navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » I Cor. 15
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic I Cor. 15 Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa

0 posted 2006-08-28 11:09 PM


~ I'll start with ...

I Cor. 15:35

"But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?"

~ Right here, if man possesses an immortal soul or dies and goes to "some place," I think Paul would of skipped this question, for obviously, Paul is not going to debate that the dead are in the ground and buried, and in need of a resurrection if they are not dead in the ground, but he chooses to answer the question in the next verse.

I Cor. 15:36

"[Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:"

~ Now, here Paul uses two key words: quickened (which he will use again shortly) and die. Once again, Paul does not use the word "separate" but to die - natural death of man; to not exist. He doesn't answer the question by saying, "You have an immotal soul, you won't die, you don't need to be resurrected."

SIDEBAR: By the way, many denominations have tried to make it look like that "Thanatos" does not mean non-existence = death, but to "separate from God."  We will see later in this chapter that that cannot be possible.

~ Now, Paul will explain again the nature of man, and it is not an immortal soul.

I Cor. 15:42-44

"So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."


~ Paul says it right there. We are sown a natural body. This matches up with scripture from King Solomon, David, etc. The life is in the blood. The human race is made from dust and dust it shall return. The Bible is clear here that we are not made up of anything more than our natural bodies, yet we do have a spirit that separates us from the animals (I Cor. 15:39), but it cannot exist, think, feel, be alive on its own.

I Cor. 15:45-47

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit." Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.


~ The first man was MADE a living soul. He does not POSSESS a soul, but IS a living soul. Get it? Paul hopes so.  The last Adam, he is referring to is Jesus and there is that phrase, a quickening spirit. That is what it means to be truly "born again." Adam was made a living being, he was a natural being, but will become a spiritual being (born again) like Christ, but when? Paul answers that...

SIDEBAR: Some people state that the Kingdom of God is in our hearts, therefore the Kingdom of God is here and that that Kingdom of God does not have boundaries - is not a real Kingdom, but one that is simply a metaphor, residing in our hearts, but Paul states that that cannot be possible:

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."


~ This verse taken from I Cor. 15:50 is clear. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom ... we have not yet what we haven't inherited! And we are flesh and blood. To believe otherwise is to simply believe in one's own worldview/denomination without the true Spirit.

~ So, when will people become spiritual beings - born again?

I Cor. 15:50

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,"

~ Christian who are alive will not be asleep, but all other Christians whom have died in hope of being resurrected, are in fact asleep. Now, if Christians or any other dead person is alive with all of their sense after death, why would Paul compare death to sleep? Who walks, talks, listens, learns, praises in his or her sleep? Nobody.

I Cor. 15:51-52

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

~ At the last trump. That is when Christ returns to earth to set up His Kingdom: The 2nd Coming, but not until then will "we be changed."

~ The next verse is an "immotal soul" killer:

Cor. 15:53

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality."

~ First of all, the phrase "immotal soul" is no where to be found in the Bible. To claim we have an immotal soul is only to do so due to pagan philosophers and a certain man named Dante. This MORTAL must PUT ON immotality. Of course, without any hope or chance to be resurrected we are dead.

I Cor. 15:54

"So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."


~ Once "this mortal" puts on "Immortality" than that mortal becomes born again as a spiritual being and only then does he/she possess eternal life. It is clearly written right here in I Cor. Now to the SIDEBAR, if thanatos means an eternal separation from God, how then can "death" be swallowed up in victory? That doesn't make any sense. Yet, if we believe the truth, that thanatos means for people to no longer have to die, then it makes sense. Think about it... death is swallowed up in victory, meaning no longer will anyone have to die. Those who were truly evil (the overwhelming few) will no longer exist and then death will be conquered. If these people were "alive" somewhere burning forever, how can death be swallowed up in victory? It cannot be. It is still "doing its thing." I could add more evidence to that using Revelations, but will hold it here for now.

... anyway, just thought I'd share my favorite part of the NT with you.



"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

© Copyright 2006 JesusChristPose - All Rights Reserved
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
1 posted 2006-08-31 10:56 PM


I think you and Arnold should begin a bible-school together.  Call it "The Institution of No Immortal Soul!"


JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
2 posted 2006-08-31 11:31 PM


~ Not me an Arnold, but the authors of the Bible. To add or subtract from the quoted passages would only admit to alienate oneself from Biblical teachings. It is either that or the Bible is contradictory unto itself.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
3 posted 2006-08-31 11:53 PM


"I think you and Arnold should begin a bible-school together.  Call it "The Institution of No Immortal Soul!"

~ Not only that, it should of have never come to down to myself and Arnold supporting the mortality of the soul if it wasn't for pagan philsophy and its influence in creating a false christianity.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

icebox
Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383
in the shadows
4 posted 2006-08-31 11:57 PM


It is nice that you have personal favorites in works of literature, but it is none the less literature.  The author was real, and centuries of dedicated researchers have produced evidence of the text's chronological authenticity and of the author's identity.  Perhaps the content has helped you feel more secure with your internal senses of existence and maybe the text has helped you to assign value to various aspects of your own life.  It is interesting that you share that here, but how can it be evidence for anything outside of the content of the text itself?  It is not even a philosophical argument; it is simply a series of statements of faith put together in the form of personal letters perhaps written for the purpose of public reading as a recruiting tool for a fledgling religion.

Maybe the content helps you to find meaning or clarity in your own life. That alone could make a book worth reading for you, but the New Testament as a book is simply a compilation of opinions, allegories and stories collected from the works of many authors.  At its best, it is a badly organized docu-drama that at times makes loose references to history.  Again, I would ask, evidence of what?

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
5 posted 2006-09-01 12:25 PM


~ Because I am arguing from a Biblical perspective only, your comments and question have no meaning. No disrespect intended, but simply the fact of the matter is that.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

6 posted 2006-09-01 03:01 AM


Hi guys; Arnold here. Well, Ess, it seems JCP and myself are at lest two who understand man does not have an "eternal soul".

And I do admit that my conclusion is based upon the Scriptures, which, IMO, are inspired by God, our creator.

JCP, I agree with much of what you say, but not that the resurrection Paul describes is the "new birth".  Those who are asleep in Christ will be raised incorruptible, and we who are alive at His presence will be changed to put on immortality.  Then together we will meet the Lord in the air and be taken to the heavenlies, to experience the spiritual blessings prepared by God; and as Christ's body (for service), we will witness to the principalities and powers (spirit beings)in the celestials the manifold wisdom of God in the ages to come.

From Eph.1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,.."  RSV
It is written in past tense, even though it is future, but I understand that is Hebrew way of thinking.

Next Eph. 2:4-7 "But God who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in Christ Jesus."
God, who knows the future, reckons us to be seated with Christ in the heavenlies. Our hope is in the heavenlies, not on the earth.

Finally, Eph.3:8-10  "To me...grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God...that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places."

Here we read of this particular mystery (or secret)unknown for all the previous ages but now revealed to Paul, that the Church/Body of Christ will have a special function of witnessing to the spirit beings in the vast reaches of the universe, the amazing and wonderful wisdom of God.

All for now, Arnold

icebox
Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383
in the shadows
7 posted 2006-09-01 03:54 AM


"Because I am arguing from a Biblical perspective only,"


So, just for clarification, this is just an exercise in intellectual entertainment using one esoteric belief system?


JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
8 posted 2006-09-01 07:39 AM


"So, just for clarification, this is just an exercise in intellectual entertainment using one esoteric belief system?"

~ You don't have to ask. It is quite obvious, you are telling me.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
9 posted 2006-09-01 02:31 PM


I agree with JCP.
Let a discussion about biblical content be about biblical content.  People questioned and put the bible as a whole on "trial" in so many other threads that you don't need to look far from here and you will find a more relevant discussion to post in if you wish.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
10 posted 2006-09-01 03:02 PM


I'm choosing to respond to this repeating thread once more. (sigh)  But before I do, I would like to reiterate the very relevant point that Jim once raised:  If those who believe in an immaterial soul still believe that a bodily resurrection is necessary ... and if those who do not believe in an immaterial soul likewise believe that the most important thing is reconciliation with God ... and if either position may be held by a genuine Christian, then this consideration cannot be the issue which is so sinister as to have brought about a "false Christianity".  In fact, it's perfectly reasonable to think it an ancillary issue.  And I do.  

And I get the feeling that Arnold, would not agree with you making salvation dependent upon believing this doctrine.  What's your take on that Arnold?
  

quote:
I Cor. 15:35

"But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?"

