Is the Soul Immortal?

[evantisin]

Hi everyone,

Ideas of an immortal soul are present in religions and beliefs outside of as well as within the Abrahamic faiths, but are such beliefs scriptural according to the Bible?

Consider what's taught in Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 18:4

4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

Ezekiel 18:20

20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

As the scriptures state, sinning souls die. The wicked do not continue to live, but cease to exist. On the other hand, those who are righteous may inherit eternal life (Matthew 19:16-19).

The death of the souls of the wicked is dealt with in Jesus Christ's teachings, when he emphasizes that God kills sinning souls:

Matthew 10:28

28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Beliefs like resurrection of the dead are scriptural, as it is demonstrated in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 37:1-14) and an important part of the New Testament miracles (John 11:38-44).

However, beliefs like reincarnation and immortality of the soul are not scriptural.

On the other hand, in a sense, the scriptures do reflect teachings related to these beliefs. That is, although people are not reincarnated, they are resurrected back as who they always were. Also, although there is no immortal soul (aside from God alone 1 Timothy 6:15-16), the righteous may inherit eternal life.

Of course immortal soul and eternal life are not the same thing (nor reincarnation and resurrection), but it seems to be reflected to some extent in the Bible, and the distinction made in the scriptures certainly clears up the myths.

Aside from God alone, no soul is immortal. The souls of the righteous continue to live on forever, but the souls of the wicked die and are destroyed. Where is the possibility that they are literally suffering and tortured forever and ever the souls of the wicked die anyway?

Personally, I would connect the dots and say that when the body dies, so does the soul. Come time of death, for the righteous and wicked alike, the only chance at living again is in the hands of God.

The soul dies (or "sleeps") with the body. Do the scriptures teach that the dead haunt people as ghosts?

Let's be realistic.

When one dies, is only their body dead while their soul is still alive? Does the Resurrection mean that the spiritual souls are reunited with their physical bodies (for judgment)?

Simply put, do the scriptures teach that the soul is immortal? If so, immediately after one dies, where do they go and in what way do they live?

Any reply is welcome and appreciated, whether dealing with philosophy or any other kind of reasoning, but simply the teachings from the scriptures is what I'm looking for with this topic.

Sincerely,
evantisin

[jahrule84]

no part of man is immortal; otherwise, God would never be able to rid the universe of sin.

the idea of eternal suffering in hell, makes it an eternal plague spot in the universe, that God will never for all eternity have everyone in existence serve him out of love; that woe and suffering, the very things Jesus came to destroy (sin itself) will always and forever plague some corner of God's creation, and worse - that he would be the one responsible.

the Bible says that eternal life is possible only by accepting Jesus Christ, so if the wicked will suffer eternally, where will they get this life from? since they didn't go through Jesus? immortality of the soul makes eternal life possible without the ransom, which is blasphemy .; oppps. i actually mentioned it. i better repent.

[xcav8tor]

Hi evantisin,

Consider what's taught in Eze. 18:4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die....

Eze. 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Yes, it is the person who sins will be held responsible, not someone else ("soul" in this case speaking of the individual). It is not talking about a person's soul ceasing to exist. You are erroneously defining death of "annihilation," instead of in Biblical terms of "separation."

The death of the souls of the wicked is dealt with in Jesus Christ's teachings, when he emphasizes that God kills sinning souls:

Mat. 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Wrong emphasis. Try this:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

So Jesus is teaching we should not fear man. Man can only kill the body, showing the soul continues to exist after the death of the body. While man can only cause the death of the body (death = separation of the body from the soul/spirit), God can cause eternal death (eternal death = separation of both the body AND the soul/spirit from God for eternity).

Also, although there is no immortal soul (aside from God alone 1 Tim. 6:15-16), the righteous may inherit eternal life.

True. God alone is INHERENTLY IMMORTAL, and immortality can be bestowed upon humanity (John 5:28-29), but eternal life will only be bestowed upon believers (John 5:24 / John 10:27-28). While both are conferred by God, there is a difference between eternal existence (immortality) and eternal life (life with God). The unsaved will not experience eternal LIFE.

The souls of the righteous continue to live on forever, but the souls of the wicked die and are destroyed... Personally, I would connect the dots and say that when the body dies, so does the soul.

Then you have to explain away the following:

Gen. 35:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben Oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

Her soul was leaving her body, not ceasing to exist.

1 Sam. 28:3, 14-19 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land... And he said unto her, What form [is] he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he [is] covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it [was] Samuel, and he stooped with [his] face to the ground, and bowed himself. And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do. Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy? And the LORD hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, [even] to David: Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this thing unto thee this day. Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow [shalt] thou and thy sons [be] with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.

Even though the Bible forbids spiritism and "calling up the dead," and the witch was not normally able to actually do so, the text is clear that Samuel himself - not an demonic impersonator - had been permitted by God to appear to Saul (hence the witch's shock). He even accurately prophesied the demise of Saul and his sons as well as the victory of the Philistines. The passage clearly shows that Samuel's soul was conscious after his death.

Isa. 14:9-11 Hell [sheol] from beneath is moved for thee to meet [thee] at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, [even] all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, [and] the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

Upon his death, the king of Babylon is met by a welcoming committee. Words are spoken.

Mat. 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

If the soul perishes with the death of the body as you suggest, how is it one can kill the body WITHOUT KILLING the soul?

Mat. 17:2-3 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

The spirit of Moses - undeniably deceased - appears with Elijah to talk with Jesus. He obviously still exists.

Mat. 22:31-32 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I AM [NOT WAS] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

The Sadducees believed - just like you - that souls die with the bodies. Jesus wanted to correct them on this by clearly indicating that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still alive at the time God appeared to Moses as the Angel of the LORD. That is the significance of I AM (present tense) the God of... instead of I WAS the God of... (which would have implied they ceased to exist). This is hammered home when Jesus said God IS the God OF THE LIVING (even though they were physically dead).

Luke 16:19-26 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

Jesus never used personal names (such as Lazarus) in parables. There is no reason not to take this at face value letting us know that the souls of the deceased, both saved and lost, continue to consciously exist.

