Alive or dead

[OzSpen]

Ultimately there is no difference, however by God's patience he endures our stiff necked resistance to his Spirit till the appointed time.
However, even while this mortal body is wearing out or is still animated, man can cut himself off by hardening his heart from all of God's attempts to whooo him. In other words, he becomes spiritually dead.

qt,

I found this to be a reasonably good explanation of the difference between physical and spiritual gift:

According to Genesis 2:17, God told Adam that, if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would “surely die.” Some skeptics have tried to use this verse to show an inconsistency in the Bible, because Adam and Eve did not die the very day they ate of that fruit. However, there are different types of life, and there are different types of death. A person can be physically alive and spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1, 5) and vice versa (Matthew 22:32). When they sinned (Genesis 3:7), Adam and Eve immediately lost their spiritual life, they become “dead” to godliness, they forfeited Eden, and they came under God’s judgment (eternal death). Their shame triggered a correlating action, as they hid from God (Genesis 3:8)—their internal separation from God manifests itself in an external separation from Him.

In addition to the immediate spiritual death they experienced, they also began the process of physical death, even though it took many years for death to have its full effect. This can be better understood with the example of a flower. When you see a flower growing in a garden, you know it is alive, because it is connected to the stem and the roots, and is receiving nourishment from the ground. When you separate the flower from its life source, it still has the appearance of life, and can maintain that appearance for several days, depending on the conditions. Regardless of the care it is given, though, it is already dying, and that process cannot be reversed. The same is true for mankind (How is physical death related to spiritual death? Got Questions)​

They are not one and the same.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Agreed. As I said earlier, there is a lot of confusion regarding the afterlife, and the SDA church is responsible for quite a bit of it.

Would it help to present Bible truth? Not really. Some prefer the false ideas of their churches to the truth of God's Word.

You are dead right, Enoch. What makes it even more difficult is that I'm not hearing anything much from the pulpit of expositions of life after death.

I lead a small group of senior citizens in a weekly daytime Bible study. They asked for some studies on Life After Death. I had written some of these articles previously for my homepage, Truth Challenge, but I have most of the topics under LIFE AFTER DEATH INDEX. Throughout all of 2018 we studied this topic.

By the nature of the topics and of the personal gifts of this expositor, there will be topics which you might wholly or partly disagree with.

Blessings in Christ,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yes. Sin and sinners eradicated from the universe completely. Nothing will remain to mar God's creation. And the only reminders the scars on the hands of the Saviour.

You gave not one reference to Scripture in your statements. They sure sound like your opinions/assertions without a biblical base.

We know this from the Scriptures of the New Testament that after death, unbelievers are:

• Conscious and in torment (Luke 16:23);
• “Under punishment until the day of judgment” (2 Peter 2:9);
• Matt. 25:41, “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'”.
• Mark 9:43-44, “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell [gehenna], to the unquenchable fire”.
• Rev. 20:15, “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”.

Oz

 

[brakelite]

Eternal means forever...But who knows what He meant by punishment...
maybe just being away from God is punishment enough.

and the tree of life was in the Garden of Eden.

Re 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Re 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Re 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
I cannot see the tree of life, nor paradise in which it resides, as being in hell. Jesus said one day the thief would be with Him in paradise...and yes, Jesus did not go to Paradise until after He met Mary on the day of the resurrection. The evidence that Jesus went to hell is very very thin, and is based on assumptions not evident in the texts used. For example, the only text used as evidence for this startling revelation comes from Peter. We all know it. And it tells us when and how the gospel was preached to the people of Noah's day. First, it clearly says 'in the days of Noah', and secondly, it says 'by the spirit'. Now we also know from Jude I think that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. Did he not then preach the gospel by the spirit of Christ to those of his generation? Why would we deem Christ Himself gave those wicked people a second chance He gives no-one else?

brakelite,

That's because you don't understand what Abraham's Bosom means. Who went there in the story of the rich man and Lazarus? It was Lazarus, the poor man, of course! This is what it means:

It is his soul, of course, that was so borne by the angels, not his body. Into Abraham's bosom (ei ton olpon Abraam). To be in Abraham's bosom is to the Jew to be in Paradise. In John 1:18 the Logos is in the bosom of the Father. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in heaven and welcome those who come (Matthew 8:11 ; 4 Macc. 14:17). The beloved disciple reclined on the bosom of Jesus at the last passover (John 13:23 ) and this fact indicates special favour. So the welcome to Lazarus was unusual (A T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Luke 16:22).​

Your issue seems to be that you want to take each part of this parable to mean something specifically. That's not what the parable teaches. A parable has one meaning and it's primary meaning is that after death the righteous (illustrated by Lazarus) enjoy Paradise = heaven = Abraham's bosom. The damned (e.g. the rich man) are suffering conscious punishment while the believer is in the conscious heaven of bliss.

Oz

I agree with you that the parable was intended as a lesson for a specific point of truth. But context reveals what that point of truth was, and it wasn't about the after-life. The previous parable was on the subject of stewardship, and upon hearing that parable, the Bible says, and the Pharisees, who were covetous, derided Him. Then Jesus told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. This was a lesson to uncover the covetousness of the Pharisees and God's favour to Lazarus, who represented the Gentiles whom the Jews hated. (It took 10 years for Peter to learn that lesson so inculcated were the prejudices held within Israel). The rich man, who represented the Pharisees was indeed rich with understanding and knowledge of the things of God but had kept it to themselves denying the Gentiles and others outside of Israel to hear the truth. A short time later Jesus again demonstrated this when He spoke to the woman at the well when He tested her faith saying "it is not right to give to dogs". This was again the common expression of prejudice among Jewry toward Samaritans...yet we don't attempt to say today that Jesus thought all Samaritans were dogs do we? But we need to keep things in perspective. Jesus wasn't offering a lesson on the afterlife in the middle of a different context, but He was using a commonly held Jewish opinion on the afterlife to reveal their hypocrisy and selfishness.

 

[brakelite]

“Under punishment until the day of judgment” (2 Peter 2:9);

Does this rendering not create alarm bells ringing? What kind of God do you believe in that is willing to punish people before they are judged?

 

[Giuliano]

Re 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Re 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Re 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
I cannot see the tree of life, nor paradise in which it resides, as being in hell. Jesus said one day the thief would be with Him in paradise...and yes, Jesus did not go to Paradise until after He met Mary on the day of the resurrection. The evidence that Jesus went to hell is very very thin, and is based on assumptions not evident in the texts used. For example, the only text used as evidence for this startling revelation comes from Peter. We all know it. And it tells us when and how the gospel was preached to the people of Noah's day. First, it clearly says 'in the days of Noah', and secondly, it says 'by the spirit'. Now we also know from Jude I think that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. Did he not then preach the gospel by the spirit of Christ to those of his generation? Why would we deem Christ Himself gave those wicked people a second chance He gives no-one else?

I think he met the thief that day in Paradise, just as promised.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Some may want to put the comma after "today" of course; but I don't think so. If we understand what Jews mean by paradise, we should not believe Jesus used the word the same way.

The evidence for visiting hell? Jonah said he was in hell, and Jesus compared himself to Jonah.

 

[OzSpen]

and yes, Jesus did not go to Paradise until after He met Mary on the day of the resurrection.

From where did you gain that information? Where was Jesus between his death and resurrection? Are you calling Jesus a liar for telling the thief on the cross, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Lk 23:43 NIV).

On the very day of the death of Jesus and the thief, both of them were in paradise. That's Bible.

I agree with you that the parable was intended as a lesson for a specific point of truth. But context reveals what that point of truth was, and it wasn't about the after-life. The previous parable was on the subject of stewardship, and upon hearing that parable, the Bible says, and the Pharisees, who were covetous, derided Him. Then Jesus told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. This was a lesson to uncover the covetousness of the Pharisees and God's favour to Lazarus, who represented the Gentiles whom the Jews hated. (It took 10 years for Peter to learn that lesson so inculcated were the prejudices held within Israel). The rich man, who represented the Pharisees was indeed rich with understanding and knowledge of the things of God but had kept it to themselves denying the Gentiles and others outside of Israel to hear the truth. A short time later Jesus again demonstrated this when He spoke to the woman at the well when He tested her faith saying "it is not right to give to dogs". This was again the common expression of prejudice among Jewry toward Samaritans...yet we don't attempt to say today that Jesus thought all Samaritans were dogs do we? But we need to keep things in perspective. Jesus wasn't offering a lesson on the afterlife in the middle of a different context, but He was using a commonly held Jewish opinion on the afterlife to reveal their hypocrisy and selfishness.