~ Right here, if man possesses an immortal soul or dies and goes to "some place," I think Paul would of skipped this question, for obviously, Paul is not going to debate that the dead are in the ground and buried, and in need of a resurrection if they are not dead in the ground, but he chooses to answer the question in the next verse.



Not a logical conclusion.  If Paul were speaking of bodily resurrection, then mentioning the transient state of the soul would not be necessary, since it isn't the focus.  Also your conclusion is not quite so "obvious" when you concede my above point that even those who believe in a transient state of the soul, think that resurrection is indispensable.  


quote:
I Cor. 15:36

"[Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:"

~ Now, here Paul uses two key words: quickened (which he will use again shortly) and die. Once again, Paul does not use the word "separate" but to die - natural death of man; to not exist. He doesn't answer the question by saying, "You have an immotal soul, you won't die, you don't need to be resurrected."



He doesn't use the words "cease to exist" either.  Also, again ... even for those who believe in an immaterial soul, ressurrection is supremely necessary.  Much like birth is supremely necessary for a baby in utero.  So it wouldn't make sense for Paul to say "Yo don't have a soul, you won't die, You don't need to be resurrected".  You're only knocking down a straw-man here.

quote:
"So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

~ Paul says it right there. We are sown a natural body. This matches up with scripture from King Solomon, David, etc. The life is in the blood. The human race is made from dust and dust it shall return. The Bible is clear here that we are not made up of anything more than our natural bodies, yet we do have a spirit that separates us from the animals (I Cor. 15:39), but it cannot exist, think, feel, be alive on its own.



How come there are Bible passages where the human spirit seems to be able to "exist, think, feel, be alive on its own"?  Most notably: 1st Samuel 28:8-20, Luke 9:28-31, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, 2 Corinthians 12:2..      


I think your display of Bible verses is a partial one, that hasn't brought in all the information, for a fuller picture.


quote:
I Cor. 15:45-47

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit." Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.


~ The first man was MADE a living soul. He does not POSSESS a soul, but IS a living soul. Get it? Paul hopes so.  The last Adam, he is referring to is Jesus and there is that phrase, a quickening spirit. That is what it means to be truly "born again." Adam was made a living being, he was a natural being, but will become a spiritual being (born again) like Christ, but when? Paul answers that...



That use of scripture that man was made a "living soul" does not disprove a composite nature at all.  Paul is here contrasting the merely natural life, with the life of Christ ... contrasting "earthiness" with "spiritual".  He's not even speaking about whether or not man has a transient state, his purposes don't seem to follow along those lines.


And there is a meaning to being "born again" that is certainly prior to resurrection, in THIS life:


"Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.  For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." (1 Peter 1:22-23)


Have been.  Past tense.


quote:
I Cor. 15:50

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,"

~ Christian who are alive will not be asleep, but all other Christians whom have died in hope of being resurrected, are in fact asleep. Now, if Christians or any other dead person is alive with all of their sense after death, why would Paul compare death to sleep? Who walks, talks, listens, learns, praises in his or her sleep? Nobody.



Well if you're going to bend this figure of speech to your purposes, and allow no variance from reality to metaphor, you'll have to at least acknowledge that you've never seen a sleeping person "not exist", and that sleeping people exhibit a form of awareness through dreaming.  Looks like the metaphor fits a transient state of the soul better than your "non-existence" ... because sleep is, after all, a transient state of affairs, and waking (resurrection) is still necessary.


quote:
I Cor. 15:51-52

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

~ At the last trump. That is when Christ returns to earth to set up His Kingdom: The 2nd Coming, but not until then will "we be changed."



Those who believe in a soul, likewise don't believe that we will be resurrected until Christ returns ... so what's your point?

quote:
Cor. 15:53

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality."

~ First of all, the phrase "immotal soul" is no where to be found in the Bible. To claim we have an immotal soul is only to do so due to pagan philosophers and a certain man named Dante. This MORTAL must PUT ON immotality. Of course, without any hope or chance to be resurrected we are dead.



Neither is the statement that death means "nonexistence" in the Bible.  And it does no good to slur this partiuclar doctrine with what Pagan philosophers believed.  Unless you want to chide Paul for quoting Pagan philosophers many times in the New Testament to illustrate Biblical truth.  Pagan religion also seemed to anticipate "resurrection" in their corn-kings and mystery religions.  Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that God gave intimations of truth even to pagan philosophers?  I think so.  


But there is a significant difference in what I believe the Bible teaches, and the "immortal soul" doctrine.  The Greek idea seems to eternalize the soul.  The Biblical idea makes the life of the soul entirely dependent upon God's sovereign will ... the soul having no self-reliant immortality to speak of.    


And lastly, "Mortality putting on Immortality" speaks of resurrection ... something which those who disagree with you still think very necessary.  Therefore Paul says nothing here in contradiction to belief in a transient state of the soul.


quote:
Think about it... death is swallowed up in victory, meaning no longer will anyone have to die.



I also believe that this means that "no longer will anyone have to die".  But of course it means more than that.  It means there will be a glorious physical resurrection of believers.


quote:
Those who were truly evil (the overwhelming few) will no longer exist and then death will be conquered. If these people were "alive" somewhere burning forever, how can death be swallowed up in victory?



In context Paul's description of death being "swallowed up in victory" does not apply to the wicked.  Though according to Daniel 12:2, even the unsaved will be raised in a kind of body:  "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."


So even if you don't believe in a transient state of the soul ... that doesn't mean that your belief of universalism or annihilationism is sound.  You'll have to defend that quite separately I think.  I presume one could easily believe that there is no immaterial soul, and yet still believe in an eternal place of punishment for the wicked.


"However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.  So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man." Acts 24:14-16


Stephen.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
11 posted 2006-09-01 06:43 PM


"I'm choosing to respond to this repeating thread once more. (sigh)

~ If the repitition makes you sigh, may I suggest that you either don't let the originator of the topic matter know that you are sighing or do not respond so you can refrain from a topic that makes you sigh. Seriously, I could easily read your opening statement and sigh the biggest sigh ever, thinking, here we go again.  

"But before I do, I would like to reiterate the very relevant point that Jim once raised:"

~ Of course, in your opinion it is relevant. Before I go on, I wanted to point that out.

"...those who believe in an immaterial soul still believe that a bodily resurrection is necessary ... and if those who do not believe in an immaterial soul likewise believe that the most important thing is reconciliation with God ... and if either position may be held by a genuine Christian,"

~ One has to define a genuine Christian. Christ once said in vain do they worship me - now, I am sure those who worshiped him in vain believed they were genuine Christians, don't you think?

"...then this consideration cannot be the issue which is so sinister as to have brought about a "false Christianity".  In fact, it's perfectly reasonable to think it an ancillary issue.  And I do."

~ You have never gotten around these Biblical facts:

1. Satan deceives the ENTIRE WORLD.
2. There is a false church.
3. People worship in vain.
4. Christ called his flock small and sacttered.

... With those Biblical facts facing me, I can't see how mainstream christianity can be the true flock.

~ This issue is the crux of whom Jesus was talking about - the false christians of the false church believing in his name as Satan appears as a minister of righteousness deceiving them all.  

"And I get the feeling that Arnold, would not agree with you making salvation dependent upon believing this doctrine.  What's your take on that Arnold?"

~ You make it seem like I would want Arnold in my corner on this matter.

[more later]


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

12 posted 2006-09-01 09:35 PM


Hi guys. Seems like I need to get back in to this debate (And I was, anyway).

Stephano's question:
And I get the feeling that Arnold, would not agree with you making salvation dependent upon believing this doctrine.  What's your take on that Arnold?

I agree, our salvation is based upon accepting Christ as our personal savior, and is not limited as to whether someone does or does not believe our soul is immortal.

As a matter of fact, as a young Christian I would sing "Thank you Lord for saving my soul.." and never thought anything about it, for I considered "my soul" as me.  And now undrstand it is the whole man who is saved.

I will say this, that as one seeking the truth revealed in the Scriptures, I don't feel these verses in 1 Cor. 15 are relevant as to the nature of the soul.

My understanding came about by studying the great part of the scriptures where soul (Nephesh-Heb./Psuche-Gk) is used, and there are hundreds.  And also by studying other scriptures which seem to allude to "life during death".

It is my belief that the way the word is used in the OT, regardless of the writer, it does not contradict what is said in the NT.

I suppose I've stated this on some other thread, but it is worth repeating.

"Soul" could be said to be the consciousness, the feelings, the desires, produced by the breath of life vitalizing the body.

