How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[ewq1938]

ewq,


Biblically, we need some clarification:

• 
  The words "soul" and "spirit" can be used interchangeably.
  

In John 12:27, Jesus said, "Now is my soul (psuche) troubled, while in a similar context in the next chapter he said, "Jesus was troubled in his spirit (pneuma) [John 13:21]" This hardly means that Jesus "life force" (breath) was troubled.

Excellent work. Few understand this fact.

• 
  At death, the "soul" or "spirit" departs.
  

When Rachel died, the Bible records: "Her soul (nephesh) was departing [she had died]" (Gen. 35:18), but Eccl. 12:7 records that at death, "the spirit (ruach) returns to God who gave it." This hardly means that one's "life force" (breath) was returning to God.

The spirit is a life force but no matter what, something leaves the body and returns to God and it is alive.

• 
  
  

• 
  A human being is said to consist of either "body and soul" or "body and spirit."
  

In Matt. 10: 28, we read, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (psuche). Rather fear him who can destroy both soul (psuche) and body in hell" (ESV). It seems clear from this verse that "soul" refers to the part of the person that lives beyond death. If the "soul" was only a "life force", it could be killed.

It can be killed but not by a human being...only God can kill/destroy it.

That's not what Jesus said. His authoritative view was that the "soul" cannot be killed. It cannot die.

It can if God decides it.

But when Paul wants to deliver an erring brother over to Satan, he said that it was "for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit (pneuma) may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 5:5).

Therefore, in both OT and NT, "soul" and "spirit" can be used interchangeably.

Exactly. I have a work comparing the Greek and Hebrew definitions and they are identical.

So, what does "spirit" mean when applied to a human being, in the light of the above scriptural explanation? Most people, Christian and non-Christian, believe that there is an immaterial part to human beings, a soul / spirit that will live on beyond the "life force" (or breath) that has left the body.

There are occasions in the Bible when "spirit" is used to refer to the breath of animals or human beings, but the above verses show that spirit / soul refers to the immaterial part of the human unity (body and soul/spirit) that goes to be with Christ and cannot be killed.

All correct except it can be killed but not by mortal beings.

This soul can sin. This is implied from verses such as 1 Peter 1:22, "Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart" (ESV). Surely this does not refer to breath or life force!

Why not?

Let's get no more complicated than the simplicity of what the Bible states that the spirit of a human being goes to God at death and it cannot be killed. Simply: the spirit/soul of a human being is the immaterial part of us that survives death.

ok

 

[OzSpen]

ewq,

It [soul/psuche] can be killed but not by a human being...only God can kill/destroy it.

From where in Scripture did you obtain that doctrine? You provided not one biblical reference to God being able to kill the soul. So, are you an annihilationist?

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

ewq,


From where in Scripture did you obtain that doctrine? You provided not one biblical reference to God being able to kill the soul.

Oz

I guess I should stop assuming you know the scriptural references I refer to:

Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So, are you an annihilationist?

Only because God is.

 

[OzSpen]

I guess I should stop assuming you know the scriptural references I refer to:

Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.




Only because God is.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of 'destroy'. When I backed over my son's toy truck, I destroyed the truck. I did not annihilate it. I suggest you do a better job of examining the etymology of 'destroy' in Matt 10:28. It does NOT mean annihilate.

God is not in support of annihilation of the wicked. See: Does eternal destruction mean annihilation for unbelievers at death?

This is the Maheno wreck on the eastern side (Pacific Island) of Fraser Island.

​

Maheno shipwreck (photo 2007), Fraser Island,​

off the Queensland coast (about 3 hours north of Brisbane)​

Courtesy Wikipedia​

​

​

The New Zealand hospital ship Maheno (before the wreck)​

Courtesy Wikipedia​

The ship was wrecked/destroyed but it was not annihilated.

To 'destroy' both soul and body does not mean annihilation of the souls and bodies of the wicked. It will be 110 years this year since the Maheno wreck and it still has not disintegrated. It was NOT annihilated when destroyed 110 years ago. Neither is a body or soul that is destroyed by God.

For a more extensive refutation of annihilation, see my article, Refutation of Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of what happens at death.