With respect brakelite, you are competing with Slim Whitman, Wilf Carter, Slim Dusty, & Harry Torrani in yodelling around this topic:

. Your annihilation world view can't handle parables like the rich man and Lazarus so you try to explain away what Luke 16 teaches about the nature of life after death.

You haven't won me over because I'm an exegete of the biblical text and you don't want to do that.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Does this rendering not create alarm bells ringing? What kind of God do you believe in that is willing to punish people before they are judged?

You seem to diminish the attribute of the wrath of God. He is the God of justice and his justice is not determined by your or my spin.

 

[Deborah_]

Your annihilation world view can't handle parables like the rich man and Lazarus so you try to explain away what Luke 16 teaches about the nature of life after death.

Where's the problem with annihilation and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus?
If annihilation is correct, it takes place after the final judgement. The rich man's family are still alive on earth, so final judgement cannot have happened yet.
Annihilationism does not exclude torment after death - it merely states that it isn't everlasting torment.

 

[Giuliano]

Does this rendering not create alarm bells ringing? What kind of God do you believe in that is willing to punish people before they are judged?

Imediately after the death of the body, there is a preliminary judgment for most people, much like preliminary hearings in our court system. Enough is known to make this judgment; but all the evidence is not in yet. The results of their deeds are still playing out. For example, if I wrote a book that misled thousands or millions of people, the evil I did might not be known until the end of the Millenium. If I wrote a good that inspired people to find God, the good I did would not also be fully known. Thus the Last Judgment is deferred until more evidence comes in.

Parents who brings do a good job rearing their children usually have better than average grandchildren; and dissolute parents can affect many generations. The person who causes one innocent child to stumble is affecting generations of people -- the evil is massive. It would be better for such a person if he were to die before he could commit such an evil.

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Note: "better for him." Yes,of course, it would be better for the innocent child too. Now consider this verse:

Revelation 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

Their works are still playing out on the earth. Enough is known that they can rest from their labors, but not all the consequences of their acts are known yet.

 

[OzSpen]

Annihilationism does not exclude torment after death - it merely states that it isn't everlasting torment.

That's not what the theological doctrine of annihilation, as taught by the SDAs, JWs, Christadelphians, and others, means. For them, annihilation of unbelievers means they won't experience an eternity of suffering in Hades or Gehenna. Instead, their conscious life will be zapped after death. As stated by some in this thread, they move towards annihilationism because they find it obnoxious that God would send people to an eternity of conscious suffering.

This is one of the SDA statements of belief:

The punishment of the unrepentant is called the second death: After the final judgment the unrepentant receive their punishment. This punishment is called the second death. “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14, 15; see also 21:8). The Bible also uses words such as “perishing” and “destruction” in speaking of the ultimate fate of the unrepentant (e.g., 
2 Peter 3:7, 9; John 3:16; Heb. 10:28; Mal. 4:1). These descriptions confirm that the second death refers to annihilation (or extinction) of the unrepentant, rather than a continual and eternal conscious torment (Waking up to Eternity).​

What about unbelievers now? The Scriptures seem to teach that they go into torment in the intermediate state in Hades at death, awaiting the final judgment. Peter described it this way:

“Then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment” (2 Peter 2:9 NIV)​

“To hold” in the Greek of this verse is a present, active infinitive, meaning that the wicked are being kept where they are, captive continuously. This verse clearly refutes annihilation of the wicked after death as there would be nothing “to hold” until the judgment day if they had no existence. Peter says the unrighteous are “continuing their punishment”, this phrase is interpreting a present, passive participle that indicates the unbelievers are being continuously tormented/punished. The Greek grammar of this text clearly states that the wicked dead are experiencing torment as they await the final judgment.