Many times man is called a "soul" in the scriptures: i.e., Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added...about three thousand souls."

Many times the soul is said to die, be dead or be destroyed:
Num. 23:10 "Let me (my soul) die the death of the righteous."
Josh. 10:28,30,32,35,37,39; Jer.2:34, etc.

Quoting JCP:
1. Satan deceives the ENTIRE WORLD.
2. There is a false church.
3. People worship in vain.
4. Christ called his flock small and sacttered.

My comments:
1. Satan is not deceiving the whole world. Our apostle, Paul, tells us in 2 Cor.4:3,4
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.  In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ..."
God is sovereign.  Satan can only do what God allows.  Christians in the body of Christ are there because, IMO, they are chosen and predestined to believe the gospel, and Satan has not blinded them.

2. There are many "churches", religious groups, who are not Christians.  

3. You say "people worship in vain". If you mean there are Christian churches which have departed from the power and truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I would agree.

4. IMO, you are using the analogy Jesus used
during his earthly ministry to his own, Israel, concerning the small number who believed in Him.  Paul is our teacher. He never refers to the Church/Body of Christ as "sheep" or "a flock". We are "saints",
"set apart ones" for obedience to the gospel.

Arnold

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
13 posted 2006-09-02 08:45 AM


JCP:
quote:
Me: if either position may be held by a genuine Christian, then this consideration cannot be the issue which is so sinister as to have brought about a "false Christianity".  In fact, it's perfectly reasonable to think it an ancillary issue.  And I do.

JCP: One has to define a genuine Christian. Christ once said in vain do they worship me - now, I am sure those who worshiped him in vain believed they were genuine Christians, don't you think?



Okay.  Let's say I grant you, that is true.  Can you demonstrate from the bible that no true Christian can believe in an immaterial soul?  The Bible "defines" what a Christian is, and it has nothing to do with disbelieving or believing in an immaterial soul.  If you are the one making distinctions between false and true believers based upon this one doctrine ... then I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate from the scriptures that believing such is necessary to be a true Christian.


quote:
~ You have never gotten around these Biblical facts:

1. Satan deceives the ENTIRE WORLD.
2. There is a false church.
3. People worship in vain.
4. Christ called his flock small and sacttered.

... With those Biblical facts facing me, I can't see how mainstream christianity can be the true flock.



I'm not trying to "get around" those facts.  I actually accept those general statements as true.  


But how about these facts ?...


1) The Bible describes people who believed the right doctrines, and were still not right with God.


2) The Bible describes people who believed in wrong doctrines, and were nonetheless right with God.


3) The Bible makes absolutely no connection between being right with God, and believing or disbelieving in a transient state of the soul.



So, instead of making this a soteriological issue, and an occasion to accuse someone of false faith, why don't we continue to discuss the reasonableness of the doctrine in light of scripture?



Stephen.    

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
14 posted 2006-09-02 09:08 AM


My comments:
1. Satan is not deceiving the whole world. Our apostle, Paul, tells us in 2 Cor.4:3,4
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.  In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ..."


~ Does the Bible contradict itself? Rev. 12:9 clearly states that Satan deceives the ENTIRE WORLD. And, the quote above from 2 Cor. deals with the Biblical teaching that God IS NOT trying to save the world now. The masses who are not being called at this time are indeed blinded because they are not being called.



"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
15 posted 2006-09-02 09:28 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Cor. 15:35

"But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?"

~ Right here, if man possesses an immortal soul or dies and goes to "some place," I think Paul would of skipped this question, for obviously, Paul is not going to debate that the dead are in the ground and buried, and in need of a resurrection if they are not dead in the ground, but he chooses to answer the question in the next verse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Not a logical conclusion.  If Paul were speaking of bodily resurrection, then mentioning the transient state of the soul would not be necessary, since it isn't the focus."

~ Through your own worldview - what you have been taught to believe. It is a logical conclusion when one reads it with a complete open mind, like the mind of a child whom has no outside influences from any other source. Therefore, I cannot, nor should I concede the point.

~ Why the need of a bodily resurrection if the soul lives on after death? For what purpose would God put our souls back into our earthy, mortal, bodies? No where in the Bible does it state why God would do that or that he WILL do that. In fact, the Bible teaches otherwise, that from dust we are and from dust we shall return and that the life is in the blood - not in an immortal soul. To believe otherwise is only to believe through philosophies and doctrines of men.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
16 posted 2006-09-02 02:00 PM


"Okay.  Let's say I grant you, that is true.  Can you demonstrate from the bible that no true Christian can believe in an immaterial soul?  The Bible "defines" what a Christian is, and it has nothing to do with disbelieving or believing in an immaterial soul.  If you are the one making distinctions between false and true believers based upon this one doctrine ... then I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate from the scriptures that believing such is necessary to be a true Christian."

~ Do you actually believe that whatever scripture I quote in attempt to show you what I believe the Bible to teach will ever be accepted by you, Stephanos? Of course not.

~ Yet, what I believe the Bible teaches includes not excludes the overwhelming majority of the human race, all whom have lived and died and those living today, into the Kingdom of God, but that would put the christian churches "out of business," and it would be quite difficult, like the man who was told to give up his riches, for a preacher/pastor/priest to come to grips with that type of teaching/belief.



"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
17 posted 2006-09-02 05:54 PM


JCP:
quote:
what I believe the Bible teaches includes not excludes the overwhelming majority of the human race, all whom have lived and died and those living today, into the Kingdom of God,

I asked you to prove Biblically, that believing such a doctrine is related in anyway to salvation.  You seem to imply that those who don't believe as you do on this particular issue, do not have genuine faith.


You are also conflating about 4 different beliefs as I see it:


1) No immaterial Soul (or no soul that can exist apart from the body)


2) Annihilationism (annihilation rather than eternal punishment)


3) Universalism (All, or the majority of mankind will be saved)


4) You must believe all of the above, to be a genuine Christian.  If not, you are a part of the "false Church".


My problem with this recurring discussion is that you speak as if these doctrines are all necessarily tied, and related  They're not.  You can't support one, using reasons for another.  It's possible for someone to disbelieve in an immaterial soul, and still believe in eternal punishment.  Conversely it's possible for someone to disbelieve in eternal punishment, and still believe in a soul.  


My point is that you need to defend whatever you are saying biblically, one doctrine at a time.  Unless of course, this is another "proclamation" rather than "discussion" thread.  


quote:
o you actually believe that whatever scripture I quote in attempt to show you what I believe the Bible to teach will ever be accepted by you, Stephanos? Of course not.


Doesn't a discussion demand the suspension of such doubts on your part about anyone's swayability? Are you playing the part of a debater or a trumpeter?


If the devil has decieved the whole world, who exactly are you trying to convince?  Or are you saying from the start, that since he's deceived the whole world (except you) there's no use in trying to convince?  But if that's the case what would the role of others be in this thread exactly?  Just asking.


Stephen.  

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
18 posted 2006-09-02 06:25 PM


~ Wow, we are jumping all over the place here, making it most difficult to follow one single issue. I wonder if it is a coincidence that that is what mainstream christian teachers/leaders do too.

"Doesn't a discussion demand the suspension of such doubts on your part about anyone's swayability? Are you playing the part of a debater or a trumpeter?"

~ You talk about "straw man" and then limit what I am doing to two options... tsk, tsk. To answer your first question, no, not anyone's swayability.  To answer your second question, neither.

"If the devil has decieved the whole world, who exactly are you trying to convince?"

~ Come on, Stephanos. Go over (again) the four points I made, that will give you the answer to your question.

"Or are you saying from the start, that since he's deceived the whole world (except you) there's no use in trying to convince?"

~ Are you putting words into my mouth? Who said just me, I never did. There is no use trying to convince those whom God is not calling at this time, yes.

"But if that's the case what would the role of others be in this thread exactly?  Just asking."

~ If another is truly being called, then that person will understand due to the fact that the true Spirit of God is calling them.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
19 posted 2006-09-02 08:19 PM


(It is no wonder at all why many people have such negative opinions about religion these days)
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
20 posted 2006-09-02 11:38 PM


Essorant,

Debate is what philosophy forums are for.  But that's not all religion is about.  People have always debated religion as well as philosophy with very strong feelings because such beliefs are considered to be the most imporatant ones.


But we've had some very civil discussions about religion here many times.  I think in your estimation of "religion" or any other subject, you should consider individual temperments and personalities as well as subject matter.  If things are civil, then WE must make it civil.  