Luke 23:39-43 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, TO DAY shalt thou be with me IN PARADISE.

Neither Jesus or the thief could be in paradise (Abraham's bosom as in Luke 16) THAT DAY unless the soul survives the death of the body. Jesus' promise would then have been a lie or an error. I will not charge Jesus with either.

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

What would be the point of committing to God's care something they knew was about to cease to exist? Seems obvious that both of them were expecting their "inner man" (2 Cor. 4:16) to continue to exist and were asking the Father (and Jesus respectively) to watch over them.

2 Cor. 12:2-3 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

If nothing else, this shows Paul believed the soul could exist independent of the body - otherwise he would not have mentioned it as a possibility.

2 Cor. 5:6-8 Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord... We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

If absent from the body means to be "present with the Lord," it cannot at the same time mean "not to exist."

Phil. 1:21-23 For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain. But if I live in the flesh, this [is] the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

It is being with Christ that Paul is looking forward to - not "ceasing to exist." That would not be "gain." BEING with Christ DOES NOT MEAN "ceasing to exist for thousands of years and THEN being with Christ on resurrection day."

Rev. 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

Obviously these people are dead - the SOULS of them that WERE SLAIN. Yet they "cried with a loud voice." Hardly a viable picture of those who "ceased to exist" - either literally OR figuratively.

When one dies, is only their body dead while their soul is still alive?

Short answer - Yes.

Does the Resurrection mean that the spiritual souls are reunited with their physical bodies (for judgment)?

Short answer - Yes.

Simply put, do the scriptures teach that the soul is immortal?

Not inherently. They continue to exist by the will of God. The scriptures teach that it is God's will for all to be immortal (unending in duration - Mat. 25:46 / Rev. 20:10) while only the saved are given the gift of Eternal Life (Rom. 6:23).

If so, immediately after one dies, where do they go and in what way do they live?

The souls/spirits of the lost go to the unsaved compartment of "sheol" to await the resurrection of damnation. Since the time of Christ's ascension, the souls/spirits of the saved (which would have previously gone to "Paradise/Abraham's bosom" side of sheol) now go to heaven to be with Jesus until they are reunited with their resurrection bodies at the time His Second Coming (the church first, then the OT and tribulation saints).

Btw, I have no desire to dicker back and forth about this I don't have the time to go tit for tat. These are my thoughts on the matter for what they are worth. Take them or leave them. It's up to you.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[ephlal]

Btw, I have no desire to dicker back and forth about this I don't have the time to go tit for tat. These are my thoughts on the matter for what they are worth. Take them or leave them. It's up to you.

I have the same attitude as evantisin. I only offer my response to his eisegesis of derived scripture to demonstrate the flimsiness of his argument.

Eisegesis, is the opposite to exegesis, it means reading into a text something that simply is not there. From the "evidence" xcav8tor presents, I presume that xcav8tor or his source, starting from a premise, have searched the scriptures for anything that might insinuate that premise. In my estimation, they haven't been very successful!

Consider what's taught in Eze. 18:4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die....

Eze. 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Yes, it is the person who sins will be held responsible, not someone else ("soul" in this case speaking of the individual). It is not talking about a person's soul ceasing to exist.

xcav8tor puts forward several half truths in his understanding of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 18:20 needs to be read in context ie: vs 14-24. Obviously both the father and the son spoken of will die, as all men die. However, Ezekiel tells us that the continuously righteous and those that are continuously repentent will not die as the wicked die.

It seems to me that the wicked experience the second death of Rev 20:14-15.

You are erroneously defining death of "annihilation," instead of in Biblical terms of "separation."

Isn't the doctrine of separation recent, a 19th or 20th century intervention?

The previous historical testimony is that the various Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant and Reformed Churches' inquisitions justified torture and burning at the stake as simply a foretaste of what the heretics would suffer for eternity - so the cruelty didn't matter.

It seems to me that xcav8tor's ideas of separation were not known by (or hidden from) the "church" for most of its existence, or at least, did not become "revealed" until the dawning of the philosophers' age of enlightenment (sometime after the 17th century).

I'm open to correction on this point.

The death of the souls of the wicked is dealt with in Jesus Christ's teachings, when he emphasizes that God kills sinning souls: Mat. 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Wrong emphasis. Try this: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

So Jesus is teaching we should not fear man. Man can only kill the body, showing the soul continues to exist after the death of the body. While man can only cause the death of the body (death = separation of the body from the soul/spirit), God can cause eternal death (eternal death = separation of both the body AND the soul/spirit from God for eternity).

Nice try at deflection by xcav8tor. The emphasis of the text is clearly "be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body" as evantisin had it.

xcav8tor's interpretation doesn't take into account the fuller witness. For instance: in the parable of the wheat and the chaff, after the wheat is seperated from the chaff, the chaff is burnt ie: turned to ash. Of course, xcav8tor could argue that this "burning" teaches a refining process (a purgatory). That doesn't work as conceptually the chaff is refined into it's essential element = carbon. For all intents and purposes the chaff ceases to exist. And, it is not said to have been refined into becoming wheat.

To my knowledge, there is no scripture that defines death as the separation of the body and the soul. Spirit (breathe) and body maybe (see below).

Also, although there is no immortal soul (aside from God alone 1 Tim. 6:15-16), the righteous may inherit eternal life.

True. God alone is INHERENTLY IMMORTAL, and immortality can be bestowed upon humanity (John 5:28-29), but eternal life will only be bestowed upon believers (John 5:24 / John 10:27-28). While both are conferred by God, there is a difference between eternal existence (immortality) and eternal life (life with God). The unsaved will not experience eternal LIFE.

In the OT & Revelation eternal life is bestowed on those written in the Book of Life. To me, this is suggestive that the "soul" cannot bear witness of itself, which if it had "eternal conscious existence", it could!

I find xcav8tor's distinction between "eternal existence" and "eternal life" silly. A poetic retort might be "without the Lord, I have self, but with the Lord, I have existence." Philosophically and reality wise, existence requires reciprocracy. As there is no eternal life when one is seperated from God, logically there is no existence.