Oz

 

[Harvest 1874]

Okay, I differ from harvests understanding of that event. Just because Jesus described the event as a vision, doesnt mean it wasn't real. I believe Moses was resurrected, as described when Michael claimed his body from the Satan. We are not told when this took place. And Elijah was "taken"... Translated bodily, and no doubt clothed with eternal life as those who are still alive at the second coming.

Note: We are speaking of the transfiguration on the Mount

If this was truly a real event as you say please explain how it is that Moses and Elijah were resurrected prior to our Lord, because the Scriptures are very emphatic that, Christ was the first to rise from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep (died), that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. (1 Cor 15:20; Col 1:18)

Now we both know that this vision took place prior to our Lord’s death and resurrection so how then could Moses and Elijah be there unless this were only a vision?

Both of these prophets died (Deut 34:5; Heb. 11:13), and must await the time appointed for their resurrection

As for your suggestion the Elijah was taken, i.e. “translated bodily”, this is merely an assumption on your part, the scriptures say no such thing.

The account is that “Elijah went up by a whirlwind into the heavens”. The word heaven here is used to represent the sky, the circumambient air, and has no reference whatever to the heaven which is God’s dwelling place. That neither of these prophets went to the latter place we have the very best evidence in our Lord’s own words, viz.

“No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” (John 3:13)

“These (along with all the other faithful of the past, that is previous to Pentecost) died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” (Heb 11:13)

Even though they obtained a good testimony through faith they all died without having received the promise. (Heb 11:39)

There were many promises made, but one in particular, what particular promise was this?

The promise was that they might obtain a “better resurrection” (Verse 35), better, in that they hoped for an awakening from death to instantaneous human perfection, as apart from the rest of the world who will require the whole millennium in which to be gradually brought back to the original perfection lost by father Adam, a resurrection by judgment (trial, testings).

It is important to remember that the faithful of the pass had no knowledge of the spiritual seed per se, and thus no desire for any heavenly reward. God had not promised any heavenly rewards prior to Jesus day. It was not until the appearing of our Savior Jesus at his first advent that both life (restituional blessings, previously known) AND immortality (something new, the high calling which is in Christ Jesus) was first brought to light through the gospel. (2 Tim 1:10)

The the faithful of the past have not yet received the promise of the better resurrection, why, why the delay if they have already passed their test?

The reason is simple, “God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.” (Verse 40)

“Some better thing for us” An even still better resurrection, then that which they hoped for, for ours, if we are proven faithful, is the High Calling to “glory, honor and immortality.”

“They should not be made perfect apart from us”, Why is this? Because the blessings of all other classes come through the glorified Christ, the Church or body of Christ, complete.

They cannot experience their “better resurrection” until all those who will compose the body of Christ have experienced their resurrection, the “first resurrection”.

This includes Enoch for although the death sentence which was passed upon all through Adam’s sin was deferred in his case; it was not annulled (pardoned). We were not pardoned from sin, but rather redeemed, ransomed through the previous blood of Christ, and this was not accomplished until after our Lord’s resurrection and ascension when he ascended on high to present the merit of his sacrifice before justice.

Enoch’s life may have been preserved (possibly having been placed in the garden of Eden and there having access to the trees of life), but like the rest of the faithful of the past he has yet to have experienced the “better resurrection” which was promised, a full and complete resurrection to human perfection, nor will he until the full Christ is complete.

 

[Harvest 1874]

* At the transfiguration (Matthew 17) the disciples saw a vision of Christ (at His coming again) in resurrection glory. Moses and Elijah are seen to be with Him, also 'then' alive from the dead. This is a vision of post resurrection glory. (Matthew 16:28), real, but yet future.

Although you have the right idea that this is a future event, your mistake is in assuming that what is depicted in the vision is to be an actual or literal event which will take place.

