Soul sleep

[OzSpen]

If you don't understand that we were with God before being born,ie,first earth and Heaven age,you won't get scripture....

n2,

Sadly, this is another of your creative inventions. You do not demonstrate your ideology from Scripture. You assert what you want and it comes out like this - irrationally.

Oz

 

[Phoneman777]

1)

I have not denied it but instead stated it is like when a male and female come together to make a child.

You are the one that denies Jesus' teaching that involves both the rich man and Lazarus going to the Jewish Netherworld.

2)

Already pointed out the translation-interpretation you are using is controversial among translators so you require more reliable evidence. We could discuss whether your interpretation of those particular words is both solid and valid. If that is what you desire then let me know.

In short you are saying nothing new

1) Fact: Whatever the translation may be, the Greek of Hebrews 4:12 KJV is written as a Chiasm and says that the Spirit and Soul can be divided as surely as the Marrow and Joints can be. If even a blind man can see that a knee joint can't exist unless all the parts are there together, then why is it so hard for you to see that a Living Soul can't exist unless all its parts - Body and Spirit according to Genesis 2:7 KJV - are there together?

2) The reason I keep saying the same thing is that you keep deflecting instead of facing the facts here presented.

3) Cognitive Dissonance is a condition of the mind where two opposing beliefs are held as truth simultaneously. You hold that the Rich Man and Lazarus is a symbolic parable while simultaneously insisting that it is a literal account of a dead man standing in flames holding a conversation with another dead man while a third dead man watches.

 

[Phoneman777]

.If you don't understand that we were with God before being born,ie,first earth and Heaven age,you won't get scripture....

Hi nttl, I think Solomon disagrees with you:

"Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. Yea, better is he than both they, which HATH NOT YET BEEN (existed), WHO HATH NOT SEEN THE EVIL work that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 KJV

Solomon is lamenting the woes of earthly humanity and considers those dead and buried to be more fortunate than those who yet remain here suffering, but then goes on to say that those who have not yet lived on this planet are far better off than the two previous groups because they have yet to suffer the heartache and pain which has become so intrinsic to the experience of these two other groups.

Therefore, if we had already "been" (existed) with God before being born, as you claim, then we would have already become fully aware of "the evil work that is done under the sun", long before ever arriving here on Earth. The fact that Solomon says those who have "not yet been" are ignorant of such evil proves that we cannot possibly have existed before we arrived here. Your doctrine sounds suspiciously like the Mormon doctrine of the Father and Mother God who fornicate with each other day and night to produce the "souls needed to inhabit the bodies of newborns", an idea that is wholly unBiblical, but comes from the bowels of Freemasonry - the god of which is Lucifer - seeing that Joseph Smith himself admits to having ascended to the "sublime degree" (33rd).

 

[n2thelight]

Hi nttl, I think Solomon disagrees with you:

"Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. Yea, better is he than both they, which HATH NOT YET BEEN (existed), WHO HATH NOT SEEN THE EVIL work that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 KJV

Solomon is lamenting the woes of earthly humanity and considers those dead and buried to be more fortunate than those who yet remain here suffering, but then goes on to say that those who have not yet lived on this planet are far better off than the two previous groups because they have yet to suffer the heartache and pain which has become so intrinsic to the experience of these two other groups.

Therefore, if we had already "been" (existed) with God before being born, as you claim, then we would have already become fully aware of "the evil work that is done under the sun", long before ever arriving here on Earth. The fact that Solomon says those who have "not yet been" are ignorant of such evil proves that we cannot possibly have existed before we arrived here. Your doctrine sounds suspiciously like the Mormon doctrine of the Father and Mother God who fornicate with each other day and night to produce the "souls needed to inhabit the bodies of newborns", an idea that is wholly unBiblical, but comes from the bowels of Freemasonry - the god of which is Lucifer - seeing that Joseph Smith himself admits to having ascended to the "sublime degree" (33rd).