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of 'destroy'. When I backed over my son's toy truck, I destroyed the truck. I did not annihilate it. I suggest you do a better job of examining the etymology of 'destroy' in Matt 10:28. It does NOT mean annihilate.

lol, you are ignorant of the word's meaning:

G622
ἀπόλλυμι
apollumi
ap-ol'-loo-mee
From G575 and the base of G3639; to destroy fully (reflexively to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively: - destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

Tell me Oz, is to "destroy fully" not the same as "annihilate"?

 

[OzSpen]

lol, you are ignorant of the word's meaning:

G622
ἀπόλλυμι
apollumi
ap-ol'-loo-mee
From G575 and the base of G3639; to destroy fully (reflexively to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively: - destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

Tell me Oz, is to "destroy fully" not the same as "annihilate"?

From where did you obtain that meaning? I do wish you would document your sources.

 

[ATP]

1 Cor 15:46 NIV The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

 

[OzSpen]

lol, you are ignorant of the word's meaning:

G622
ἀπόλλυμι
apollumi
ap-ol'-loo-mee
From G575 and the base of G3639; to destroy fully (reflexively to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively: - destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

Tell me Oz, is to "destroy fully" not the same as "annihilate"?

Ah, I see from Google that you got this from Strong's Concordance. That is NOT an eminent Greek source for apollumi (destroy) used in Matt 10:28 (ESV): 'And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell [Gehenna]'.

If I want the meaning of a word in American English, I go to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. If I want the British meaning of a word, I go to the Oxford Dictionary.

If I want the Greek meaning of a word, I go to the eminent Greek dictionary (lexicon), Arndt and Gingrich (A&G). I find the meaning of apollumi in A&G to be 'be destroyed, ruined ... perish forever' (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:94).

Then I go to Thayer's lexicon which gives the meaning of apollumi as 'metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery' (Thayer 1962:64). Since Thayer was a Unitarian who did not believe in eternal punishment of the unrighteous after death, we can be confident that his understanding of the meaning of apollumi was based on his knowledge of the Greek word.

These two eminent Greek lexicons do not provide any lexicographical evidence that the meaning of apollumi is annihilation or passing into non-existence. This is made clear in verses such as Matt 9:17; Luke 15:4, 6, 8, 9; John 6:12, 27; 2 Cor 4:9; etc).

• Do people pass into non-existence (are they annihilated) when they are killed by the sword (see Matt 26:52)?
• Are people annihilated when they are destroyed by snakes (see 1 Cor 10:9)?
• What about when people are hungry? Are they annihilated? (see Luke 15:17)
• What about wineskins? Do they pass into non-existence when they are destroyed when they burst? (see Matt 9:17)
• What about food when it spoils? Is it annihilated? (see John 6:27)

You are drawing a long bow to try to gain support for an untenable position that 'destroy' in Matt 10:28 means annihilation. It doesn't mean that as the lexicons demonstrate and the other examples of use of apollumi prove.

The practical, contemporary example I gave still holds up as to the meaning of destroy of the Maheno wreck.That's the parallel in the NT:

​

Maheno shipwreck (photo 2007), Fraser Island,​

off the Queensland coast (about 3 hours north of Brisbane)​

Courtesy Wikipedia​

Works consulted
Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Thayer, J H 1962. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti), tr. rev. enl. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

[ewq1938]

From where did you obtain that meaning? I do wish you would document your sources.

It's the Strong's Concordance being quoted.

 

[Butch5]

You haven't dealt with my material presented at #393. I said I would begin to address your issues one point at a time. I did that, but you refused to use the information I presented.

The issue has nothing whatsoever with whether I have a PhD or not. It has to deal with being honest with the material I present and you have refused to deal with it from a biblical perspective.

Oz

On the contrary, I did address several of the passages that you posted. The problem is that you are arguing from an unargued philosophical bias. I reject your premise that man can live outside of the body. If you're going to make that claim you need to prove it. My position is that man can't live outside of the body and I proved it. I didn't just arbitrarily toss it out there as you have done with your claim that man can live outside of the body. I pointed out that several of the passages didn't address the issue. I didn't sit here a reply to every single passage, because the point is that the passages you posted didn't support the claim you were making. Let's do this, just give me one passage that proves your point and we can address that one. Then if necessary we can address others.