A "vision,” is not a reality, a vision is an active parable, and like in a parable where the thing said is not the thing meant so likewise the thing viewed is not the thing meant, it is only a representation, a symbolic or figurative picture of the reality.

“In this vision, as in all visions, the unreal appears real. Just so it was in the vision of John, on the Isle of Patmos, described in the book of Revelation. He saw, he heard, he talked; yet the things thus shown him in the vision were not realities--not beasts with many heads and many horns, and angels and vials and thrones, nor real dragons, etc., merely a vision. And a vision was in every sense of the word just as good, and really better suited to the purpose than realities would have been.”

If we were to accept this vision as a reality as you suggest, as a visualization of an actual event soon to take place we would be met with several difficulties.

If this were as stated a picture of the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, in His kingdom glory as depicted by his face shinning as the sun and his clothing being as white as light how then could Moses and Elijah be found standing before him, neither of whom lived during the “acceptable time” (2 Cor 6:2), the Gospel Age, the age of sacrifice?

NO ONE could offer an acceptable sacrifice to the Father prior to this time, for none had anything acceptable in which to sacrifice, for they all were fallen, marred by sin and thus unacceptable upon the Lord’s altar.

The sacrifice of Christ, which takes away the sin of the world, was THE ACCEPTABLE sacrifice; and it must be an accomplished fact, BEFORE any of the condemned of mankind could be actually and legally justified, so as to present themselves a holy and acceptable sacrifice (Rom 12:1), to be accepted as joint sacrifices and joint heirs with him.

Both Moses and Elijah would be excluded from this opportunity having lived and died prior to the acceptable time, even John the Baptist the last of the faithful Ancient Worthies missed this opportunity by only a few short years. As our Lord so expressed it: “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven (the spiritual phase of the kingdom) is greater than he.” (Matt 11:11)

So then once again we ask, how could Moses and Elijah who were never begotten to a new nature, as none were prior to Pentecost, be found standing before the glorified Lord, who now following his high exultation is the express image of the Father’s person, possessing immortality (the divine nature) dwelling in unapproachable light which no man (no flesh, no human) has seen NOR CAN SEE. (1 Tim 6:16; Heb 1:3)

The Apostle Paul caught a mere glimpse of our Lord’s glorified condition and it nearly blinded him, so how could Moses and Elijah (both natural men) stand before the Lord?

Another problem here is that if we accept your suggestion that this is a real picture of a future event, and that all three of the characters are real then how are we to harmonize the fact that the disciples saw our Lord’s glorified condition when we were just told in that no man has seen nor can see our Lord in his true glorified condition?

No one (no human) has ever actually seen a spirit beings true form, no one knows exactly what they look like; now they’ve seen representations of them, they’ve seen spirit beings manifesting themselves in various forms, but they’ve never actually seen one as they actually are. Most especially no one has ever seen a divine being. The Apostle Paul states: “Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3:2)

This statement implies that not until we have experienced our resurrection change, until we have obtained his nature will we be able to truly see him as he is, therefore this vision could not be an actually reality, for none of the disciples who witness it had experienced their resurrection change.

We will be posting an explanation of the transfiguration on our blog post shortly.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes. Sin and sinners eradicated from the universe completely. Nothing will remain to mar God's creation. And the only reminders the scars on the hands of the Saviour.

Sounds logical...
it just doesn't sound biblical.
But I won't debate this.

 

[Giuliano]

Both Moses and Elijah would be excluded from this opportunity having lived and died prior to the acceptable time, even John the Baptist the last of the faithful Ancient Worthies missed this opportunity by only a few short years. As our Lord so expressed it: “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven (the spiritual phase of the kingdom) is greater than he.” (Matt 11:11)

Jesus also said John the Baptist was Elijah.

So then once again we ask, how could Moses and Elijah who were never begotten to a new nature

, as none were prior to Pentecost, be found standing before the glorified Lord, who now following his high exultation is the express image of the Father’s person, possessing immortality (the divine nature) dwelling in unapproachable light which no man (no flesh, no human) has seen NOR CAN SEE. (1 Tim 6:16; Heb 1:3)

You are making assumptions based on your beliefs. There was a book called the Assumption of Moses telling how he ascended to Heaven. Only fragments of the original exist today; but Jude quotes it.