The souls of the righteous continue to live on forever, but the souls of the wicked die and are destroyed... Personally, I would connect the dots and say that when the body dies, so does the soul.

Then you have to explain away the following: Gen. 35:18...1 Sam. 28:3, 14-19...Isa. 14:9-11...Mat. 10:28...Mat. 17:2-3...Mat. 22:31-32...

No explaining away required, merely an elementary understanding of scripture...

Gen 35:18. In the OT the soul is the life force of the body = the breathe of God (Gen 2:7), which returns to God on one's death. If you have a look at the Hebrew the word translated soul at Gen 35:18 is nephesh=breathe. (cp. John 19:30, see below)

1 Sam. 28:3, 14-19 can be understood in the same way as Balam's talking donkey - illusionary. Note 1 Sam 28:3-7, Saul had caste out all the mediums and wizards from the land (cp. Deut 18:10-12). the Philistines were camped ready to strike and Saul was fearful. He called on Jehovah and received no answer "neither by dreams, nor by Urim (see Ex 28:30), nor by prophets". So he sought out a medium - that which he knew was "an abomination unto Jehovah". This should be the first clue that what ensues is an illusion used by Jehovah to chastise Saul. Also note vs 13, Saul asks what the witch saw and she says "I see a divine being [elohiym] coming up out of the earth." (NASB) No mention of souls here. However, there maybe a pre-figurement of the resurrection (2 Peter 1:4).

Isa 14:9-11. xcav8tor's comment "Upon his death, the king of Babylon is met by a welcoming committee. Words are spoken." misses the poetic illusion and therefore the main point of the text = 'Your pomp {and} the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out {as your bed} beneath you And worms are your covering.'(NASB) In other words "are made nothing", are made dust. Note vs 13-15 "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to [sheol], to the sides of the pit." Sounds like the serpent had had a wisper in the king's ear (cp. Gen 3:4) and in consequence he is convicted just like Adam and Eve. Now have a read of vs 18-20 "All the kings of the nations, [even] all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, [and as] the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial." These verses directly contradict xcav8tor's idea of a "welcoming committee".

Mt 10:28 clearly says that men cannot kill the soul but there is one that can, thus the soul is capable of death = mortal = not immortal.

Matthew 17:2-3 is not presented as an illustration of reality but was clearly a apotholyptic vision (Lk 9:32-36;Mt 12:8; Mark 9:8) - you should note that it is Moses and Elijah that appeared and not Abraham (cp. Lk 16:22, see below).

xcav8tor's argument "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" is simply ignorant. Jesus also says "let the dead bury their dead" when speaking of the living. How are we to understand both teachings? Imo, Jesus is talking spiritually = those written in the book of life, and those who are not.

The Sadducees believed - just like you [evantisin] - that souls die with the bodies. Jesus wanted to correct them on this by clearly indicating that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still alive at the time God appeared to Moses as the Angel of the LORD. That is the significance of I AM (present tense) the God of... instead of I WAS the God of... (which would have implied they ceased to exist). This is hammered home when Jesus said God IS the God OF THE LIVING (even though they were physically dead).

A most fanciful interpretation. None of which is scripturally or historically supportable.

To the extent of my knowledge, all Jewish religious factions held that all die and are buried, and are unconscious in sheol. Some believed in a resurrection (soul sleep). Some held to the thought of a reincarnation. And some to absolute death (progression is through ones offspring). And some Sadducees held that the good went to reside with God. Hellenised jews may have adopted the Greek concepts.

All groups in one way of another could agree that "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still alive at the time God appeared to Moses", but most would conceive it only in a spiritual context.

In Matthew 22:23-33 Jesus directly addresses a question presented by the Sadducees and the context of the question and Jesus' response is the resurrection. Jesus' reply is not that the souls of the prophets are conscious and alive just as those in the living in the world are, but that the resurrected life is unlike that in this world (vs30).

Jesus' goes on to say "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." The idea of "the living" is found in the OT but only in the context of the resurrection eg: Ps 69:28 "the book of the living" cp. Daniel 12:1-2.

Luke 16:19-26 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

Jesus never used personal names (such as Lazarus) in parables. There is no reason not to take this at face value letting us know that the souls of the deceased, both saved and lost, continue to consciously exist.

Luke 16:19-31 argues against xcav8tor's interpretation. We know it is fictitious (a parable) for several reasons: see vs24-31. If xcav8tor and friends insist on taking it literally be aware that they also have to hold that as "thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things" you are going to be tormented in the after life (vs25).

Also, note that being in "Abraham's bosom" is a representation for those participating in the promise = a reference to the resurrection, not the after life.

Luke 23:39-43 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, TO DAY shalt thou be with me IN PARADISE.

The scriptures tell us that Jesus remained on earth for about 40days after his death. A few of which he spent in sheol. It is obvious that Jesus is simply telling the brigand that he is assured of a resurrection - written in the book of the living = Abraham's bosom.

Neither Jesus or the thief could be in paradise (Abraham's bosom as in Luke 16) THAT DAY unless the soul survives the death of the body. Jesus' promise would then have been a lie or an error. I will not charge Jesus with either.

Given "Abraham's bosom" is a metaphor, there is no reason for Jesus' promise to be considered a lie or an error. Unlike xcav8tor, the brigand, being a repentant Jew, knew exactly what Jesus meant!

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

]The phrase "he gave up the ghost" in the KJV renders the word ekpneō which literally means "to breathe out, breathe out one's life, breathe one's last"

Luke 23:46...into thy hands I commend my spirit...
Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

What would be the point of committing to God's care something they knew was about to cease to exist? Seems obvious that both of them were expecting their "inner man" (2 Cor. 4:16) to continue to exist and were asking the Father (and Jesus respectively) to watch over them.

First it should be noted that the apostle Paul describes the "inward man" as being renewed day by day. Thus, I presume xcav8tor believes in purgatory and that the "soul" is refined unto perfection until the resurrection (?).

Next, why would something that has a real existence need to be held in safe custody?

Both Luke 23:46 & Acts 7:59 can be simply read as a trusting that both were assured of a resurrection by God (which is consistent with the OT & NT). A.Paul says "God raised Jesus from the dead".