 

[ewq1938]

Ah, I see from Google that you got this from Strong's Concordance. That is NOT an eminent Greek source for apollumi (destroy) used in Matt 10:28 (ESV):

You are incorrect. It is a valid and highly respected work.

If I want the Greek meaning of a word, I go to the eminent Greek dictionary (lexicon), Arndt and Gingrich (A&G). I find the meaning of apollumi in A&G to be 'be destroyed, ruined ... perish forever' (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:94).

That work is not greater than the Strong's and the definition's still match.

Then I go to Thayer's lexicon which gives the meaning of apollumi as 'metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery' (Thayer 1962:64).

Except you cherry picked the metaphorical meaning rather than the normal meaning which is "1) to destroy"

These two eminent Greek lexicons do not provide any lexicographical evidence that the meaning of apollumi is annihilation or passing into non-existence.

All three that have been cited or properly cited have shown the meaning of apollumi is annihilation and can have other meanings whether metaphoric or in figurative use.

This is made clear in verses such as Matt 9:17; Luke 15:4, 6, 8, 9; John 6:12, 27; 2 Cor 4:9; etc).

• Do people pass into non-existence (are they annihilated) when they are killed by the sword (see Matt 26:52)?
• Are people annihilated when they are destroyed by snakes (see 1 Cor 10:9)?
• What about when people are hungry? Are they annihilated? (see Luke 15:17)
• What about wineskins? Do they pass into non-existence when they are destroyed when they burst? (see Matt 9:17)
• What about food when it spoils? Is it annihilated? (see John 6:27)

You ignore context. When destroy is allied with fire it is literally meaning to destroy or annihilate. None of your examples are contextually accurate for literal destruction.

You are drawing a long bow to try to gain support for an untenable position that 'destroy' in Matt 10:28 means annihilation.

In that verse it cannot mean anything other than annihilation as fire is the destroyer of things and that's what the people of the day would have understood it as meaning.

 

[Butch5]

ewq,


Biblically, we need some clarification:

• 
  The words "soul" and "spirit" can be used interchangeably.
  

In John 12:27, Jesus said, "Now is my soul (psuche) troubled, while in a similar context in the next chapter he said, "Jesus was troubled in his spirit (pneuma) [John 13:21]" This hardly means that Jesus "life force" (breath) was troubled.

• 
  At death, the "soul" or "spirit" departs.
  

When Rachel died, the Bible records: "Her soul (nephesh) was departing [she had died]" (Gen. 35:18), but Eccl. 12:7 records that at death, "the spirit (ruach) returns to God who gave it." This hardly means that one's "life force" (breath) was returning to God.

• 
  A human being is said to consist of either "body and soul" or "body and spirit."
  

In Matt. 10: 28, we read, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (psuche). Rather fear him who can destroy both soul (psuche) and body in hell" (ESV). It seems clear from this verse that "soul" refers to the part of the person that lives beyond death. If the "soul" was only a "life force", it could be killed. That's not what Jesus said. His authoritative view was that the "soul" cannot be killed. It cannot die.

But when Paul wants to deliver an erring brother over to Satan, he said that it was "for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit (pneuma) may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 5:5).

Therefore, in both OT and NT, "soul" and "spirit" can be used interchangeably.

So, what does "spirit" mean when applied to a human being, in the light of the above scriptural explanation? Most people, Christian and non-Christian, believe that there is an immaterial part to human beings, a soul / spirit that will live on beyond the "life force" (or breath) that has left the body.

There are occasions in the Bible when "spirit" is used to refer to the breath of animals or human beings, but the above verses show that spirit / soul refers to the immaterial part of the human unity (body and soul/spirit) that goes to be with Christ and cannot be killed.

This soul can sin. This is implied from verses such as 1 Peter 1:22, "Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart" (ESV). Surely this does not refer to breath or life force!

Let's get no more complicated than the simplicity of what the Bible states that the spirit of a human being goes to God at death and it cannot be killed. Simply: the spirit/soul of a human being is the immaterial part of us that survives death.

Perhaps we are on the same biblical path.