Ecc was written for man under the sun....We are the sons and stars written of in Job

[SIZE=10pt]Job 38:6[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Job 38:7[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Who were these "sons of God" [the stars that sang], and when did these sons of God sing for Joy? We are talking about the angels here, that sang before the establishment of this earth age of the flesh. All souls were there and Satan also was there with all of them. Some how the people of this earth age are trying to forget Satan and the role that he played at the rebellion in that first earth age. We see that Satan was not in the conversation with Job and his friends at this time. They all have overlooked the overall plan of God. However had Job known the plan of God, where would he have been then, when the foundations of this earth were laid and the angels were rejoicing? Of course He would have been there with the rest of them, where we all were. You see, we the elect of God were chosen before the foundations of this earth were laid, and so was Job. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Ephesians 1:4[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world [age], that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]:"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Ephesians 1:5[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children of Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will," [/SIZE]

And how can He have known us before we were born?

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I know thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Please don't give me that because He knows everything....

Also why did He hate easu before he was born

Romans 9:11 "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him That calleth;"

Romans 9:13 "As it is written "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

 

[kerwin]

1) Fact: Whatever the translation may be, the Greek of Hebrews 4:12 KJV is written as a Chiasm and says that the Spirit and Soul can be divided as surely as the Marrow and Joints can be. If even a blind man can see that a knee joint can't exist unless all the parts are there together, then why is it so hard for you to see that a Living Soul can't exist unless all its parts - Body and Spirit according to Genesis 2:7 KJV - are there together?

2) The reason I keep saying the same thing is that you keep deflecting instead of facing the facts here presented.

3) Cognitive Dissonance is a condition of the mind where two opposing beliefs are held as truth simultaneously. You hold that the Rich Man and Lazarus is a symbolic parable while simultaneously insisting that it is a literal account of a dead man standing in flames holding a conversation with another dead man while a third dead man watches.

new 1) We are not doing a good job of communication because I am getting wrapped up in technicalities and you are just lending me more string. iIam not sure what Paul means because marrow is inside the bone and the joint is where two bones meet. There are better passages to use. The old man is put today and the new man arises from the waters is how the old spirit is put to death and a new spirit arises in Christ. That is perhaps what Paul referring to though I am not sure how it relates to joint and marrow. So the soul and spirit can be separated though I doubt a soul ever goes without a spirit except perhaps in the netherworld.

2) You covered the actual two under one.

3) A literal account mixed with symbolism. Jesus does the same thing in other parables as well. The wheat and weeds is a literal description of a farm field, the farmers, the enemy, and the field hands while symbolizing something else. There is some additional symbolizing in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus because it is simply because it is the best or only way to describe something. I think water, tongue, flame, finger, are all words to symbolize the environment though it could be illusionary or dreamlike environment instead. I have not the first century teaching enough to give an educated opinion.

 

[Phoneman777]

Ecc was written for man under the sun....We are the sons and stars written of in Job

[SIZE=10pt]Job 38:6[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Job 38:7[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Who were these "sons of God" [the stars that sang], and when did these sons of God sing for Joy? We are talking about the angels here, that sang before the establishment of this earth age of the flesh. All souls were there and Satan also was there with all of them. Some how the people of this earth age are trying to forget Satan and the role that he played at the rebellion in that first earth age. We see that Satan was not in the conversation with Job and his friends at this time. They all have overlooked the overall plan of God. However had Job known the plan of God, where would he have been then, when the foundations of this earth were laid and the angels were rejoicing? Of course He would have been there with the rest of them, where we all were. You see, we the elect of God were chosen before the foundations of this earth were laid, and so was Job. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Ephesians 1:4[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world [age], that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]:"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Ephesians 1:5[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children of Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will," [/SIZE]

And how can He have known us before we were born?

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I know thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Please don't give me that because He knows everything....

Also why did He hate easu before he was born

Romans 9:11 "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him That calleth;"

Romans 9:13 "As it is written "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

You have not addressed my point, friend. Here it is again:

You claim that we humans "were with God before we were born" (and logical progression demands that if this were the case then we would have had full knowledge of this miserable planet).

Solomon claims that the same born humans you speak of have zero knowledge of this miserable planet in the time when they "have not yet been" meaning "before they were born".

You and Solomon are speaking about the same folks, but one of you is wrong.

 

[Phoneman777]

new 1) We are not doing a good job of communication because I am getting wrapped up in technicalities and you are just lending me more string. iIam not sure what Paul means because marrow is inside the bone and the joint is where two bones meet. There are better passages to use. The old man is put today and the new man arises from the waters is how the old spirit is put to death and a new spirit arises in Christ. That is perhaps what Paul referring to though I am not sure how it relates to joint and marrow. So the soul and spirit can be separated though I doubt a soul ever goes without a spirit except perhaps in the netherworld.