2 Cor. 12:2-3 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

If nothing else, this shows Paul believed the soul could exist independent of the body - otherwise he would not have mentioned it as a possibility.

The apostle Paul depicts that he knew not whether he had a vision (in the body) or a revelation (mental experience = not in the body) - see vs 1.

As the apostle Paul was anti docetic we can assume he didn't think he had been astral planing.

2 Cor. 5:6-8 Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord... We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

If absent from the body means to be "present with the Lord," it cannot at the same time mean "not to exist."

Actually it means that while we are still flesh and blood we can be present with the Lord, but only if we detach ourselves from the world "for we walk by faith, not by sight" - see vs6-9.

Phil. 1:21-23 For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain. But if I live in the flesh, this [is] the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

It is being with Christ that Paul is looking forward to - not "ceasing to exist." That would not be "gain." BEING with Christ DOES NOT MEAN "ceasing to exist for thousands of years and THEN being with Christ on resurrection day."

xcav8tor and friends need to reconcile this with the apostle Paul's words at 1 Cor 15:22-23

Rev. 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

Obviously these people are dead - the SOULS of them that WERE SLAIN. Yet they "cried with a loud voice." Hardly a viable picture of those who "ceased to exist" - either literally OR figuratively.

But not poetically! Do xcav8tor and friends really believe that "the souls of them that were slain" are confined to existing "under the altar". I doubt it.

Simply put, do the scriptures teach that the soul is immortal?

Not inherently. They continue to exist by the will of God. The scriptures teach that it is God's will for all to be immortal (unending in duration - Mat. 25:46 / Rev. 20:10) while only the saved are given the gift of Eternal Life (Rom. 6:23).

This is pure Eisegesis. The proof of the pudding is found at Rev 20:14. Does death and hades continue to exist after the fulfillment of all things? Also note vs 15.

If so, immediately after one dies, where do they go and in what way do they live?

The souls/spirits of the lost go to the unsaved compartment of "sheol" to await the resurrection of damnation. Since the time of Christ's ascension, the souls/spirits of the saved (which would have previously gone to "Paradise/Abraham's bosom" side of sheol) now go to heaven to be with Jesus until they are reunited with their resurrection bodies at the time His Second Coming (the church first, then the OT and tribulation saints).

I'm not aware of any scripture that supports that idea but it does look like a compromise position. Of course a question arises: How is it just, that some who have equal righteousness to others receive greater reward, and some who are as equally unrighteousness as others receive greater punishment? (ie: in both cases longer duration).

[xcav8tor]

Hello ephlal,

I don't know what religious group you are affiliated with as your bio page is virtually blank, but from your responses to my post I suspect it is not orthodox from a Christian perspective. I am not surprised to see you are still in school as you obviously still have a lot to learn - respect for others for one.

Responding to your inflammatory allegations would be a waste of my time as you are convinced you already have the truth. Just one word of advice - Lose the attitude. If you don't know what I mean, go back and re-read your post.

xcav8tor

[ephlal]

Hello ephlal,

I don't know what religious group you are affiliated with as your bio page is virtually blank, but from your responses to my post I suspect it is not orthodox from a Christian perspective. I am not surprised to see you are still in school as you obviously still have a lot to learn - respect for others for one.

Responding to your inflammatory allegations would be a waste of my time as you are convinced you already have the truth. Just one word of advice - Lose the attitude. If you don't know what I mean, go back and re-read your post.

xcav8tor

I suggest you reread your response to evantisin. People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones. Mutual flaring aside...

I am not attached to any particular denomination. I find good in most of them, and apart from some idle speculations, at their core a common message. Opinions vary on non core beliefs, so I concern myself only with those things that can be proved from scripture.

As a matter of natural logic the idea of soul and body as seperate units of existence seems foreign to OT religious beliefs. In contrast, there does seem to have been an acceptance of hauntings and the invocation of spirits by the irreligious. The account of Saul asking the medium to invoke Samuel being a case in point. In Deutronomy we learn that God abhores such, and that saul had righteously outcast all demonisers (mediums etc) from his realm, but when God failed to answer him. made the unrighteous decision of getting a demoniser (medium) to invoke the prophet.

With this in mind, I ask the question "If the soul survives death as a conscious entity, why is it that we are forbidden to communicate with it? And, why is it neccessary to communicate with a soul, we can only do so through a demoniser (medium)?"

[xcav8tor]

I suggest you reread your response to evantisin. People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones. Mutual flaring aside...

Hello again ephlal,

First, assuming your new accusation was valid, how would this excuse your behaviour?

Second, at what time did I caricaturize evantisin's perspective as "silly," "fanciful" or "simply ignorant" as you have mine? I interpret this as "attitude" on your part. Surely you agree these words are not commonly used to convey respect.

If you wish to start over again on a more pleasant note, I will (time allowing) respond to some of your questions. It's up to you.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[ephlal]

Hello again ephlal,

First, assuming your new accusation was valid, how would this excuse your behaviour?

Second, at what time did I caricaturize evantisin's perspective as "silly," "fanciful" or "simply ignorant" as you have mine? I interpret this as "attitude" on your part. Surely you agree these words are not commonly used to convey respect.

If you wish to start over again on a more pleasant note, I will (time allowing) respond to some of your questions. It's up to you.

I am intolerant of biased intolerance, which in my perspective is what you demonstrated in your reply to evantisin. My intent was to be confrontational!

However, my intention was to rebound on you the intolerence you demonstrated towards evantisin's opinion, to illuminate to you your own factionalism - what I perceived as a direction towards speculative philosophy rather than bibblical truth.

In my opinion evantisin argued from the upper ground of scripture, whilst you argued from opinion - something (that is, scripture) I noticed, elsewhere, you and cohorts such as apostoli appraise yourselves as using as your foundation.

I rarely participate in discussion, mainly because I have noticed that there is a rampant group who attack other opinion, to avoid defending their own.

I believe I am a reasonable person, so I am open to differences in opinion. Thus the question arrives: Are you prepared for an honest exchange, even if it challenges your opinion? I believe I am! All I am seeking is an honest discussion.