Oz

Oz, soul and spirit cannot be used interchangealy. A soul consists of a body and spirit. If you do a word study of ruwach, Neshamahm and Nephesh and trace their usage through the Scripture from the beginning I think you'll be surprised at what you find.

 

[Butch5]

ewq,


From where in Scripture did you obtain that doctrine? You provided not one biblical reference to God being able to kill the soul. So, are you an annihilationist?

Oz

10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed:
11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.
12 Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities. (Isa. 53:10-12 LXE)

A soul can be killed.

 

[Butch5]

I asked:
a. Where do believers go at death?

You responded:
A. The believe as the unbeliever returns to the dust and the breath returns to God.

Let's check with whether that agrees with biblical statements. There is an important word in the OT that is translated into Greek and that is the Hebrew, sheol, for life in the hereafter. The problem has been accentuated by the fact that sheol occurs 65 times in the OT and the KJV translates it as 'hell' 31 times, 'grave' 31 times, and 'pit' 33 times. This kind of inconsistency has caused confusion among Christians (Lutzer 1997:31).

So what happened at death according to the OT?

1. The grave (the resting place of the body) is distinct from sheol, which is where the spirits of the dead gather. We see this in verses such as Isa 14:9-10 (ESV). '“In the place of the dead [sheol] there is excitement over your arrival. The spirits of world leaders and mighty kings long dead stand up to see you. With one voice they all cry out, ‘Now you are as weak as we are!'.

2. Verses such as Ezek 26:20 (NASB) and Job 26:5-6 (NASB) speak of sheol as the 'pit' that was shadowy 'lower parts of the earth'.

3. So what happened at death for OT people? They were united with their ancestors in sheol. Gen 49:33 states he was 'gathered to his people' and Abraham would go to his fathers in peace (Gen 15:15).

So these three points indicated that when one entered sheol at death, they didn't all have the same experience. For some it was negative but for others it was the place where they dwelt with God (see Psalm 73:23-25).

4. OT provided hints of different regions in sheol, places for (a) the unrighteous, and ( B) righteous. See Deut 32:22; Ps 49:13-15; 9:17; 16:10; 31:17; 55:17; Job 24:19).

So we can concluded from the OT information that sheol was a generic term to refer to the region of departed spirits. The inference is that at death the body is laid in the grave and the soul (unseen part) departs to sheol. That's what the OT person could expect one second after his/her last breath.

What is sheol translated as in the Greek? What is its meaning? That's for another post.

Oz

Works consulted
Lutzer, E W 1997. One Minute after You Die: A Preview of Your Final Destination. Chicago: Moody Press.

1. The grave (the resting place of the body) is distinct from sheol, which is where the spirits of the dead gather. We see this in verses such as Isa 14:9-10 (ESV). '“In the place of the dead [sheol] there is excitement over your arrival. The spirits of world leaders and mighty kings long dead stand up to see you. With one voice they all cry out, ‘Now you are as weak as we are!'.

Do you really believe this passage is speaking of the dead somehow being alive? Isn't this figurative language? Look at the context of the passage.

4 And thou shalt take up this lamentation against the king of Babylon, <1> How has the extortioner ceased, and the taskmaster ceased!
5 The Lord has broken the yoke of sinners, the yoke of princes.
6 Having smitten a nation in wrath, with an incurable plague, smiting a nation with a wrathful plague, which spared them not, he rested in quiet.
7 All the earth cries aloud with
8 the trees also of Libanus rejoice against thee, and the cedar of Libanus, saying, From the time that thou hast been laid low, no one has come up to cut us down.
9 Hell from beneath is provoked to meet thee: all the great ones that have ruled over the earth have risen up together against thee, they that have raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
10 All shall answer and say to thee, Thou also hast been taken, even as we; and thou art numbered amongst us.
11 Thy glory has come down to Hades, and thy great mirth: under thee they shall spread corruption, and the worm shall be thy covering.
12 How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven! He that sent orders to all the nations is crushed to the earth.
13 But thou saidst in thine heart, I will go up to heaven, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit on a lofty mount, on the lofty mountains toward the north:
14 I will go up above the clouds: I will be like the Most High.
15 But now thou shalt go down to hell, even to the foundations of the earth.
16 They that see thee shall wonder at thee, and say, <1> This is the man that troubled the earth, that made kings to shake;
17 that made the whole world desolate, and destroyed its cities; he loosed not those who were in captivity. (Isa. 14:4-17 LXE)

So, there is a talking earth, rejoicing and talking trees, Hell is provoked, the kings have thrones, and there are worms. Seriously, it should be quite clear that this passage is figurative. The earth doesn't cry, trees don't talk or rejoice, hell can't be provoked, and the dead are not alive.