I've only been trying to question the validity of replying with "you're not called", as an answer, when explanations are sought.  Maybe in a crusade, but in a philosophy forum?


Stephen.    

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
21 posted 2006-09-03 12:27 PM


"(It is no wonder at all why many people have such negative opinions about religion these days)"

~ Not just these days, but days of the past too.

~ I find it somewhat amusing, and totally ironic, that the majority of the "learned" of the christian faith can within themselves, believe that ALL OTHER people of OTHER faiths are doomed for an eternal hellfire, yet cannot understand or "take it" when challenged within their own faith about eternity and who is "of the devil."

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
22 posted 2006-09-03 12:42 PM


quote:
If things are civil, then WE must make it civil.


'nuff said.  

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
23 posted 2006-09-03 12:43 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Cor. 15:36

"[Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:"

~ Now, here Paul uses two key words: quickened (which he will use again shortly) and die. Once again, Paul does not use the word "separate" but to die - natural death of man; to not exist. He doesn't answer the question by saying, "You have an immotal soul, you won't die, you don't need to be resurrected."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"He doesn't use the words "cease to exist" either."

~ Why should he? He knew what he meant by using the word, "die." Dying has nothing to do with living in some form after death, but to a natural death - meaning not to live, the opposite of life. Only through philosphy of pagans could one come to believe that to die means not to, but to "separate." Why didn't he use the Greek word for separate instead, if that is what was meant?


"Also, again ... even for those who believe in an immaterial soul, ressurrection is supremely necessary.  Much like birth is supremely necessary for a baby in utero.  So it wouldn't make sense for Paul to say "Yo don't have a soul, you won't die, You don't need to be resurrected".  You're only knocking down a straw-man here."

~ You built the staw-man, not me, nor Paul. Once again, traditional mainstream christian teachings add philosophies and doctrines of men to the meaning of the original intent of God's word.

~ No doubt, if the Bible taught that we possess an immortal soul, it would be most certain that that phrase would be in the Bible, but it is not. In fact, the DIRECT OPPOSITE is found in the Bible, that we are MORTAL. False teachings through pagan philosphers add the belief that we humans possess immortal souls. Paul states here in Corinthians (setting them straight, no doubt, because they were taught pagan Plato-type beliefs in an immotal soul) that the only hope for an eternal life is through a resurrection.

~ I was taught by Baptists, Pentacostals, Catholics, etc., about God putting our already ALIVE beings back into a body and being resurrected and for the life of me, could only say, What? That doesn't make any sense whatsover. Like this... a man dies who is not a Christian, off he goes into hell to suffer, only to be brought back into his original body to be judged (again?) and then thrown into hell again? LOL. Too funny. Ridiculous, even. Why resurrect him to suffer his fate that he is already suffering? LOL. Sorry, but it has no logic at all.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
24 posted 2006-09-03 12:48 PM


Brad,

"'nuff said."

~ I am not sure what you meant by that reply, but I'll tell you this. I would rather have someone be honest with me about what he or she believes regarding a matter such as the eternal state of myself, among others, than to be two-faced, and smile in my face speaking niceties (is that a word? ) while behind my back saying, "That person is wrong and will perish forever in a hellfire."  

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
25 posted 2006-09-04 10:21 PM


"How come there are Bible passages where the human spirit seems to be able to "exist, think, feel, be alive on its own"?  Most notably: 1st Samuel 28:8-20, Luke 9:28-31, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, 2 Corinthians 12:2.."

1st Samuel 28:8;20:

~ I argued this one with Jim in the past. It is an abomination to God to use a medium for anything. Of course, that was not Samuel, but an evil spirit pretending to be Samuel. There is more to it, but look up the thread of the past, I am not going over it all again.

Luke 9:28-31

~ The transfiguration was simply a viewing of an event to come at a later time.

2 Cor. 5:6-8

~ Paul merely states that while in a mortal body, one cannot be "with" the Lord. It won't be until one is born again at the 2nd coming - born into a spiritual body that one can be with the Lord.

... and the last 2 Cor. is merely a vision that God gave Paul, not something that happened already. If you don't believe that, read in Acts where Peter states that DAVID DID NOT ASCEND into the HEAVENS. Now if David didn't, I am sure no other in the Spirit of God did. And, Christ stated that NO MAN has ascended into heaven except for Himself. Clear cut evidence over these verses that can interpreted differently.

~ Take the direct evidence first, then one can interpret other evidence (secondary) to support one's claim.

"I think your display of Bible verses is a partial one, that hasn't brought in all the information, for a fuller picture."

~ There is not one Biblical verse that I haven't studied in order to prove or disprove what I am stating to be the truth.



"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
26 posted 2006-09-04 10:42 PM


~ Now, where one can argue passages that could be interpreted differently, there are passages that are CLEAR-CUT. Where the author of the passage states something that is "black and white" and the only way to say otherwise would be due to a carnal mind, one that is not of the Spirit of God, but of a carnal mind, which is an enemy to the Spiritual mind of those truly called by God.

~ I am sure, if those in Christ who died, or those who died in the OT that were called by God, could praise God, they would, but David states otherwise:

Psalms 115:17

"The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence."


~ The only way to argue against this is to use some sort of postmodernist black isn't white or a Clintonesque, alone is not to actually be alone.

~ The DEAD PRAISE NOT the Lord. People who are dead cannot praise the Lord. Why? Because they are dead. LOL!

~ That passage is DIRECT evidence compared to 1Sam, Luke, etc., that was given to me to show how I am in error.  


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (09-04-2006 11:16 PM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
27 posted 2006-09-04 11:46 PM


~ The Biblical verse:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit." Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven."

My comment:

~ The first man was MADE a living soul. He does not POSSESS a soul, but IS a living soul. Get it? Paul hopes so.  The last Adam, he is referring to is Jesus and there is that phrase, a quickening spirit. That is what it means to be truly "born again." Adam was made a living being, he was a natural being, but will become a spiritual being (born again) like Christ, but when? Paul answers that..."

~ Stephanos' comment:

"That use of scripture that man was made a "living soul" does not disprove a composite nature at all.  Paul is here contrasting the merely natural life, with the life of Christ ..."

~ So, you talked with Paul to confirm that opinion? Of course not. That is what I am talking about adding carnal knowledge to the scriptures. Man was MADE A LIVING SOUL. Without any carnal knowledge implied, these words state that WE ARE as soul, not that WE HAVE a soul. Otherwise, Paul would of not said what he said. In fact, (and if you want me to look it up for you, I will), in Genesis, animials are souls and DEAD SOULS at that.

"... contrasting "earthiness" with "spiritual".  He's not even speaking about whether or not man has a transient state, his purposes don't seem to follow along those lines."

~ You inject a "transient state" into these passages. Don't you understand that? Take that away, and it doesn't even "follow suit." Read these passages with an open and Spiritual mind, and you will see the errors of your interpetation. Paul does not speak of a "transient soul" because to him, there is no such thing as one.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
28 posted 2006-09-05 02:30 AM


JCP:
quote:
1st Samuel 28:8;20:

~ I argued this one with Jim in the past. It is an abomination to God to use a medium for anything. Of course, that was not Samuel, but an evil spirit pretending to be Samuel. There is more to it, but look up the thread of the past, I am not going over it all again.



Does the Bible say it's not Samuel?  Or does the author narrate as if it is Samuel? Let's see ... I'm going to underline where I think the text tells us that it's Samuel.


" ... Then the woman asked, 'Whom shall I bring up for you?'


'Bring up Samuel,' he said.


When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, 'Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!'


The king said to her, 'Don't be afraid. What do you see?'


The woman said, 'I see a spirit coming up out of the ground.'


'What does he look like?' he asked.


'An old man wearing a robe is coming up,' she said.  


Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.


Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?'


'I am in great distress,' Saul said. 'The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do.'


Samuel said, 'Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy? The LORD has done what he predicted through me. The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors—to David. Because you did not obey the LORD or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the LORD has done this to you today. The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines.'


Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, filled with fear because of Samuel's words. His strength was gone, for he had eaten nothing all that day and night.


(1st Samuel 28:11-20)



So, it at least looks certain that the author would have disagreed with you about "Samuel" being a demon.


Also this "evil spirit" spoke prophetically the word of the Lord.  hmmmm ... prophet ... same vocation as Samuel.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...


quote:
The transfiguration was simply a viewing of an event to come at a later time.


Let's see, how "time" comes into play in the passage itself ...


"About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem." (Luke 9:28-31)


So, this was an event in the future, and yet they talked about what was going to happen at the cross in Jerusalem?