I've done some basic research. Would you like to discuss the following opinion, which seems to accord with your view?
http://www.bible.ca/d-death=separation.htm

I put the ball in your court and allow you priority. You may serve first.

[apostoli]

Hello ephlal,

Long time since we last spoke :-)

In my opinion evantisin argued from the upper ground of scripture, whilst you argued from opinion - something (that is, scripture) I noticed, elsewhere, you and cohorts such as apostoli appraise yourselves as using as your foundation.

I presume that this is your way of flushing me into a conversation. I'm a little busy at the moment, so hopefully someone else will engage you in conversation. In anycase, based on prior interaction I doubt that in fundementals (ie: the resurrection) our personnal perspectives regarding the soul are not too divergent.

Peace

[xcav8tor]

Hello ephlal,

My intent was to be confrontational!

You succeeded.

I am intolerant of biased intolerance, which in my perspective is what you demonstrated in your reply to evantisin.

I would say that was a hasty judgment, but we are all guilty of that from time to time.

However, my intention was to rebound on you the intolerence you demonstrated towards evantisin's opinion

I am tolerant of evantisin's opinion and support his God-given right to believe what he thinks is best - even when I disagree. I could not disagree more than with the LDS POV that the Bible teaches 3 different Gods (vs the Trinity) yet I was able to have a respectful and enjoyable discussion with the Mormons on the Basketball Court. Feel free to check it out.

what I perceived as a direction towards speculative philosophy rather than biblical truth. In my opinion evantisin argued from the upper ground of scripture, whilst you argued from opinion - something (that is, scripture) I noticed, elsewhere, you and cohorts such as apostoli appraise yourselves as using as your foundation.

Though you may disagree with my interpretation of scripture, it is always my intent to derive my beliefs from the Word of God. Sometimes when I provide summary statements people view them as philosophical opinions instead of the conclusions I have reached.

I rarely participate in discussion, mainly because I have noticed that there is a rampant group who attack other opinion, to avoid defending their own.

I belong to no "group" here, although there are those who share my perspectives in some areas (while not in others).

I believe I am a reasonable person, so I am open to differences in opinion... All I am seeking is an honest discussion.

Glad to hear it. I will assume words like "silly" and "ignorant" will not be used by either of us to describe the other's POV in the future.

I've done some basic research. Would you like to discuss the following opinion, which seems to accord with your view?

The link seems similar in most respect to my view, though as a premillennialist I disagree with their assessment of Rev. 20:4-6. Neither do I believe in the Catholic idea of purgatory as you earlier suggested.

I put the ball in your court and allow you priority. You may serve first.

Actually I have pretty much laid out my position in my first post, and I stand by it. Since you have not spelled out your view, I think that would be the next step.

I will, however, reply to one point. In response to my use of Luke 23:46

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

you said,

The phrase "he gave up the ghost" in the KJV renders the word ekpneō which literally means "to breathe out, breathe out one's life, breathe one's last"

You missed my point. The focus was on the words "into thy hands I commend MY SPIRIT." That is why I asked, "What would be the point of committing to God's care something they knew was about to cease to exist?" To me this indicates both Jesus and Stephen had something incorporeal, yet very real, in mind, which was being handed over for sake-keeping. If the soul is annihilated at death, what were they handing over?

Regards,
xcav8tor

PS - I did not want to get drawn into another discussion because I still owe evantisin a reply from weeks ago. I will deal with his first before getting back to you again.

[ephlal]

I am tolerant of evantisin's opinion and support his God-given right to believe what he thinks is best - even when I disagree.

I apologise if you took personal umbrage at my earlier post. But have a reread of your post to evantisin. To quote "You are erroneously defining", "Wrong emphasis. Try this", "Then you have to explain away the following" etc

Imo, hardly an example of tolerance. Rightly or wrongly, my critique of your arguments, used your approach for introducing argument.

Lets accept we were both in error in our previous posts and remediate our behavior.

Though you may disagree with my interpretation of scripture, it is always my intent to derive my beliefs from the Word of God. Sometimes when I provide summary statements people view them as philosophical opinions instead of the conclusions I have reached.

I neither agree nor disagree with your opinion as, in my opinion, you have yet to provide any evidence for it. As things stand you listed a group of scriptures and personal commentary as if your stance was irrefutable. In each case I proposed a ready refutation. Possibly, there are arguments that support your opinion. At this stage, I am not aware of them.

The difficulty I have accepting the general argument for an eternally existing conscious soul of both the righteous and unrighteous, is that, as far as I can ascertain, the arguments always begin from a philosophic position and then seek out scriptural support. Something along the lines of "If hell hadn't been mentioned in the bible, the church would have had to invent it". Hell and the torment of an eternal soul go hand in hand.

I belong to no "group" here, although there are those who share my perspectives in some areas (while not in others).

I've yet to encounter someone who argues from the viewpoint that they are wrong. Thus we are all members of one group or another when defending a position.

There is an aspect of human nature which inclines most to one view or another, and thru either convenience or laziness, draw on the collective response to an opposing view. The problem is, the collective response could be wrong! If one's opinion is developed from a viewpoint based exclusively on collective tradition, then there is a chance that one could be arguing wrongly and not know it.

It is my opinion, that the "eternal conscious soul" idea is only supportable from presumptive philosophy. And even here, there is dispute!

Glad to hear it. I will assume words like "silly" and "ignorant" will not be used by either of us to describe the other's POV in the future.

I will avoid doing so and I trust you will avoid your favourite phrases of denigration as well.

I apologise if you took my use of the word "ignorant" as a personal affront. I've reread my comment and overall find it conciliatory. Then again, in my circles, the word "ignorant", in the context I used it, is a polite way of saying "I assume that the advocate is not intentionally concealing evidence".

The link seems similar in most respect to my view, though as a premillennialist I disagree with their assessment of Rev. 20:4-6. Neither do I believe in the Catholic idea of purgatory as you earlier suggested.

What is the premillennialist view? What are the justifications for a premillennialist view?

Actually I have pretty much laid out my position in my first post, and I stand by it. Since you have not spelled out your view, I think that would be the next step.

