and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.
20All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust.
21Who knows that the breath (ruach) of man ascends upward and the breath (ruach) of the beast descends downward to the earth?
22I have seen that nothing is better than that man should be happy in his activities, for that is his lot For who will bring him to see what will occur after him?

Note the impotant bit - vs 21 simply starts with, "Who knows ..." Not this is what occurs ...

2. Is the question implied an agnostic (Greek etymology - "unknown") question. Yes - this is exactly what I stated in my post - Solomon doesn't intend the reader to understand that there is any difference in location of the spirit (ruach) of man or beast. His question simply constitutes a challenge for anyone to provide proof, if he can that there is a difference in destination. As in, death is the great unknown (agnosticism yes). And why should there be any difference? All life comes from God, no matter whether that life is displayed in man or the humblest animal. That is sound Christian doctrine. But would I argue that Solomon is an agnostic or that he is ignorant of God or has a limited theological understanding, I would suggest no, most certainly not (1 Kings 3:12)

3. If using this text to argue that there is an immortal spirit which depart at death you still haven't addressed two key problems. 1. Do all "spirits" of men go upward? (Isn't your argument that a lot of them go downward to hell) and 2. Is the immortal "spirit" of man and beast the same. The Bible usues the word "immortality" only 5 times, and the word "immortal" only once. 1 Timothy 1:17 - in the lone instance the term is applied to God. So is the triune God immortal - of course. But I challenge you to look at Romans 2:7 - why in regards to humans do they need to seek immortality and be given this gift from God, if it is something that they inherently possess?

Lastly, as I only have a limited time, lets look at Genesis 35:18

The word "soul" here, as well as in the case of Elijah in 1 Kings 17:21 and 22 (which I am sure you may have brought up, or if not you can add it to you incorrect understanding) is a translation of the Hebrew word nepesh. Gesenius, generally considered the greatest of Hebrew lexicographers, gives the following as the primary meaning of the word: 1. "Breath". Firstly look at 1 Kings 17:17 - there was no breath/life (nepesh) left in the child and when Elijah prayed in vs 21 and in vs 22 - and the breath/life (nepesh) of the child returned to him and he revived. Genesis 35:18 - it came about as her breath/life (nepesh) was departing. Also as a side issue in Genesis 1:30 the word nepesh is used so again - if this is an undying soul of the child or Rachel then it proves the same for the beasts, the fowls and the creeping things. You see it is not a wooden interpretation of a single text but the same theme run throughout the enitre Bible - as Elijah would say either this simply means life or it means an immortal soul it can be transalated differently at different times to suit you understanding.

Lastly, I reject you accusation of blasphemy, as clearly described in Mark 2 and John 10, blasphemy is claiming to be God or have the perogatives of God - i.e. able to forgive sins. I fail to see how stating that Jesus slept in the tomb over Sabbath after He died on Friday and then rose again on Sunday morning is blasphemy when that is clearly what is stated in Scripture. Lastly, I know we haven't really addressed this - but if Jesus "spirit" departed on that Friday evening and you believe in an immortal soul then surely you must believe that 1 Peter 3 is talking about Jesus' immortal spirit which leave you with a quandry - either he went to heaven that day or he went to hell? Which is it? I bring this up, only in the same vein that Paul brought up the resurrection of the dead when talking to the Pharisees and Sadducees - not becuase I actually believe that either incident refers to an immortal soul but it leaves a massive problem for those who do.

"What you have done is eisegetically introduce a foreign topic into the text of Gen 3:5. Personally, I find this kind of thing typical with CI proponents, save one."

Also, Michael, it may do well to note that you were very quick to suggest that I had introduced a foreign concept into the text, and then grossly extrapolate that anyone who disagrees with you simply makes up their concepts without Biblical support. However, as illustrated above, whether you agree with the interpretation or not, clearly the textual evidence suggests some discussion about death. But I note at the end of your reply, without a scrap of supporting evidence you are quite willing to eisegetically introduce a foreign topic into the text of John 20:17 and state that it is only Jesus in human flesh and imply that His spirit is off in paradise, which clearly is not stated in the text - "17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " In fact a closer reading will see that it not only states Jesus hadn't been to paradise but that He hadn't seen His Father yet either, why so confusing if He had actually seen the Father in "spirit form". Also, if this understanding of an immortal soul was so obvious to the disciples why were they so distressed by Jesus' death - why not simply go, oh well His "spirit" is in heaven? Further more as explained by other posts above, the passage from Luke 23:46 - "Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (translated from the word pneuma)." When he had said this, he breathed his last. As you know, pneuma can adequately be translated breath or life. So now both texts agree - Jesus commited His life to the Father and breathed his last (died) and then rested in the tomb, was resurrected and then ascended to the Father. Or the Bible doesn't make sense. Note pneuma is only used in 3 other passages that I can think of in the New Testament - 1. James 2:26 - clearly refers to the breath of life, 2. Revelation 11:11 - clearly not their own spirit but the God's breath or life was breathed into them and 3. Revelation 13:15. So taking the general understanding of the New Testament writers pneuma or spirit is better translated life or breath than a seperate sentinel entitiy.

Anyway I look forward to seeing your response to the problems in your arguments which have already been raised, not further supposed support.

Dwane

gharfish

August 17th 2010, 10:46 AM

Where are you five or six sellers coming from ? How did you find this advertising opportunity ?!

>