I'm not pretending to understand the mysteries of such an incident, but one thing I know is that it isn't "simply" a viewing of a future event.

  
quote:
So, you talked with Paul to confirm that opinion? Of course not. That is what I am talking about adding carnal knowledge to the scriptures. Man was MADE A LIVING SOUL. Without any carnal knowledge implied, these words state that WE ARE as soul, not that WE HAVE a soul. Otherwise, Paul would of not said what he said.


There's little doubt that the word "soul" has been used to describe the whole man, but also to describe the "spirit" and the "mind" of man.  That's not carnal knowledge.  That's observation.  You oversimplify Paul, and take singular verses isolated from his other statements.  such as in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 where he wrote "... and the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."


If man is not a composite being, then why would Paul describe him in composite terms?  


quote:
You inject a "transient state" into these passages. Don't you understand that? Take that away, and it doesn't even "follow suit." Read these passages with an open and Spiritual mind, and you will see the errors of your interpetation. Paul does not speak of a "transient soul" because to him, there is no such thing as one.


You also "inject" your own terms and phrases such as "does not exist", and "non-existent".  But you won't hear me faulting you for that.  You are merely describing your view.  So I ask you not to fault me with using the phrase "transient soul", especially since that's exactly what you are refuting.


It's just not a valid argument to say "that exact phrase isn't in the Bible".  There are many phrases in theology (including yours) that aren't in the Bible.  I'll avoid such quick attempts at a "score" if you will.  I think at this point, it's really a matter of examining scripture in a broader way, and seeing what light the whole seems to cast on this subject.  


I'll reply later to your use of the Psalms.  They are poetic, not doctrinal treatises.  However they do refect the theology of their time ... which was focused on an Earthly life that glorified God.  "Sheol" for the Jew was a shadowy world of mystery, about which he didn't know much.  So it's understandable that such passages were in Psalter.  But there are other passages in the Old Testaments (of which 1 Samuel 28 is only one example) where Sheol is presented as anything but a state of "non-existence"

quote:
... I'll tell you this. I would rather have someone be honest with me about what he or she believes regarding a matter such as the eternal state of myself, among others, than to be two-faced, and smile in my face speaking niceties while behind my back saying, "That person is wrong and will perish forever in a hellfire."


Didn't we already have another thread dealing with that thought?  I'm not here to debate that really, because I thought this thread was about the soul.  Eternal Punishment is a seperate issue entirely, as a person who doesn't believe in an "immortal soul" can still believe in an eternal place of punishment ... (see Acts 24:14-16)


"However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.  So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man."


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-05-2006 03:46 AM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
29 posted 2006-09-05 06:50 PM


~ I am not going to go through this entire argument again about Samuel, Gods and soothsayers.

~ There are only two likely possibilities: One, the Bible is fallible ficitious book or two that was not the real Samuel.

~ Why?

~ Because these are God's words:

DEUT. 18:10-12

"There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer."

~ Why?

"For all that do these things [are] an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee."

~ God would allow a soothsayer to conjure up the prophet Samuel from the dead when that sort of thing is an ABOMINATION to Him? There is no way, that that could be possible, unless God is a liar or can't control Satan.

~ Not only that, God explicity states that he WILL NOT ANSWER by prophet.

1SAM 28:6

"And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets."

~ Samuel most certainly was a prophet and the Lord would not answer by prophet. Now, if that was truly Samuel, God is either a liar or He can't control the soothsaying woman. LOL!

~ Damn women, even God can't control'em.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
30 posted 2006-09-06 12:01 PM


JCP:
quote:
There are only two likely possibilities: One, the Bible is fallible ficitious book or two that was not the real Samuel.

Actually there's a third possibility, which I'll explain in a moment, that makes the most sense out of the text at hand, and the whole Bible.  No need to call this a ventriloquist act that deceives not only the witch and Saul, but the writer himself.  Also no need to doubt the integrity of the scriptures.


quote:
God would allow a soothsayer to conjure up the prophet Samuel from the dead when that sort of thing is an ABOMINATION to Him? There is no way, that that could be possible, unless God is a liar or can't control Satan.


Since when does God not "allow" acts which are an abomination to him?  You're forgetting that Saul was rebuked by Samuel, rather than praised for his rendezvous with the witch.


The fact that necromancy was forbidden in scripture doesn't tie God's hands in any way.  How does having forbidden this practice, limit God's ability or prerogative to speak within the circumstances of Saul's disobedience, a word of judgement?


And how would that make God a Liar?  The word to Saul was very much in line with such a practice being an abomination, seeing that God was wroth with him.  Samuel's words were severe to Saul.  


Lastly, that seems to me to be the opposite of "not being able to control Satan".  The fact that God could speak even in the context of a King's disobedience, and in the context of a forbidden practice of necromancy, tells me that God is Lord over all of it.  


You must remember that such an unexpected event (and jurisdiction) is not foreign to scripture.  God spoke amazing truth through another soothsayer named Balaam as well.  Who made man's mouth?  


quote:
"And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets."


Is that a simple statement of fact, or an absolute?  If you'll notice, that was before Saul's tryst with the witch.  You're mistaking simple narration, for statements of absolute law.  But in the flow of time, it all makes sense.  God had been giving Saul the silent treatment in the past, only to finally settle the score with him at the end.  Our approach with people changes with their circumstances, why would God be more limited than we are, in this regard?

quote:
Damn women, even God can't control'em.


You're own your own now buddy.  I can neither condone nor participate in such a conversation, for my own health's sake.  

  
Stephen.        

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
31 posted 2006-09-06 06:53 PM


There is a better question right in front of you Jesus.  Look harder for the real inconsistency.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
32 posted 2006-09-06 07:01 PM


~ I really do believe things are simpler than what others would want us to believe.

Ecc. 9:5

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing ..."

~ That agrees with Psalms and the dead not being able to praise God. How can one say that the Bible doesn't mean what it says at the face value unless one attempts to twist the passages to suit his/her denomination?

The dead know nothing. The dead do not praise God. From dust thou art and from dust thou shall return.The soul that sins is the soul that dies.

~ If a child happened upon these verses, without any influence from other sources, that child would know that one doesn't live after death in some sort of "separation." Again, if death meant to merely separate, than why wasn't this word used?

parad

~ Surely, if the author who quoted the soul that sinneth is the soul that will die meant to SEPARATE, he would of said PARAD! He didn't. I think he knows the difference.

~ Now onto Samuel the prophet and Saul. Why would God give up Samuel's spirit to the soothsayer when God said He would not answer him through an medium, of course the use of a medium is an abomination to the Lord, but since the spirit of Samuel returned to God upon death, how could the soothsayer get ahold of it?

Ecc. 12:7

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

~ It is quite clear that Samuel's spirit returned to God, I guess He said He didn't want it. LOL

~ Now Paul compares death to sleep, and I am not going through that again. When one sleeps, one does not know of the passing of time, nor can one praise God. The soul of a human being merely means the life of the human being, or a dead animal for that matter, and does not mean a Plato (et al.) pagan doctrine of an immortal soul.

Gen. 2:7

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground,"

~ Notice man was not formed after anything but from dust of the ground. No immortal soul was put inside him. In fact, HE BECAME a living NEPHESH.

~ That same NEPHESH is referred to as living or DEAD ANIMALS too.

~ The meaning of nephesh is a broad one, and so expected after so many years of influences on the word.

properly, a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental):--any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead(-ly), desire, X (dis-)contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart(-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-)self, them (your)-selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.


~ When Christ said to fear Him who can destroy both BODY and SOUL in Gehenna fire, is often misinterpeted. It is rather simple: Don't fear a human who can only kill you from your earthly existence (body), but fear Him who can destroy your LIFE - the 2nd death, in the Lake of Fire.

~ This specific passage about Samuel has to be looked at for what it is - a spirit resembling Samuel. Unless, God decided to give Samuel's spirit to Satan, which is silly. In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter states that even David is still dead and buried:

Acts. 2:29

"Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day."

~ Whatever David is, is dead and buried. Not David's body, but DAVID, HIMSELF, the ENTIRE David. And it makes perfectly good sense that if David was dead and buried so was Samuel.

~ A test from the true Spirit of God, for sure.  



"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
33 posted 2006-09-06 07:02 PM


"There is a better question right in front of you Jesus.  Look harder for the real inconsistency."