Basically I hold to "soul sleep" for the righteous and unrighteous until the resurrection. I do not accept the idea of a perpetual punishment of the unrighteous. From scripture I deduce that whatever happens to death and hades, happens to those not in the book of life - a second death.

I'm open to correction, but I find echoes of my view in the apologies of the early church. Consider THE TREATISE OF ATHENAGORAS THE ATHENIAN, PHILOSOPHER AND CHRISTIAN, ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. CHAP. XVI--ANALOGY OF DEATH AND SLEEP, AND CONSEQUENT ARGUMENT FOR THE RESURRECTION.

"not putting either our death on a level with the death of the irrational animals, or the continuance of man with the continuance of immortals, lest we should unawares in this way put human nature and life on a level with things with which it is not proper to compare them. It ought not, therefore, to excite dissatisfaction, if some inequality appears to exist in regard to the duration of men; nor, because the separation of the soul from the members of the body and the dissolution of its parts interrupts the continuity of life, must we therefore despair of the resurrection. For although the relaxation of the senses and of the physical powers, which naturally takes place in sleep, seems to interrupt the sensational life when men sleep at equal intervals of time, and, as it were, come back to life again, yet we do not refuse to call it life; and for this reason, I suppose, some call sleep the brother of death, not as deriving their origin from the same ancestors and fathers, but because those who are dead and those who sleep are subject to similar states, as regards at least the stillness and the absence of all sense of the present or the past, or rather of existence itself and their own life. If, therefore, we do not refuse to call by the name of life the life of men full of such inequality from birth to dissolution, and interrupted by all those things which we have before mentioned, neither ought we to despair of the life succeeding to dissolution, such as involves the resurrection, although for a time it is interrupted by the separation of the soul from the body."

I will, however, reply to one point. In response to my use of Luke 23:46

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

you said, The phrase "he gave up the ghost" in the KJV renders the word ekpneō which literally means "to breathe out, breathe out one's life, breathe one's last"

You missed my point. The focus was on the words "into thy hands I commend MY SPIRIT." That is why I asked, "What would be the point of committing to God's care something they knew was about to cease to exist?" To me this indicates both Jesus and Stephen had something incorporeal, yet very real, in mind, which was being handed over for sake-keeping. If the soul is annihilated at death, what were they handing over?

I didn't miss your point, as you now highlight it. I addressed the two points you may have been making in citing Luke 23:46 via seperate comments. My second comment considered both Luke 23:46 & Acts 7:59 in the light of your commentary. For your convenience I've done a copy & paste...

ephlal

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

The phrase "he gave up the ghost" in the KJV renders the word ekpneō which literally means "to breathe out, breathe out one's life, breathe one's last"

Luke 23:46...into thy hands I commend my spirit...
Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

What would be the point of committing to God's care something they knew was about to cease to exist? Seems obvious that both of them were expecting their "inner man" (2 Cor. 4:16) to continue to exist and were asking the Father (and Jesus respectively) to watch over them.

First it should be noted that the apostle Paul describes the "inward man" as being renewed day by day. Thus, I presume xcav8tor believes in purgatory and that the "soul" is refined unto perfection until the resurrection (?).

Next, why would something that has a real existence need to be held in safe custody?

Both Luke 23:46 & Acts 7:59 can be simply read as a trusting that both were assured of a resurrection by God (which is consistent with the OT & NT). A.Paul says "God raised Jesus from the dead".

© source where applicable

I did not want to get drawn into another discussion because I still owe evantisin a reply from weeks ago. I will deal with his first before getting back to you again.

OK.

[jahrule84]

Eternal life (living or existing forever) is possible ONLY through acceting Christ; so there is just no way that wicked people have an immortal soul to burn forever in hell, cause they don't accept Jesus!

[apostoli]

Hello jahrule84,

Eternal life (living or existing forever) is possible ONLY through accepting Christ; so there is just no way that wicked people have an immortal soul to burn forever in hell, cause they don't accept Jesus!

xcav8tor doesn't appear to believe that "wicked people...burn forever in hell". He also differentiates between immortality and eternal life, as well as death and eternal death (see below). So you need to rethink your argument. Your argument, doesn't address xcav8tor's opinion...

So Jesus is teaching we should not fear man. Man can only kill the body, showing the soul continues to exist after the death of the body. While man can only cause the death of the body (death = separation of the body from the soul/spirit), God can cause eternal death (eternal death = separation of both the body AND the soul/spirit from God for eternity)...

...True. God alone is INHERENTLY IMMORTAL, and immortality can be bestowed upon humanity (John 5:28-29), but eternal life will only be bestowed upon believers (John 5:24 / John 10:27-28). While both are conferred by God, there is a difference between eternal existence (immortality) and eternal life (life with God). The unsaved will not experience eternal LIFE.

Peace

[evantisin]

Hi xcav8tor,

Wrong emphasis. Try this:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

So Jesus is teaching we should not fear man. Man can only kill the body, showing the soul continues to exist after the death of the body. While man can only cause the death of the body (death = separation of the body from the soul/spirit), God can cause eternal death (eternal death = separation of both the body AND the soul/spirit from God for eternity).

Mat. 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

If the soul perishes with the death of the body as you suggest, how is it one can kill the body WITHOUT KILLING the soul?

Jesus says "be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

How is this teaching supposed to understood as meaning that God cannot destroy the soul?

If the soul can be destroyed in hell, it's not eternal, at least not for all people.

The physical body can be destroyed by man, but the soul can't be destroyed by man. Both the soul and the physical body can be destroyed by God.

For example, man cannot kill angels, who exist in spiritual bodies, the impersonal soul.

Then you have to explain away the following:

Gen. 35:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben Oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

Her soul was leaving her body, not ceasing to exist.

This means passing away.

Mat. 17:2-3 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

The spirit of Moses - undeniably deceased - appears with Elijah to talk with Jesus. He obviously still exists.