 

[OzSpen]

On the contrary, I did address several of the passages that you posted. The problem is that you are arguing from an unargued philosophical bias. I reject your premise that man can live outside of the body. If you're going to make that claim you need to prove it. My position is that man can't live outside of the body and I proved it. I didn't just arbitrarily toss it out there as you have done with your claim that man can live outside of the body. I pointed out that several of the passages didn't address the issue. I didn't sit here a reply to every single passage, because the point is that the passages you posted didn't support the claim you were making. Let's do this, just give me one passage that proves your point and we can address that one. Then if necessary we can address others.

You DID NOT address the Scriptures I raised at #393. If this is your approach, I'm not interested in this kind of red herring stuff because we can't have a logical discussion when you do this.

 

[Butch5]

You DID NOT address the Scriptures I raised at #393. If this is your approach, I'm not interested in this kind of red herring stuff because we can't have a logical discussion when you do this.

I did OZ. In post 397 I addressed 4 of the passages you posted. I address Job 26:5-6, Gen 49:33, Deut 32:22, and Ps 49: 13-15. Also, I addressed Is. 14:9-10 in post 414. However, that's not the real issue here. As I've repeatedly said you're arguing from and unargued philosophical bias. Until you prove your premise you don't really have an argument. I could argue all day long that martians were in my yard last night. However, if I don't prove that martians exist the argument is pointless. You say these passages are proof that the dead are somehow alive, yet you haven't proven that the dead can be alive. Your argument is actually begging the question. It assumes that these passages teach that the dead are alive to conclude that the dead are alive, it's circular.

I offered to look at your passages one at time. We can go over them and see what they really say.

 

[OzSpen]

You are incorrect. It is a valid and highly respected work.

That work is not greater than the Strong's and the definition's still match.

Except you cherry picked the metaphorical meaning rather than the normal meaning which is "1) to destroy"


All three that have been cited or properly cited have shown the meaning of apollumi is annihilation and can have other meanings whether metaphoric or in figurative use.

You ignore context. When destroy is allied with fire it is literally meaning to destroy or annihilate. None of your examples are contextually accurate for literal destruction.

In that verse it cannot mean anything other than annihilation as fire is the destroyer of things and that's what the people of the day would have understood it as meaning.

1. Strong's is a valued Concordance of the Bible, with a few other Greek helps. They are nothing more than helps. It is NOT a highly respected Greek lexicon. Arndt & Gingrich is the Rolls Royce of Greek lexicons. Thayer's lexicon has also provided valuable insight into Greek use. That's not the role of Strong's Concordance. And we haven't yet gotten to the authoritative Greek word studies of (a) Kittel & Friedrich, and ( B) Colin Brown.

2. Strong's definition does not match with Arndt & Gringrich's lexicon or Thayer's lexicon. Blind Freddie can see that the meanings are not identical with Strong's.

3. The normal meaning of apollumi is destroy, ruin. To destroy or ruin something does not mean to annihilate it as I've demonstrated with a couple examples in a previous post. My grandson visited me at the weekend and accidentally hit a lamp beside the lounge chair. The lamp smashed, was destroyed and had to be thrown into the wheelie rubbish bin outside of our house. I can assure you that the lamp was destroyed and is no longer fit for use, but it is most definitely not annihilated and extinguished from existence. You are wanting 'destroy, ruin' to mean what NT Greek does not mean and what common sense tells us.

4. I agree that fire can destroy things, but there are many examples where fire's destruction does not annihilate. For example, in the first century when fire destroyed a stone building, it did not annihilate it. It could not, because of the nature of stone. We know in Matt 10:28 that 'destroy' cannot mean annihilation for these reasons:

(a) In the previous post I demonstrated that the meaning of apollumi was NOT annihilation but ruin or 'to denote to give over to eternal misery' (Thayer).