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

If Jude cites it, I figure it's probably an okay book.

As for Elijah it's said he is present at every Jewish circumcision. Every synagogue has a chair for him. The matter is rather clear if we know what a chariot of fire is. Yes, he could even write a letter and have it delivered.

The Apostle Paul caught a mere glimpse of our Lord’s glorified condition and it nearly blinded him, so how could Moses and Elijah (both natural men) stand before the Lord?

Paul was in a sinful state at the time.

Another problem here is that if we accept your suggestion that this is a real picture of a future event, and that all three of the characters are real then how are we to harmonize the fact that the disciples saw our Lord’s glorified condition when we were just told in

that no man has seen nor can see our Lord in his true glorified condition?

No one (no human) has ever actually seen a spirit beings true form, no one knows exactly what they look like; now they’ve seen representations of them, they’ve seen spirit beings manifesting themselves in various forms, but they’ve never actually seen one as they actually are. Most especially no one has ever seen a divine being. The Apostle Paul states: “Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3:2)

This statement implies that not until we have experienced our resurrection change, until we have obtained his nature will we be able to truly see him as he is, therefore this vision could not be an actually reality, for none of the disciples who witness it had experienced their resurrection change.

We will be posting an explanation of the transfiguration on our blog post shortly.

Ascended beings can take on various forms, just as angels can appear as men if they like.

 

[Deborah_]

That's not what the theological doctrine of annihilation, as taught by the SDAs, JWs, Christadelphians, and others, means. For them, annihilation of unbelievers means they won't experience an eternity of suffering in Hades or Gehenna. Instead, their conscious life will be zapped after death.

That may be what some annihilationist cults believe (perhaps when it goes together with belief in soul sleep), but it's not essential to the doctrine as held by orthodox Christians, which I've studied.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[GodsGrace]

Re 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Re 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Re 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
I cannot see the tree of life, nor paradise in which it resides, as being in hell. Jesus said one day the thief would be with Him in paradise...and yes, Jesus did not go to Paradise until after He met Mary on the day of the resurrection. The evidence that Jesus went to hell is very very thin, and is based on assumptions not evident in the texts used. For example, the only text used as evidence for this startling revelation comes from Peter. We all know it. And it tells us when and how the gospel was preached to the people of Noah's day. First, it clearly says 'in the days of Noah', and secondly, it says 'by the spirit'. Now we also know from Jude I think that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. Did he not then preach the gospel by the spirit of Christ to those of his generation? Why would we deem Christ Himself gave those wicked people a second chance He gives no-one else?

Not sure which of this is for me.
I'll just comment.
The Tree of Life was in the middle of the Garden of Eden...not hell...you're right of course.

Jesus told the thief that very day he would be with Jesus in Paradise,,,if Jesus said it...it happened. Paradise was Abraham's Bossom...not heaven. See Luke 16:22-23
Lazarus was in a good place..Abraham's Bossom. On the other side of the chasm people were tormented...Luke 16:26

It is now taught that Jesus DID NOT go to hell. How could Jesus possibly be in hell??
The early church believed this and is in one of the creeds, but it was removed.

As to the people of Noah's Day...this has always interested me. I understand the prisoners to be those in Hades....which would be Abraham's Bossom; but they're already saved so I doubt it's there. Indeed, why did God give them preference?
Is it possible God did not reveal Himself to them?

As to the resurrection....How could we know exactly when Jesus was resurrected?
We celebrate His resurrection on Sunday because that's when the empty tomb was found and the soldiers were placed there the evening before...or the 3 hours prior to 6 am. So we could know that the actual resurrection occured on early Sunday morning, the first day of the week.