Moses was either resurrected to live in heaven with Elijah or this is simply a vision accompanying the transfiguration. Peter spoke things he didn't have control over or knew he was saying (Luke 9:33). Although Jesus didn't change form and simply appeared differently (Luke 9:29), Moses and Elijah suddenly appeared (Luke 9:30; Matthew 17:3) and disappeared thereafter (Luke 9:36). Either it was a vision or Elijah and Moses appeared in spiritual bodies. There doesn't seem to be enough disclosed in the scripture to indicate for sure whether it was one or the other. Elijah was still alive in heaven, considering that he was taken up into heaven and, thus, John the Baptist worked by the power and spirit of Elijah (Luke 1:17); that's certain. As for Moses, it could also be the case, but scripture doesn't seem to teach that Moses was taken up into heaven as well. The transfiguration involved some elements of being a vision. Elijah and Moses suddenly appeared and then disappeared; that's something that happens with those in spiritual bodies or those in visions.

Mat. 22:31-32 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I AM [NOT WAS] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

The Sadducees believed - just like you - that souls die with the bodies. Jesus wanted to correct them on this by clearly indicating that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still alive at the time God appeared to Moses as the Angel of the LORD. That is the significance of I AM (present tense) the God of... instead of I WAS the God of... (which would have implied they ceased to exist). This is hammered home when Jesus said God IS the God OF THE LIVING (even though they were physically dead).

Many were divided over whether Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would be resurrected to live forever. Jesus confirms to the Sadducees that there will be a resurrection. That was what that teaching noted (Matthew 22:23) and meant to correct.

Also, I believe in the Resurrection; the Sadduccees do not. There continue to be adherents of Judaism who don't believe in the Resurrection well into our day.

"'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living" does not necessarily mean that the patriarchs are alive at the time (it's possible that they exist alive in heaven, but there isn't much scripture to indicate that or that these patriarchs "skipped" the Resurrection). If it means that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive at that point in time, does it mean that they won't be Resurrected? That they already inherited eternal life in paradise?

Luke 16:19-26 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

Jesus never used personal names (such as Lazarus) in parables. There is no reason not to take this at face value letting us know that the souls of the deceased, both saved and lost, continue to consciously exist.

You're telling me that this is not a parable?

When a righteous individual dies, they go to heaven and then are reunited with their physical body come time of the resurrection?

If that's true, then why is Abraham in hell?

Is there a literal chasm in hell that segregates the righteous from the wicked?

Are people going to exist within Abraham's bosom? Is there simply a place in hell called "Abraham's bosom?"

Compare this passage to what you've taught before about where souls go when they "depart."

This is a parable about the fact that, when one dies, they can't change their lives and do goods deeds and then be with the righteous again. They are in Hades, wherein nobody is alive or can act and do good so that they can change how God would eventually judge them. When the wicked are resurrected and face judgment, they indeed would be in torment and misery over this in the literal sense (but not in eternal torture, for they will be condemned to die and cease to exist forever).

Luke 23:39-43 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, TO DAY shalt thou be with me IN PARADISE.

Neither Jesus or the thief could be in paradise (Abraham's bosom as in Luke 16) THAT DAY unless the soul survives the death of the body. Jesus' promise would then have been a lie or an error. I will not charge Jesus with either.

"Abraham's bosom" in Luke 16 is in hell, in hades. Since when does paradise exist in hell?

"Abraham's bosom" in Luke 16 was one of several parables. It can't be taken as literally as you're using it.

Jesus and the thief did not go to paradise on that day. Even if it means that they would go to paradise in heaven, 3 days had passed since the crucifixion and Jesus says he still didn't go back to heaven yet (John 20:17). Jesus didn't go to heaven until some time after the resurrection (Acts 1:9).

"Paradise" is not in hell or hades (the common grave). Discussion of paradise in the Bible more likely refers to a restored Earth or, possibly, heaven, neither of which Jesus was existing within on the day he was crucified.

The Greek manuscripts of that verse, Luke 23:43, don't have a comma, so it could be said that it's saying "truly I say to you this day, you will be with me in paradise" or "truly I say to you this day: you will be with me in paradise."

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

What would be the point of committing to God's care something they knew was about to cease to exist? Seems obvious that both of them were expecting their "inner man" (2 Cor. 4:16) to continue to exist and were asking the Father (and Jesus respectively) to watch over them.

Spirit and soul are not the same thing.

Hebrews 4:12

12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

The soul is the individual while the spirit is more like the impersonal energy, which is the same for all, man or animal (Ecclesiastes 3:19), and comes from God and goes back to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

You've said that death and sin is the separation of an individual from God. If the spirit and the soul are the same thing, how come, at death, people are united with God "as spirit" (Ecclesiastes 12:7)? They aren't. Their spirit is given back to God. The soul and the spirit are not the same. A soul cannot live without spirit. Each individual is a soul that has either a physical body or a spiritual body. Their spirit is not unique and, ultimately, always goes back to God at death.

2 Cor. 12:2-3 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

If nothing else, this shows Paul believed the soul could exist independent of the body - otherwise he would not have mentioned it as a possibility.

That's a good observation. Paul says that by this revelation as a vision he couldn't tell how the man went into a division of heaven. Was it in a physical body or a spiritual body? Personally, I don't know, but I do know that the scriptures often talk about God's purpose for the Earth, a restored Earth, and a "new heaven and new Earth."

It's a possibility that the man existed in a spiritual or physical body there. It may be that a spiritual body usually exists in heaven and a physical body usually exists on Earth. When "the body" is mentioned in the scriptures, it often refers to the physical one; the body that's bound to mortality on the Earth. Spiritual body, the kind that angels and heavenly beings in heaven exist within, contrasts that as a form that existed (generally and primarily for the angels) before the physical body was created by God (for man, for animal; it's all different 1 Corinthians 15:38-40).

2 Cor. 5:6-8 Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord... We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

If absent from the body means to be "present with the Lord," it cannot at the same time mean "not to exist."

Phil. 1:21-23 For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain. But if I live in the flesh, this [is] the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

It is being with Christ that Paul is looking forward to - not "ceasing to exist." That would not be "gain." BEING with Christ DOES NOT MEAN "ceasing to exist for thousands of years and THEN being with Christ on resurrection day."