2) You covered the actual two under one.

3) A literal account mixed with symbolism. Jesus does the same thing in other parables as well. The wheat and weeds is a literal description of a farm field, the farmers, the enemy, and the field hands while symbolizing something else. There is some additional symbolizing in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus because it is simply because it is the best or only way to describe something. I think water, tongue, flame, finger, are all words to symbolize the environment though it could be illusionary or dreamlike environment instead. I have not the first century teaching enough to give an educated opinion.

1) Marrow-filled bone is a component of a joint and to remove such bones from a joint is to render the joint NON-EXISTENT (likewise, the Soul ceases to exist when the Spirit component is removed from it as well).

3) Unless the angels are coming with giant weedeaters to kill the crabgrass, the parable of the wheat and the tares is SYMBOLISM, which requires interpretation. Likewise, the Rich Man and Lazarus is SYMBOLISM which requires interpretation. No giant weedeaters - no talking burning men.

If you would stop to consider that Jesus' parables were constant warnings to the Jews of what was going to happen to them if they didn't repent (Matthew 21:45 KJV), then it is easy to see Jesus' interpretation: the Rich Man symbolizes the Jewish nation, Lazarus symbolizes the Gentiles, the table of sumptuous food symbolizes the great blessings bestowed upon Israel, the crumbs falling from the table to the dogs are the blessings which are being despised by the Jews and earnestly desired by the Gentiles, the Rich Man in flames symbolizes the destruction and tragic tormented history that has plagued Israel while Lazarus in the comfort of Abraham represents the Gentile church, the members of which are the "Spiritual children of Abraham", which is comforted by the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. Moses and Elijah represent the Word of God, which if the Jews refuse to hear that, will not be convinced if "one rise from the dead". Did a dead man named Lazarus arise from the grave soon after? Yes. Were the Jews convinced of what the Word of God said about the Messiah? No, they went away and sought how they could kill BOTH Jesus and Lazarus.

I got PLENTY of Scripture to back this up if you're willing to let go of this ridiculous notion that this parable of Jesus , which so contradicts the rest of what Scripture says about what happens when we die, is meant to teach us about what happens when we die. :blink:

 

[n2thelight]

You have not addressed my point, friend. Here it is again:

You claim that we humans "were with God before we were born" (and logical progression demands that if this were the case then we would have had full knowledge of this miserable planet).

Solomon claims that the same born humans you speak of have zero knowledge of this miserable planet in the time when they "have not yet been" meaning "before they were born".

You and Solomon are speaking about the same folks, but one of you is wrong.

It's not my claim,please address Jer 1:5

 

[kerwin]

1) Marrow-filled bone is a component of a joint and to remove such bones from a joint is to render the joint NON-EXISTENT (likewise, the Soul ceases to exist when the Spirit component is removed from it as well).

3) Unless the angels are coming with giant weedeaters to kill the crabgrass, the parable of the wheat and the tares is SYMBOLISM, which requires interpretation. Likewise, the Rich Man and Lazarus is SYMBOLISM which requires interpretation. No giant weedeaters - no talking burning men.

If you would stop to consider that Jesus' parables were constant warnings to the Jews of what was going to happen to them if they didn't repent (Matthew 21:45 KJV), then it is easy to see Jesus' interpretation: the Rich Man symbolizes the Jewish nation, Lazarus symbolizes the Gentiles, the table of sumptuous food symbolizes the great blessings bestowed upon Israel, the crumbs falling from the table to the dogs are the blessings which are being despised by the Jews and earnestly desired by the Gentiles, the Rich Man in flames symbolizes the destruction and tragic tormented history that has plagued Israel while Lazarus in the comfort of Abraham represents the Gentile church, the members of which are the "Spiritual children of Abraham", which is comforted by the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. Moses and Elijah represent the Word of God, which if the Jews refuse to hear that, will not be convinced if "one rise from the dead". Did a dead man named Lazarus arise from the grave soon after? Yes. Were the Jews convinced of what the Word of God said about the Messiah? No, they went away and sought how they could kill BOTH Jesus and Lazarus.