I agree with you that the parable was intended as a lesson for a specific point of truth. But context reveals what that point of truth was, and it wasn't about the after-life. The previous parable was on the subject of stewardship, and upon hearing that parable, the Bible says, and the Pharisees, who were covetous, derided Him. Then Jesus told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. This was a lesson to uncover the covetousness of the Pharisees and God's favour to Lazarus, who represented the Gentiles whom the Jews hated. (It took 10 years for Peter to learn that lesson so inculcated were the prejudices held within Israel). The rich man, who represented the Pharisees was indeed rich with understanding and knowledge of the things of God but had kept it to themselves denying the Gentiles and others outside of Israel to hear the truth. A short time later Jesus again demonstrated this when He spoke to the woman at the well when He tested her faith saying "it is not right to give to dogs". This was again the common expression of prejudice among Jewry toward Samaritans...yet we don't attempt to say today that Jesus thought all Samaritans were dogs do we? But we need to keep things in perspective. Jesus wasn't offering a lesson on the afterlife in the middle of a different context, but He was using a commonly held Jewish opinion on the afterlife to reveal their hypocrisy and selfishness.

I've never heard Luke 16 exegeted this way.
First of all, most theologians believe it's not a parable but a story of a real place.
Second, it is exactly about the after life ... Jesus is warning us to find God before we die and He's telling us how real hell is.


I think that's it for me.
The rest was for brakelite.

 

[brakelite]

Sounds logical...
it just doesn't sound biblical.
But I won't debate this.

I will be posting the biblical support for this later.

 

[Harvest 1874]

Jesus also said John the Baptist was Elijah.

John was not actually Elijah, but he did come “in the spirit and power of Elijah” to do an Elijah work for Israel (Luke 1:17) to prepare them, and to introduced them to the Lord in the flesh at the first advent.

In attempting to convert Israel and to prepare them to receive Messiah, John represented the real Elijah (the true Church), whose work has been to attempt the conversion of the world before the second advent, the coming of Messiah to the world--the spiritual Lord of glory and King of kings.

All could not receive John's testimony nor realize that he was forerunner to the King in the flesh. Had they done so, they would have been prepared thereby to receive Jesus as their Messiah. To as many of them as could and did accept John's message and receive Christ, to these John did do the Elijah work. As our Lord said to them of John (Matt.11:14), "If ye will receive it, this is the Elias which was to come"; though John and his work did not complete the predicted (work) concerning the real Elijah to come as spoken by the prophet Malachi (4:5. 6)

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet (the true Church) before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord (the Second Advent). And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.”

John in the spirit and power of Elijah, failed to reform Israel, and, as a consequence (Matt 17:12), Israel rejected Jesus in the flesh, and brought upon themselves a great "day of vengeance," trouble and wrath. (Luke 21:22) So, likewise, only on the larger scale, the real and greater Elijah (the true Church) has failed to convert and prepare the world to receive the King of Glory, and now, consequently, the great day of wrath (the “curse” mentioned by our Lord in Malachi’s prophecy) must come upon the world, to melt and mellow and humble and prepare all to cry out from the heart--Hosanna! Blessed is he that comes in the name of Jehovah!

It is thus seen that the Church in the flesh (the Christ in the flesh, Head and body) is the Elijah or forerunner of the Church in glory, Jehovah's Anointed. Not the nominal church, but the really consecrated Church, which on the other side of the Vail will be the great Anointed Deliverer-- these constitute the Elijah.

You are making assumptions based on your beliefs.

What assumption are you referring to here?

The scriptural fact, that no one was begotten of the spirt (begotten to a new nature), prior to Pentecost.

The scriptural fact, that following our Lord’s faithful completion of his sacrifice and death he was highly exalted.

“And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth.” (Phil 2:8-10)

“For as the Father has life in Himself (inherent life, immortality, the divine nature), so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.” (John 5:26)

Immortality is ascribed only to the divine nature--originally to Jehovah only, subsequently to our Lord, and finally, by promise, to the Church.

There was a book called the Assumption of Moses telling how he ascended to Heaven. Only fragments of the original exist today; but Jude quotes it.

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

If Jude cites it, I figure it's probably an okay book.

You will forgive me if I chose to stick to the word of the Lord on the matter viz. “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” (John 3:13)

The scriptures do not contradict themselves; therefore it is evident why such books as the Assumption of Moses were not included in the holy canon being as they contain passages in direct conflict with the scriptures.