( B) The Luke 12:4-5 parallel to Matt 10:28 uses ballw (cast) as the synonym for apollumi. 'Cast into Gehenna [helll]' (Lk 12:5) and 'destroy ... in Gehenna [hell]' (Matt 10;28). The wicked are 'cast into' or 'destroyed', i.e. they are to be given 'over to eternal misery' (Thayer) or destruction, ruin (Arndt & Gingrich).

(c) We know from other passages in the NT that at death unbelievers continue their existence. The wicked 'will go away into eternal punishment' (Matt 25;46) and Rev 14:10-11 makes it clear that those who worship the beast will 'drink the wine of God's wrath'. It does not say the wine of God's annihilation. What does this wrath involve? 'He will be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest day or night, these worshipers of the beast and his image'. They are very much alive and experiencing torment. They have not been snuffed out by annihilation. You are misleading people with your annihilationist false doctrine.

5. With my examples of the uses of apollumi, I HAVE NOT interpreted out of context. I've given example after example of where that word CANNOT mean annihilation. I've given you more examples in this post (see #4) of how unbelievers at death are not snuffed out in annihilation.

We have another clear example from 2 Pet 2:9 of what happens to the unrighteous between death and the resurrection, 'to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment'. One has to be pushing your kind of annihilationist false agenda to miss what happens to unbelievers after death. They are being kept 'under punishment'. Do you get it? They are experiencing punishment until the resurrection. They are NOT ANNIHILATED. That's Bible!

I do not believe we have common ground for further discussion as you have not used the correct meaning of apollumi and you refuse to accept the punishing that unbelievers experience in the intermediate state until the resurrection and then eternal punishment in Gehenna [hell].

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, soul and spirit cannot be used interchangealy. A soul consists of a body and spirit. If you do a word study of ruwach, Neshamahm and Nephesh and trace their usage through the Scripture from the beginning I think you'll be surprised at what you find.

They are your assertions. You have not demonstrated this to be so. I have already shown by biblical example how soul and spirit are used interchangeably in the NT. It's too late to convince me otherwise. In 54 years as a believer and a biblical specialist, I've followed the use of psuche and pneuma and found they can be used interchangeably. I don't make assertions like you have here.

 

[OzSpen]

Seriously Oz? You have a PHD so I am assuming that you know the difference between something taught and an inference.If I say the Scriptures teach justification by faith, I can say read Romans 3 and 4. In that passage Paul lays out an argument how that a man is not justified by keeping the Law of Moses but rather he is justified by having faith. That is a teaching. To post this passage,

20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; (Ezek. 26:20 KJV)

and then say this proves that man can live after death is an inference. The passage says nothing about man being alive after death.

When the Scriptures "TEACH" something it is layed out and shown plainly. When people post a passage from which something has been inferred that is "NOT" the Scriptures teaching it.

I asked you where do the Scriptures "TEACH" that man is alive when he dies.

To support my position I gave Gen 2:7 where God teaches us what a man is.

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. (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

So, what did God say man was?

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Gen. 3:19 KJV)

God said that Adam was dust. He didn't say Adam was dust and a spirit, He said Adam was dust and to the dust he would return.

What does Ecclesiastes say?

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? (Eccl. 3:18-21 KJV)

Solomon indicates the same thing God did, they are dust. He goes on.


5 Also of that which is high they are afraid, And of the low places in the way, And the almond-tree is despised, And the grasshopper is become a burden, And want is increased, For man is going unto his home age-during, And the mourners have gone round through the street.
6 While that the silver cord is not removed, And the golden bowl broken, And the pitcher broken by the fountain, And the wheel broken at the well.
7 And the dust returneth to the earth as it was, And the spirit returneth to God who gave it. (Eccl. 12:5-7 YLT)

The dust returns to the earth and the breath returns to God who gave it. That is the opposite of what we see in Gen 2. In Gen 2 we see God making man out of the dust and putting the breath into him. In Ecc. 12 we see the man returning to dust and the breath returning to God.