These are figurative expressions of being with Jesus in a spiritual body in heaven or on Earth in a physical body with the congregations. Paul says he prefers to be with the followers of Christ. "Out of the body" is a phrase often used to refer to the physical, mortal one on Earth that mankind has long had.

Rev. 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

Obviously these people are dead - the SOULS of them that WERE SLAIN. Yet they "cried with a loud voice." Hardly a viable picture of those who "ceased to exist" - either literally OR figuratively.

Dead people talking is spiritism, mythology, and the occult, none of which is taught in the Bible.

"The souls of them that were slain" doesn't mean that they are currently, actually dead at that point. It's a vision. John saw the people that were martyred. For them to be in distress, they are either resurrected and living (a possibility, but probably not the actual case) or, more likely, simply characterized as people who are expressing their suffering and distress over the persecution of the followers of Jesus Christ's testimony.

God tells these martyrs that "they should rest," which means that these souls should be as they were, dead, which is how the idea of "soul sleep" is characterized here.

Whether or not these martyrs are resurrected to speak this, I'm not sure; that would probably contradict chronology. This is a vision, which is more likely expressing the meaning than discussing literal events that have occurred. After all, we're talking about Revelation here.

Not inherently. They continue to exist by the will of God. The scriptures teach that it is God's will for all to be immortal (unending in duration - Mat. 25:46 / Rev. 20:10) while only the saved are given the gift of Eternal Life (Rom. 6:23).

True. God alone is INHERENTLY IMMORTAL, and immortality can be bestowed upon humanity (John 5:28-29), but eternal life will only be bestowed upon believers (John 5:24 / John 10:27-28). While both are conferred by God, there is a difference between eternal existence (immortality) and eternal life (life with God). The unsaved will not experience eternal LIFE.

I understand the distinction you're trying to make here, but to be given immortality and to have eternal life mean practically the same thing.

Perhaps you mean to say something like this: The wicked and the righteous both have immortal souls. Only the righteous get to live in paradise ("eternal life"). The wicked are separated from paradise. They continue to live forever, but it's not "eternal life" because they are being tortured all day long for eternity by demons in hell.

I know you're trying to make a distinction between being immortal and being given eternal life, but the scriptures are quite straightforward in teachings about entering the kingdom of heaven and gaining eternal life. Death means death and life means life. Death does not mean that someone continues to live. Romans 6:23 says "for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." If death doesn't mean that the individual is actually dead, then what does?

Death doesn't mean that an individual ceases to exist?

Resurrection means the uniting of body and soul? Those in Jesus Christ's time were not even sure if there would be any possibility that they could live forever. The resurrection means being given life and raised up to continue to live forever.

The souls/spirits of the lost go to the unsaved compartment of "sheol" to await the resurrection of damnation. Since the time of Christ's ascension, the souls/spirits of the saved (which would have previously gone to "Paradise/Abraham's bosom" side of sheol) now go to heaven to be with Jesus until they are reunited with their resurrection bodies at the time His Second Coming (the church first, then the OT and tribulation saints).

Btw, I have no desire to dicker back and forth about this I don't have the time to go tit for tat. These are my thoughts on the matter for what they are worth. Take them or leave them. It's up to you.

How is it that there is a difference with where people end up when they die between the Old and New Testament?

When people die, they usually end up in Hades, as always, which is the common grave (the soil beneath our feet), and a place from which people are resurrected. Nobody is actually, literally alive in Hades. Also, Hades is not the same thing as hell.

When the righteous who accepted Jesus Christ's testimony die, they don't go to heaven to live with Jesus. Where is that taught in the scriptures? Only the disciples and a select group of anointed actually go to heaven, and even then, it's only to judge and rule over Earth (1 Corinthians 6:1-2).

You're saying that, before, the souls/spirits of the saved would end up in Abraham's bosom, within sheol, but after Jesus Christ, the souls/spirits of the saved would end up with Jesus Christ in heaven before being reunited with their bodies. Ecclesiastes 12:7, which was before Jesus Christ's testimony, says that the spirit is returned back to God when an individual dies, and that's the case it has always been.

Acts 3:23

23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

The soul is destroyed at death, but not necessarily forever, for the soul is brought back to life at the Resurrection, and then judged as to whether it will inherit eternal life or death (which means ceasing to exist forever, not being unjustly tortured day and night by demons).

After all, if people are going to be tortured by demons in hell, then how come Jesus says that the destruction of hellfire is meant for the devil and his demons to experience (Matthew 25:41)?

Regards,
evantisin

[jahrule84]

Hello jahrule84,

xcav8tor doesn't appear to believe that "wicked people...burn forever in hell". He also differentiates between immortality and eternal life, as well as death and eternal death (see below). So you need to rethink your argument. Your argument, doesn't address xcav8tor's opinion...



Peace

I didn't answer xcav8tor's argument as I was not relying to him at the time; I was merely sending a note to evantasin. But since you boughtit up:

Matt 10:28 seaks of the soul being DESTROYED the same as the body is DESTROYED in Gehenna. So the soul obviously is something thatcan be destroyed. God cannot lie, or break a promise, and when he says that something is immortal, then noteven he will contradict his own word by destroying it, for immortal mean that it cannot die! If the destruction of the body is the end of its conscious existence, so is the destruction of the soul.

It has already been proved that man can kill the soul, Joshua 10:35. 37; 11:11; Eze 18:4; Isa 53:12.

We do not have the EXACT words of Jesus in the Bible, but the paraphrases of his disciples, or what he said in their own words. The meaning of Matt 10:28 is given at Luke 12:4, 5.

Xcav8tor didn't give any Scriptural proof that eternal life is not eternal existence!

But consider this; let's say that I am wrong in all that I say above; just forget about it and consider this:

If hellfire is true, then sin will always and forever exist? God will nerver truely eradicate sin? Some corner of God's creation will always be evil; and wickedness will never cease? Your concept of an immortal soul burning in hell for eternity IMMORTALIZES sin, the very sin Jesus came to put away, and it IMMORTALIZES woe, suffering, and pain, and makes it impossible that God should ever eradicate it; worse yet, making him responsible for it! This is a serious view of God that you and xcav8tor should reconsider!