I got PLENTY of Scripture to back this up if you're willing to let go of this ridiculous notion that this parable of Jesus , which so contradicts the rest of what Scripture says about what happens when we die, is meant to teach us about what happens when we die. :blink:

1) It does not follow from what is written.

1. The Scripture is not about joint being destroyed by removing bones.
2. It is about the power of the word of God.
3. No one is killed by the word of God.
   

I have to do my homework and so cannot go further at this time.

 

[Phoneman777]

1) It does not follow from what is written.

1. The Scripture is not about joint being destroyed by removing bones.
2. It is about the power of the word of God.
3. No one is killed by the word of God.
   

I have to do my homework and so cannot go further at this time.

A joint without bones is not a joint, it's nothingness. And a Soul without the Spirit and Body is just that: nothingness. Why must we argue against the idea that Souls are immortal when the Bible is so clear that souls DIE?

 

[Phoneman777]

It's not my claim,please address Jer 1:5

Hey, if you want to believe we pre-existed before we were born, that's OK with me. But, Jeremiah's words refer to God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah's existence BEFORE he existed, whether before or after his birth. God often speaks of things that will be as if they have already been, since His eternal nature is not bounded by time.

 

[kerwin]

Hey, if you want to believe we pre-existed before we were born, that's OK with me. But, Jeremiah's words refer to God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah's existence BEFORE he existed, whether before or after his birth. God often speaks of things that will be as if they have already been, since His eternal nature is not bounded by time.

Yes, predestination vs. preexistence.

Scriptures like that one are used to reveal that Jesus preexisted his conception.

Preexistence of the human soul is an ancient belief though I think Scripture hints otherwise. I don't believe it is ever addressed in Scripture.

 

[kerwin]

A joint without bones is not a joint, it's nothingness. And a Soul without the Spirit and Body is just that: nothingness. Why must we argue against the idea that Souls are immortal when the Bible is so clear that souls DIE?

You are insisting your words are true without even addressing my points. That is a poor debate practice.

Paul is clearly not speaking of the word of God killing a human being and so it is clear he is not saying the soul is reduced to nothing by the word of God.

Try to address that point or go to a Scripture that actually supports your view if you can find one.

 

[Phoneman777]

Yes, predestination vs. preexistence.

Scriptures like that one are used to reveal that Jesus preexisted his conception.

Preexistence of the human soul is an ancient belief though I think Scripture hints otherwise. I don't believe it is ever addressed in Scripture.

I agree. If people existed before they were born, then Solomon would not have described those yet unborn as ignorant of all the evil down here. Yet, Solomon plainly states this, proving that we do not exist before we have been born.

 

[Phoneman777]

You are insisting your words are true without even addressing my points. That is a poor debate practice.

Paul is clearly not speaking of the word of God killing a human being and so it is clear he is not saying the soul is reduced to nothing by the word of God.

Try to address that point or go to a Scripture that actually supports your view if you can find one

Genesis 2:7 KJV proves the Living Soul is the whole that begins to exist only at the point when its two parts - the Body and God's Spirit - are combined. You, like most, insist that when the two parts are separated, the whole continues to exist, when in reality at the point of dissolution of this union, the Living Soul becomes a Dead Soul, or non-existent Soul.

 

[kerwin]

Genesis 2:7 KJV proves the Living Soul is the whole that begins to exist only at the point when its two parts - the Body and God's Spirit - are combined. You, like most, insist that when the two parts are separated, the whole continues to exist, when in reality at the point of dissolution of this union, the Living Soul becomes a Dead Soul, or non-existent Soul.

I have heard Genesis 2:7 translated that way but that conclusion is not in agreement with passages that speak of the soul of the dead going down or coming up from to Sheol, Psalms 30:3, the Hebrew netherworld.

 

[n2thelight]

Hey, if you want to believe we pre-existed before we were born, that's OK with me. But, Jeremiah's words refer to God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah's existence BEFORE he existed, whether before or after his birth. God often speaks of things that will be as if they have already been, since His eternal nature is not bounded by time.

And God hated Esau why?

It's not what I want to believe,it's what scripture teaches,if you can't see it,it's all good.....

I see it plan as day...........