~ If I had the time. Please, enlighten me.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
34 posted 2006-09-06 07:17 PM


"God had been giving Saul the silent treatment in the past, only to finally settle the score with him at the end."

~ Not buying it. Read what I previously quoted. Sorcery, witchcraft, etc., is an ABOMINATION to God. If it wasn't, I'd agree. Now, are you saying that God is saying:

"Do as I say, not as I do?

LOL ~ We, parents are in big trouble if that is true.

Or, are you saying that we can use EVIL in acts of righteousness?

"Our approach with people changes with their circumstances, why would God be more limited than we are, in this regard?"

~ That is not for the carnal mind to ask, because the carnal mind is at enemy with God. We must rely on the Bible, not a philosophical-carnal way of thinking. I could agree with you if the Bible stated that God, in fact, changed his mind and used what IS an abomination to Him for .... what purpose again? Even Satan can tell the truth. It is clear to me, Saul turned to the devil, not only that, to believe what you believe, you'd have to throw out the numerous CLEAR CUT passages provided.




"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
35 posted 2006-09-06 11:03 PM


http://askelm.com/doctrine/d060101.htm

Excerpt:


Job and Immortal Soul

The patriarch Job asked an important question that goes to the heart of the matter regarding the supposed immortal soul. He asked this question while undergoing intense suffering. The question involves you and all humanity:

“If a man die, shall he live again?”

(Job 14:14)

The answer to this question is yes, but the obvious inference is that the dead are not alive. One is either alive or dead.

All have sinned (Romans 5:12) and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The soul that sins shall not remain alive in another state of existence or state of being, it shall die:

“the soul that sins, it shall die”

(Ezekiel 18:4).

In light of this, let us enlarge the context and look at the Job passage again:

“So man lies down, and rises not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. O that you would hide me in the grave, that you would keep me secret, until your wrath be past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.  You shall call, and I will answer you: you will have a desire to the work of your hands.”

Job 14:12–15

This passage in Job is not describing an immortal soul. It is a statement that the dead are dead. They are unconscious, nonexistent — for a period of time — until God calls them and changes the death state like “sleep” to be “awake.” The dead are not immortal. They do not have an immortal soul. Immortality only comes from God, when He chooses to give it.

At the time Job expressed his thoughts, written after his experience of great loss and suffering, he understood that the resurrection would not occur until the heavens cease to exist. He was content to wait “until my change come.” It is doubtful that he understood details about the new heavens and new earth, we cannot tell from what he wrote. To be sure, for the vast percentage of humanity their resurrection will not occur until after the Kingdom of God has been on earth for 1,000 years, the new heavens and the new earth are created, and the Great White Throne judgment begins. This fits precisely with what Job wrote.

“Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

1 Corinthians 15:12

~ I'll interject here. It is quite clear that the people of Corinth were already duped by pagan philosophers (read the entire article given), and Paul had to explain to them that there IS NO SUCH THING AS AN IMMORTAL SOUL.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
36 posted 2006-09-06 11:05 PM


interesting topic, JCP.

There is a chapter in The Late Great Planet Earth which goes into detail what "sleep" and "death" means as is used in the Bible passages and also about how one is ascended to Heaven.

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
37 posted 2006-09-06 11:12 PM


http://www.republic-christadelphians.org/immortal.html

~ I am adding this article for one purpose only, I am not an affiliate with any denomination.

~ Notice that Martin Luther did not (at least at one point in his life) believe in the immortal soul doctrine.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
38 posted 2006-09-06 11:17 PM


"There is a chapter in The Late Great Planet Earth which goes into detail what "sleep" and "death" means as is used in the Bible passages and also about how one is ascended to Heaven.

~ I may have to check that out.

~ Yet, what p**ses me off the most about the mainstream christian faith, is how they scare people into accepting Christ. The hellfire doctrine is a powerful tool to use to recruit people. The more people, the more money.

~ To me, it is crystal clear that God is not trying to save the world now, yet that belief would put just about every christian church out of business.

~ God will save virtually every person who lived, but now is not the time.

~ There have been some close people to me who suffered over what mainstream christians preach, and maybe that is why I do what I do. I am not asking for people to believe it, but if some people read what I quote, maybe, just maybe, God will show them they don't have to suffer and fret over believing in something they don't or cannot understand.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
39 posted 2006-09-07 12:58 PM


People suffer over what Exxon, McDonalds, Las Vegas, Jack Daniels, and Marlboro preach.

There are many who find thier lives UN-suffered because of finding a faith.  Unless you have something to offer that's better -- why blow down thier house?

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
40 posted 2006-09-07 01:11 AM


"There are many who find thier lives UN-suffered because of finding a faith.  Unless you have something to offer that's better -- why blow down thier house?"

~ Good question, but that is not what I am doing. There is a HUGE differnce in the Christianity I am preaching as to what traditional christianity preaches.

~ God is not trying to save the world now, nor is he calling everyone at this time. For the majority of those people whom you speak for, it is not their concern about these Biblical matters. So, there houses need not to be blown down. They are simply not being called. If one is being called, they will understand the truth and then care to seek out more about the truth.

~ The gate is wide to destruction, but the path is narrow, that is meant to those being called, like me (which I believe I am failing). Therefore, those who are concerned about the things you mentioned will not ever have to worry about what "is better."  


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
41 posted 2006-09-07 01:27 AM


~ God allows suffering for a very specific reason - For all of us to understand that if we refuse His ways, we are doomed to suffer. The humankind will then know this fact upon our resurrection, when the overwhelming majority will relate that fact to what God and His saints teach (See Isaiah), for no longer will our brother teach it, but those appointed by God, and the overwhelming majority of all who lived - the mentally retarded, the tribes-people who never heard of Jesus, the babies and children who died so young, etc., will believe and become born again into eternal life.

~ This is the true message of hope of an eternal life.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
42 posted 2006-09-08 01:49 AM


JCP:
quote:
That is not for the carnal mind to ask, because the carnal mind is at enemy with God. We must rely on the Bible, not a philosophical-carnal way of thinking. I could agree with you if the Bible stated that God, in fact, changed his mind and used what IS an abomination to Him for .... what purpose again?



Firstly I'd like to ask: Is all biblical inference carnal because you didn't do it?  You also are adding ideas to the scriptures, whenever you speak beyond it's text.  Actually it's unavoidable.  It's called "interpretation".  


Secondly, the Bible does give examples where God used what is an "abomination" to him.  1) Balaam the Pagan Sorcerer prophesied one of the longest prophecies in the Bible, and it was from God.  2) God used a nation that did not know him (Babylon), to "speak" to Israel in judgement. 3) The apostate high Priest Caiaphas, also spoke words of prophecy unwittingly.  Since we have such examples in scripture, we may conclude that this it is not necessarily "carnal" thinking, to state that God is not limited in his speech.  


He forbade mankind from necromancy.  But he never forbade the "dead" to speak of their own accord, which is what Samuel did as a prophet.  You are making an unnecessary connection between Saul's wrong action, and the free agency of God and the prophet Samuel.  Saul did what was forbidden.  But I don't recall God ever forbidding prophets to speak, dead or otherwise.


So it makes little sense to think that God would have to "change his mind" when God never prohibited anything except consulting mediums.  Did God consult a medium?  Did Samuel?  


Your position here reminds me of blaming a bakery for making bread, just because a thief was caught eating it.


Stephen.    

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
43 posted 2006-09-08 07:41 PM


"Firstly I'd like to ask: Is all biblical inference carnal because you didn't do it?  You also are adding ideas to the scriptures, whenever you speak beyond it's text.  Actually it's unavoidable.  It's called "interpretation"."

~ As the Hertz commercial states, "Not exactly." One can't add or take away from the Bible. Also, if one does not possess the true Spirit of God, then one interprets out of vain philosophies and doctrines of men. That is why Christ talked about worshipping Him in vain based on commandments and doctrines of men. That is why Christ stated that Satan appears as minister of righteousness, and to beware of those who preach "another Christ." That is why Paul stated that the carnal mind (one that is not of the true Spirit) is an enemy to God.

~ Now, back to Samuel. You, Stephanos, are the person adding to this passage. For some reason, and it is not found in the passages, you believe, in your opinion, based on your thought, that God somehow changed His mind regarding Saul. However, it states clearly, that God would not answer Him through prophet, and no where does it state He changed His mind. You add that, based on the pagan belief of an immortal soul that goes on live after one dies, yet all of the clear cut passages state that the dead know nothing and are asleep in the Ground. Read the excerpt about Job.  