If you notice, the passages I've posted actually tell us what happens and how thing are done. I've not just taken a passage that mentions dust and see see this proves my point. This is what I asked you to do for your position. Show me where Scripture teaches that a man is alive somewhere after his body dies. I know you won't be able to do that because it's not in the Scriptures as it would contradict what I've posted here. I was hoping that you'd realize that and look at the subject a little closer.

It's interesting that you called my post unsubstantiated opinions, when you've present an unargued philosophical bias. As I said, you've not proven your premise, you've simply given me passages from which it's been inferred.

You posted this passage,


5 The Rephaim are formed, Beneath the waters, also their inhabitants.
6 Naked is Sheol over-against Him, And there is no covering to destruction. (Job 26:5-6 YLT)

Where does this teach us what happens to man when he dies?

33 And Jacob finisheth commanding his sons, and gathereth up his feet unto the bed, and expireth, and is gathered unto his people. (Gen. 49:33 YLT)

Where does this passage tells us that a man is alive when he dies?

22 For a fire hath been kindled in Mine anger, And it burneth unto Sheol -- the lowest, And consumeth earth and its increase, And setteth on fire foundations of mountains. (Deut. 32:22 YLT)

Where does this passage tell us that men are alive when the die?




13 This their way is folly for them, And their posterity with their sayings are pleased. Selah.
14 As sheep for Sheol they have set themselves, Death doth afflict them, And the upright rule over them in the morning, And their form is for consumption. Sheol is a dwelling for him.
15 Only, God doth ransom my soul from the hand of Sheol, For He doth receive me. Selah. (Ps. 49:13-15 YLT)

Where does this passage say that a man is alive when he is dead?

I'm not going to post every passage, but I think that the point is pretty clear that it is from inference that support seems to be coming.


What I laid out was clear and plainly stated in Scripture, I didn't use any inferences or such. If you don't want to discuss it that's fine, but please don't say all I've given are unsubstantiated opinions.

Butch,

Do you notice what you do with your response here to my #393. Not one time did you refer to the translation I used - not one. You are off and running with the translation you want. That is NOT dealing with the verses I cited and the theology from those verses. Unless you deal with the translations I use, I will not be responding. You have an agenda to push and I'm not buying into your presuppositions.

Oz

 

[Butch5]

They are your assertions. You have not demonstrated this to be so. I have already shown by biblical example how soul and spirit are used interchangeably in the NT. It's too late to convince me otherwise. In 54 years as a believer and a biblical specialist, I've followed the use of psuche and pneuma and found they can be used interchangeably. I don't make assertions like you have here.

Oz, I have demonstrated that they cannot be used interchangeably. You talk about having logical discussions and proving assertions and yet it seems that it only applies to the people you're conversing with. You made an assertion that man is alive when his body is dead. I've asked repeatedly for you to prove this, you haven't. You speak of using logic yet when I do you reject it. Gen 2 says that God created man and breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul. So, Man + Breath of LIfe +Living Soul. That's straight out of Scripture. Hoe can the terms be interchangeable when one is part of the other? That's like saying a car and a wheel are interchangeable. They aren't a car and a wheel are two different things. Hydrogen and oxygen together make water. Water and hydrogen are not interchangeable, they are two different things.

The word soul is used in Scripture two ways. It is used concretely of a living being and abstractly as life. An example would be his soul is in him, his life is in him. A soul is not some immaterial thing, some disembodied consciousness that can live on after death.

34 Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, "Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against
35 "(yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Lk. 2:34-35 NKJ)

A sword doesn't pierce something that is immaterial.

12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the (Heb. 4:12 NKJ)

The division of soul and spirit. Note they are two different things.


25 "Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?
26 "Look at th (Matt. 6:25-26 NKJ)

A psuche can eat and drink.

KJV Numbers 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death. (Num. 35:31 KJV)

Take no satisfaction for the Nephesh, soul, of a murder. if the nephesh, soul, is immaterial how is it put to death?

KJV Numbers 19:13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him. (Num. 19:13 KJV)

A nephesh can be touched. One can't touch a spirit. Obviously if one can touch a dead body one can see a dead body.

There are lots of passages that show a nephesh is a physical being.