As for Elijah it's said he is present at every Jewish circumcision. Every synagogue has a chair for him. The matter is rather clear if we know what a chariot of fire is. Yes, he could even write a letter and have it delivered.

Sorry but we’re not really interested in Jewish traditions, we prefer to stick to the word of God on all matters.

Paul was in a sinful state at the time.

So you’re saying that if this event had taken place after Paul’s conversion he would not had suffered any harm standing in the presence of the Lord in his full glory, this despite the word of the Lord which states that he dwells in unapproachable light whom no man can see (1 Tim 6:16)

Ascended beings can take on various forms, just as angels can appear as men if they like.

I’m not sure what your point is and how it relates to what you quoted.

If you’re speaking of Moses and Elijah they haven’t ascended anywhere, they remain in their graves and await the completion of the Church. “God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect (receive the promised of a “better resurrection”) apart from us.” (Heb 11:35, 40)

 

[Naomi25]

There are many aspects one could discuss related to death. But let us leave out all the philosophies of man and the vague interpretive opinions regards what the Bible means, but let us simply and humbly accept what the Bible says. Nor let us choose just one text or passage, but let us survey the whole scripture record, comparing scripture with scripture, line upon line, here a little there a little, and come then to a conclusion weighing up the evidence.

First, let us begin where God began...creation. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Here described is the nature of man. Succinctly and clearly, with no ambiguity and no interpretation necessary. Man is a living soul. We are a combination of two things. Dust, and breath of life...spirit. That combination forms the soul. When we die, Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. And as a result of that separation of dust and breath, body and spirit, the soul ceases to exist. As Ezekiel says, the soul that sinneth it shall die. The man, the human being, dies. The body becomes corrupted and turns into mud, and the life force that animated the body making it a living soul, returns to God. There is no evidence in scripture, anywhere, hinting or speaking either implicitly or explicitly, that the spirit that returns to God at death has a life of its own carrying the consciousness or personality of the former man. We must remember that as you also agreed , that God alone is immortal, but that He also is Spirit. God alone is an immortal Spirit. So unless you can show me that the spirit He gave to man is immortal in the same manner as He is, that is carrying the personality and memories and life of the former bearer, we must assume that the spirit is merely that which is revealed thus far...the breath of life that in conjunction with dust, forms the living soul.

I don't have to. Others have to prove it is a thinking conscious relational entity apart from the body.

Hi brakelite. I have to confess from the outset that I have not read all the posts here, I'm afraid I do not have the time to wade through them all. So perhaps I am covering ground you've already dealt with, sorry.
But...I do have to say, that I'm not so sure you starting premise is accurate. Just because you are the OP, does not necessarily mean you are the one who "doesn't have to prove" this idea that no thinking, rational consciousness goes on past death.
In fact, the verses that you cite, while perhaps not implicityly or explicityly saying that a spirit, when it returns to God has it's own personality or memories, it doesn't refute it either.
In fact, shouldn't, as you suggest, take the preponderance of scripture when looking at this subject? And to be honest, when looking at them all; the many promises of life and victory after death, wouldn't that suggest that for us, there is something? If our spirits were, essentially just absorbed back into God until that time when the resurrection took place and spirit and new body was reunited, then it takes away any meaning of the promises of triumph after death. Because essentially, there is nothing after death. Nothing but...a form of soul sleep, I suppose. Where is Christ's promise to the thief to be in paradise, if he is not aware of that paradise? Where is Paul's promise and longing to be in the presence of Christ, if he cannot be aware of that?
And, as I did see someone mention, there is the transfiguration. I know you think it can be 'explained' away by Moses having a pre-resurrection...but that is not in the text. If we are trying to arrive at a conclusion based solely on what we can gather from the text and the text alone, that is not an outcome that can come naturally.
Where should we also put all the 'great cloud of witnesses' in Revelation...those Christians martyred for Christ. If their spirits are taken back into God, should we even see them under the alter? I should imagine not. Should they even be crying out for justice? Again, I think not.
No...I think the weight of scripture would put the onus upon you to prove otherwise.