"He forbade mankind from necromancy.  But he never forbade the "dead" to speak of their own accord, which is what Samuel did as a prophet."

~ LOL. God would not allow an alive Samuel to slip to Satan's side, but would give up a dead Samuel's spirit to Satan for use in sorcery. Sorry, that is flat out not scriptual. The dead KNOW NOTHING. That is point blank in one's face a direct testimony of the dead. And if the dead know nothing, then a dead Samuel doesn't know any information to give to Saul.

"Your position here reminds me of blaming a bakery for making bread, just because a thief was caught eating it."

~ Your analogy doesn't work.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
44 posted 2006-09-09 01:09 AM


"Your position here reminds me of blaming a bakery for making bread, just because a thief was caught eating it."

~ And your position reminds me of how Bill Clinton once described himself as not being alone, meaning even though he was alone in his office, he wasn't really alone since there were other people somewhere else in the White House. Also, that how one defines the word "is" comes to mind.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
45 posted 2006-09-09 02:02 AM


quote:
it states clearly, that God would not answer Him through prophet, and no where does it state He changed His mind.

Would not? ... or did not?


"And when Saul saw the host of the Philistines,  he was afraid, and his heart greatly trembled.

And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
" (1 Samuel 28:5-6)


Seems that this passage merely says "The LORD answered him not".  That's past tense.  No divine limitation on God's own prerogative to speak is given in the text.  So he didn't have to "change his mind" in order to speak through Samuel at a later time.


And if you're really serious about not wanting to "add" to scripture, or twist it with fanciful theories ... Let's see what the scripture says about the personage you call an "evil spirit" ...


"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
" (28:16-17)



Stephen

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
46 posted 2006-09-09 12:13 PM


1SAM. 28:13

"And the king said to her, "Do not be afraid. What did you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth."

~ So, Samuel is a God? Who did the woman see ascending from the ground? She seen a spirit and that spirit was ELOHIYM, not the same word used for a man's spirit. And notice that the spirit ascended from the earth, yet Solomon tells us that upon death, man's spirit returns to God who gave it. I guess God was hanging out inside the earth those days.

Me: "I will not let you go to the concert."

The person transcribing writes:

"And he would not let him go to the concert."


~ No where does it state later that he allowed him to go to the concert.

~ Now, wasn't Eve, a woman, deceived in the Garden of Eden, no doubt here is another example of the devil deceiving others, especially Saul, since he turned to what is an abomination to the Lord, and had the nerve to lie in the name of Lord. His heart and mind was FAR from God and was easily deceived by the ELOHIYM (evil spirit) that ascended from the ground, not the spirit of Samuel "RUWACH" descending from heaven.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
47 posted 2006-09-09 02:41 PM


quote:
So, Samuel is a God? Who did the woman see ascending from the ground?


This is the woman's own description, not the narrator's.  "Elohim" is the plural form of a word that simply means a "god".  And the witch, in awe, was simply stating what she thought she saw. Here it is in context: (I've underlined certain notable parts)


"When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!"

The king said to her, "Don't be afraid. What do you see?"

The woman said, "I see a god (or gods) coming up out of the ground."

"What does he look like?" he asked.

"An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said.

Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.
"


So your interpretation is weak for these reasons:

1) The narrator says "when the witch saw Samuel", thus making it clear that despite the witches general description of seeing "gods", this personage was indeed the prophet Samuel.  


2) The witch's association with sorcery would doubtless make her somewhat unfamiliar with the identification of the Hebrew prophet Samuel.  So her mistake is entirely understandable.


3) The witch's description of what this "god" looked like, turned out to be an exact portrait of Samuel.      


4) Saul, being closely aquainted with Samuel, agrees with the narrator, and takes this "god" to be Samuel.


Wouldn't it be much simpler to just conclude that the witch, not being a fan of Hebrew prophets, simply gave a fanciful description of what this episode looked like to her? ... like "gods" coming up out of the earth?  

Your solution makes it necessary to overthrow the narrator's and everyone else's view. (a solution that leads to a myriad of interpretive difficulty)  Mine only makes it necessary to think that the witch didn't know what she was seeing at the time.


quote:
She seen a spirit and that spirit was ELOHIYM, not the same word used for a man's spirit.



Actually the word "Elohim" was not only used to describe "gods", but also governmental rulers (judges) and angels.  And while I don't think the context of this passage supports the idea that the witch was speaking of Samuel as a "judge", (her own association with paganism makes 'gods' much more likely) I merely wanted to point out that the word has been used to describe humans.  


quote:
And notice that the spirit ascended from the earth, yet Solomon tells us that upon death, man's spirit returns to God who gave it. I guess God was hanging out inside the earth those days.
  


First of all, Ecclesiastes is "dialogical literature where Solomon debates many musings within himself.  Many of his subjects are pardoxically approached.  For example, at one time he talks of the "vanity" of life, and at other times speaks of the ability to enjoy life being a gift from God.  But regardless of what you think about Ecclesiastes (or Job for that matter), these cannot be hijacked as doctrinal treatises, as they often express many observations of the natural and philosophical kind, in a dialectical kind of way.  

But aside from mistaking the contemplative passages of Ecclesiastes for doctrinal treatises, you've still got another problem ... If Solomon speaks of "God" being one's ultimate destination, then quibbling over where 'Sheol' may be, is superfluous.  That's like saying that since I left for New York yesterday, I can't be sleeping in North Carolina tonight.  


But I think your main problem is trying to makes Solomon's (and Job's) poetic musings into technical descriptions.  


quote:
Me: "I will not let you go to the concert."

The person transcribing writes:

"And he would not let him go to the concert."

~ No where does it state later that he allowed him to go to the concert.



Let's grant that the text says "I will not let you go to the concert".


Then the faulty interpreter concludes that that must mean "I will never ever let you go to the concert".  


And later we do have what appears to be a concert.  But to save our interpretation, we say it was a devil impersonating Jerry Garcia.  Isn't it easier just to admit that it was the "Grateful Dead" after all?    


quote:
His heart and mind was FAR from God and was easily deceived by the ELOHIYM (evil spirit) that ascended from the ground, not the spirit of Samuel "RUWACH" descending from heaven.



Oh, now you've got the even thornier theological problem of believing that an evil spirit prophesied the exact truth of what would happen to Saul, at the hand of God's judgement.  Care to explain that one?


Stephen.
    

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-09-2006 03:14 PM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
48 posted 2006-09-09 03:59 PM


~ The majority of your latest retort is just a mere rehash of what you have already stated. To say that Solomon didn't mean that the dead know nothing and to say that David didn't mean that the dead do not praise God, and to say that Paul didn't really mean that people are "asleep" in the earth, and to say the excerpt given from Job doesn't clearly state the state of dead, and I could go on and on with more clear-cut passages, while you provide to me passages that can be interpreted differently, does us no good.  

~ But I will answer this:

"Oh, now you've got the even thornier theological problem of believing that an evil spirit prophesied the exact truth of what would happen to Saul, at the hand of God's judgement.  Care to explain that one?"

~ Too easy. A demon spirit can tell the truth, and in this case God obviously wasn't going to answer Saul and the outcome was easily predicted. Satan is the Lord of this World. He does have some power to know what is going on.

MAT. 8:28-29

"And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God?, ...

... art thou come hither to torment us before the time?


~ Um, yes. They knew.  

~ Clearly Satan and his evil spirits can tell the truth, as they were correct. Jesus is the Son of God.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
49 posted 2006-09-10 01:51 AM


"But aside from mistaking the contemplative passages of Ecclesiastes for doctrinal treatises, you've still got another problem ..."

~ Says you and mainstream christianity. It is easy for one to make an interpretation work, if they say, when reading this passage it is only a musing, but while reading this passage it is not. Maybe, it is God's way of separating those who understand what is the true Lamb and what is Azazel.

"If Solomon speaks of "God" being one's ultimate destination, then quibbling over where 'Sheol' may be, is superfluous.  That's like saying that since I left for New York yesterday, I can't be sleeping in North Carolina tonight."

~ Your analogies fail again. If there was a "stop over" then you are adding it, Solomon clearly states that the spirit, upon death, returns to God who gave it. No where does he say, "Upon death, the spirit returns to God upon death, but it first makes a stop in North Carolina."

"But I think your main problem is trying to makes Solomon's (and Job's) poetic musings into technical descriptions."

~ Yeah, right. When mainstream christianity doesn't have an answer, it can easily say that Job and Solomon's words are merely poetic musings.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
50 posted 2006-09-13 02:00 AM


quote:
Me: "now you've got the even thornier theological problem of believing that an evil spirit prophesied the exact truth of what would happen to Saul, at the hand of God's judgement.  Care to explain that one?"