Romans 9:11 "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him That calleth;

Romans 9:12 "It was said unto her, "The elder shall serve the younger."

Romans 9:13 "As it is written "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

How can you hate someone not yet born?

What kind of God do yu think we serve

Guess next you will say He(God)created him to hate him,please give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If He(God) knows all that we shall do,can you please tell me why He just did'nt kill satan and all of his followers at the time of the rebellion?

 

[n2thelight]

Genesis 2:7 KJV proves the Living Soul is the whole that begins to exist only at the point when its two parts - the Body and God's Spirit - are combined. You, like most, insist that when the two parts are separated, the whole continues to exist, when in reality at the point of dissolution of this union, the Living Soul becomes a Dead Soul, or non-existent Soul.

Did Paul from scripture not say we have two bodies?

I Corinthians 15:35 "But some man will say, "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?"

I Corinthians 15:36 "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:"

It is important to understand the word "quickened", Remember in verse 22 Paul stated; "in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." This Greek word for "quickened" is the same Greek word for the "coming alive". It means that all, sinners and saints are made alive through Christ. It doesn't mean that the soul is raised to eternal life, for the soul is not the subject here, but the question is what happens to the physical body?

It means to "revitalize" [# 2227 in Strong's] the soul, and become conscience and ready for judgment. This doesn't mean that all souls are saved, but that all souls are given life to continue as they were. If that soul was lost, it will still be lost, but the final death will not take place until after this age of the flesh is over, after the Millennium age, and the Great white throne judgment is finish. Then will be the time of the "second death" or the death of the lost souls. It means that the soul has put off the flesh body, and put on their spiritual body, but their soul is still condemned to death if it is not in right standing with God.

I Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

There is a natural body, which is your flesh body, and there is also a spiritual or soul body. The two are different and when the natural body, or flesh body dies the spiritual body is "raised", or in the Greek text "egiro, awakened, become active from its death". You have two bodies, one natural body contains your spiritual body, and that spiritual body is awakened to a new life, when the flesh or natural body dies and releases your soul. Your spirit and your soul are together, for the spirit is your "self", "the intellect of your soul" which houses your spirit within you.
Your spirit never leaves your soul, even at the death of your flesh body. Satan does not have any power over your spiritual body, but only your flesh body. Man and Satan can tare this flesh body to peaces and cause you to do all sorts of things, but no-one can damage your soul, not man, not Satan nor the angels. God is the only one that can destroy the soul and that comes at the end of the Millennium age, following judgment. However through deception Satan can cause you to sin against God, and thus be in trouble before the Almighty God. But that is why we have repentance in the name of Jesus to become right-standing before the Father again.

It just can't be made any clearer than Paul has made it here. You have two bodies, the flesh and the spiritual bodies. When the flesh body dies, then the spiritual body is awakened and come alive within itself. It starts to live a life without the baggage of the flesh body confining it to the limits of the flesh.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then [at death] shall the dust [flesh body] return to the earth as it was: and the spirit [spiritual body] shall return [instantly] to God [Father] Who gave it."

What part of two bodies don't you understand?

 

[kerwin]

Did Paul from scripture not say we have two bodies?

I Corinthians 15:35 "But some man will say, "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?"

I Corinthians 15:36 "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:"

...

It can be interpreted that way but it is necessary what he means. The first body is the unchanged body and the second is the changed but yet they are the same body. The change can be fairly extreme and that would still be true. For example, a woman has an ax and its handle breaks. She puts a new handle on it and yet it is the same ax. The body is changed from being mortal to being immortal. The rest is poetic flavoring and repetition of that fact.

He also uses some Jewish teachings and so he may be speaking to converts from the Sadducee denomination.

 

[Phoneman777]

I have heard Genesis 2:7 translated that way but that conclusion is not in agreement with passages that speak of the soul of the dead going down or coming up from to Sheol, Psalms 30:3, the Hebrew netherworld.

kerwin, why do you fight the plain truth that death is the OPPOSITE of life? A Dead thing is a thing that is not living. A Dead Soul is a Soul that is no longer alive, not a Soul that continues life elsewhere.

You who preach eternal torment agree with Satan when he said, "Thou shalt not SURELY die". You say we are immortal, either in the smoking or non-smoking section.