JCP: Too easy. A demon spirit can tell the truth, and in this case God obviously wasn't going to answer Saul and the outcome was easily predicted. Satan is the Lord of this World. He does have some power to know what is going on.



The outcome may have been easily predicted in a very general sense of things.  But you have to contend with the fact that this "spirit" predicted the future with a degree of accuracy only befitting prophets.  The philistine victory, and the very day it would happen.  The death of Saul and his sons, and the very day it would happen.  If an evil spirit has that degree of prophetic insight, then you'll have to admit it is the only place in scripture which illustrates it in such precision.  


Conversely, it's certainly not the only place in scripture where prophets in general, and Samuel in particular have been described as demonstrating such prophetic accuracy.  In Samuel's childhood we read this: "And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground.".  


It's still quacking an awfully lot like a duck.  


quote:
Clearly Satan and his evil spirits can tell the truth, as they were correct. Jesus is the Son of God.


But there may be a difference in "telling the truth" and in detailed prediction of the future.  The former is attributed to many in scripture, the latter only to certain "prophetic" types.  I'm not saying you can't believe that about demons or Satan.  But what I am saying is that I don't think you have a strong case for it from scripture.  


quote:
Says you and mainstream christianity. It is easy for one to make an interpretation work, if they say, when reading this passage it is only a musing, but while reading this passage it is not. Maybe, it is God's way of separating those who understand what is the true Lamb and what is Azazel.



Maybe, but maybe not.  If something is true it's going to be supportable by textual explanation ... including consideration of what "type" of literature we are dealing with when examining a particular passage of scripture.  For example, you haven't explained to me how, if you take scripture always as doctrinal establishment, we have such contradictory passages in the "poetry" sections of scripture.  


That's why, if I had more doctrinal confidence in the "writings" (or the fairly distinct dialogical and poetic parts of scripture), I would quote such passages as:


"The dead are in deep anguish, those beneath the waters and all that live in them." (Job 26:5)


I don't know how you deal with the fact that the non-existent dead here are "in anguish", understanding statements in Job as fiats of dogma the way you do.  But I personally couldn't even convince myself of my own position using such poetic passages.  Why?  Because of the type of literature and the playful paradoxical statements that are all through such works.

quote:
Me:But I think your main problem is trying to makes Solomon's (and Job's) poetic musings into technical descriptions.

JCPYeah, right. When mainstream christianity doesn't have an answer, it can easily say that Job and Solomon's words are merely poetic musings.



But I have explained it, and demonstrated it with the text itself.  You can also read for yourself how the Jewish Rabbis approached such scriptures, and see that it had little to do with rigid theology.  (though I don't deny that there's a rightful place for that in scripture too).  


And to clarify:  I never said that Job or Ecclesiastes was "merely" poetry.  That makes it sound like I think that it has no meaning, or value whatsoever.  Hey, I'm a poet.  You ought to know better than that.       I just don't think that you can pass Job off as an ancient "Westminster Confession of Faith", or something like that.


Lastly, you're right.  We're only repeating ourselves again, for the most part.  Wanna give it a break?  Brad did say "nuff said".    


Stephen.



JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
51 posted 2006-09-13 10:37 PM


"That which is mortal must put on immortality."

"Not everyone shall sleep ..."

~ Those passages are from the NT. To say that sleeping people are able to praise God, as David said in the OT, that the dead do not praise God, and to say that we are immortal - that are souls are alive  and alert after death, goes directly against these passages.

~ The immortal soul doctrine is one of pagan philosophical origins. The Bible clearly states that a carnal mind is an enemy to God and that in vain do people worship Christ believing in doctrines and philosophies of men.

~ To suggest that bible contradicts itself, only makes the bible and christianity bogus as all other religions.

~ To suggest that a loving God would allow Satan to deceive the world and then sentence those people to eternal torture is only a belief that can be derived from Satan himself.

~ You replied to many passages that can be interpreted differently, but you still have not answered why the need of a resurrection of a body, if person is already suffering in hell or being awarded in heaven. I have heard all of the mainstream answers and none of them make any logical sense. To say that a person's immortal soul goes immediately to another place upon death takes away the need of a resurrection.

~ Not only that, explain how in Acts, Peter stated that David did not ascend into the heavens. If saved people die and go to heaven upon death, David would certainly be there.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
52 posted 2006-09-14 07:40 PM


JCP:
quote:
"That which is mortal must put on immortality."

"Not everyone shall sleep ..."

~ Those passages are from the NT. To say that sleeping people are able to praise God, as David said in the OT, that the dead do not praise God, and to say that we are immortal - that are souls are alive  and alert after death, goes directly against these passages.



Still insisting on the exact precision of metaphors?  Then why claim that a "sleeping person" refers to non-being?


quote:
The immortal soul doctrine is one of pagan philosophical origins.


My case has been that the Hebrew tradition, quite seperately, contained the idea of a "spirit" or "soul" beyond death.  As I explained before, there are subtle differences in this view and the Platonic view of an "immortal soul".  For the Jew would never dream that one's human spirit would have innate properties of "immortality".

quote:
The Bible clearly states that a carnal mind is an enemy to God and that in vain do people worship Christ believing in doctrines and philosophies of men.

To suggest that bible contradicts itself, only makes the bible and christianity bogus as all other religions.



I'm not suggesting that the Bible contradicts itself.  I'm only suggesting that it's teaching about what is Carnal is not so simplistic as you make it out to be ... ie, Pagan versus Jewish.  So even if something were "Pagan" in thought, doesn't mean automatically that it was unspiritual.  


But either way, I'll alse continue to insist that the Old Testament's nascent revelations of Life beyond death, developed quite independently of Greek thought.


quote:
To suggest that a loving God would allow Satan to deceive the world and then sentence those people to eternal torture is only a belief that can be derived from Satan himself.


To continue to suggest that the doctrine of eternal punishment is in any way dependent upon believing in an "immortal soul" is beyond me.  

quote:
You replied to many passages that can be interpreted differently, but you still have not answered why the need of a resurrection of a body, if person is already suffering in hell or being awarded in heaven. I have heard all of the mainstream answers and none of them make any logical sense. To say that a person's immortal soul goes immediately to another place upon death takes away the need of a resurrection.



That's still just like asking, "What need of a birth is there, when there's already been a conception?"  

You keep confusing "logic" with narrative description.  It's not logical or illogical that the ocean is wet, and the desert is dry.  It's not logical or illogical that we should be given 5 senses instead of 8.  it just happens to be the nature of things.  Is it "logical" that a ressurrection should occur and reverse death, undoing what was already done?  My point is, when the Bible speaks in a descriptive mode, your imposition of "logic" is out of place ... especially seeing that we are not given a lot of techincal information about the post-mortem state, but only a few provocative "pictures".  
  

quote:
Not only that, explain how in Acts, Peter stated that David did not ascend into the heavens. If saved people die and go to heaven upon death, David would certainly be there.


Have you forgotten about the Jewish belief in "Sheol", which was most often depicted as being in the heart of the Earth, rather than in "Heaven"?


Stephen.

Kitherion
Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181
Johannesburg
53 posted 2007-02-02 07:30 AM


This s it:

Eccelsiaties states :

"For the dead are conscience of nothing..."

That should kinda tell you the answer to the immortal soul question. Who in thier right mind would believe such a non scriptual thing? The influence of paganism was and is still an important factor, but surely by using the bible you should be able to understand a basic concept?

Oh, and Stephanos:

Revelation clearly states that God will ressurect all to an erthly paradise... and only 144 000 to life in heaven (Revelation 14, and compare Isiah). Why else would God be, "making a new heavens and new earth"? Not only that, but the physical ressurection does not happen when the human soul leaves heaven and returns to earth. Once the human dies, we are rememebered in Gods memory and then are "recreated" so to speak by him after the day "of Jehovah's righteous anger." So it is obvious that the bible teaches that the soul is ot immortal, and that once we die, we are remembered "in the book of life" so that God Jehovah may ressurect us physically after Armaggeddon.

Angel4aKing
Senior Member
since 2006-09-27
Posts 1372
USA
54 posted 2007-02-04 05:14 AM


So I htink if I get this right there are only so many souls...correct? and when we go the soul needs a new body? but the spirit grows and moves? We are created again each time new in spirit? Hmmmm.

~~~kingsangel~~~

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » I Cor. 15

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary