Soul sleep

[Phoneman777]

The churches have taught for centuries that the soul is something separate from the body, being immortal and readily confuse this with the spirit. The Bible clarifies the meaning of soul and spirit. The Hebrew word for soul is nephesh that literally means "breather". At Genesis 2:7, it says that "the Lord God (whose name is Jehovah) formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."(King James Version)

The apostle Paul wrote: "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul".(1 Cor 15:45, KJV) Thus, just from these two Scriptures, it can already be discerned that man does not have a soul but is one. To further grasp that the soul is us as person with all our desires, Deuteronomy 12 says that "when the Lord God shall enlarge thy border, as he hath promised thee, and thou shalt say, I will eat flesh, because thy soul longeth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after".(Deut 12:20, KJV)

Thus, the soul "eats" and breathes, and also has blood, for Jeremiah 2 says to those in Jerusalem, the city being portrayed as a "woman" in which "also in thy skirts is found the blood of the poor innocents".(Jer 2:34) Animals are souls also, for Numbers 31 says to "levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves (or herd),and of the asses (or donkeys), and of the sheep".(Num 31:28, KJV)

Hence, the soul is us as a person, which just as with Adam when Jehovah God put within him "breath" or active force (Hebrew ru'ach), he came to life as a "living soul", so we are a "living soul" that eats and breathes. The spirit or life force is what gives us life, for just as a computer can be complete but without a power source, it remains dead, so likewise we are dead without our life force or spirit.

James wrote that "indeed, just as the body without spirit (Greek pneuma) is dead, so also faith without works is dead".(James 2:26) Again it could be likened to a refrigerator that without its power supply is dead. Psalms 104 says that "if you (God) take away their spirit (Heb ru'ach), they die and return to the dust. If you send out your spirit (holy spirit or God's active force), they are created".(Ps 104:29, 30)

Life ceases when we lose our "spirit" or active force that enables us to be alive, just as unplugging an electrical appliance. On the other hand, just as Adam came to life when "breath" or life force was instilled within him, keeping alive through breath or breathing, so we too received "spirit" or life force directly from our parents when we were conceived in the womb, kept alive through breathing, for life only comes from life.

Guestman, though I disagree with most JW doctrines, I thank you for imparting much needed truth to our beloved but misguided membership on this issue of what the Soul actually is.

 

[Phoneman777]

That is not Dispensation which is only one tenet of a group of doctrines. It teaches God has given different dispensation during different ages since the world began. They may disagree with other Dispensationalists on every tenet you named.

I disagree with the Dispensation tenet but not necessary to some of the other tenets you cited.

I have not heart of Jesuit Futurism before.

kerwin, it's not necessary to examine every version of Dispensationalism in order to condemn the whole lot as unBiblical if every single one of them incorporate as their last Dispensation period the ideas of Jesuit Futurism, which they all do. Every single one of them point to a "last seven years of tribulation arrival of Antichrist" which is not found in Scripture. Darby, the "father of Dispensationalism" embraced these false ideas and added the "Secret Rapture" to them, and today his ideas are widely accepted as truth by non-Catholics everywhere who have no clue what happened in history.

Read what Jesus Christ's champions of the faith during the time of the Protestant Reformation like Martin Luther, John Calvin, William Tyndale, etc. said regarding the identity of the Antichrist in their doctrine of Historicism and the lies of the Jesuits which came as a response to Historicism and then tell me if your ideas line up more with the Historicism of the Protestant Reformation or the ideas of Jesuit Futurism of the Jesuit Counter-Reformation.

 

[Phoneman777]

This is a false accusation.

Oz, I made no accusations, only assumptions. It is safe to assume that anyone who denies the inseparable link between Jesuit Futurism and Dispensationalism hasn't got a clue about the origin of either of these ideas, but has accepted them using only the non-contextual "proof texts" by the misguided originators of both these unBiblical ideas.

 

[kerwin]

kerwin, it's not necessary to examine every version of Dispensationalism in order to condemn the whole lot as unBiblical if every single one of them incorporate as their last Dispensation period the ideas of Jesuit Futurism, which they all do. Every single one of them point to a "last seven years of tribulation arrival of Antichrist" which is not found in Scripture. Darby, the "father of Dispensationalism" embraced these false ideas and added the "Secret Rapture" to them, and today his ideas are widely accepted as truth by non-Catholics everywhere who have no clue what happened in history.

Read what Jesus Christ's champions of the faith during the time of the Protestant Reformation like Martin Luther, John Calvin, William Tyndale, etc. said regarding the identity of the Antichrist in their doctrine of Historicism and the lies of the Jesuits which came as a response to Historicism and then tell me if your ideas line up more with the Historicism of the Protestant Reformation or the ideas of Jesuit Futurism of the Jesuit Counter-Reformation.

I am more curious than anything. Wikipedia states they have a gap theory of futurism in their article of Christian Futurism. I did not see where the article mentioned Jesuits at all.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, I made no accusations, only assumptions. It is safe to assume that anyone who denies the inseparable link between Jesuit Futurism and Dispensationalism hasn't got a clue about the origin of either of these ideas, but has accepted them using only the non-contextual "proof texts" by the misguided originators of both these unBiblical ideas.

I have not raised or denied such a link. That is your false invention about my theology.

 

[Phoneman777]

I am more curious than anything. Wikipedia states they have a gap theory of futurism in their article of Christian Futurism. I did not see where the article mentioned Jesuits at all.

I assure you that the eschatology of Futurism was unknown to this planet before the mid 16th century. The idea was born out of the mind of Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera because the Protestant Reformers, enemies of the RCC, had begun teaching "Historicism" years earlier - an eschatological interpretation which condemned the Papacy (union of RCC and the State) as "Antichrist" which turned the RCC upside down as many Catholics fled from her to join the Protestants.

Ribera introduced Futurism which for the first time began to teach that the 70th Week of Daniel's 70 Weeks was cut off and sent down to the end of time as "the last 7 years" in which the Antichrist, tribulation, Armageddon, etc. was to take place, leaving a 2,000+ year "gap" between Calvary and the end of time. Of course, this idea is ludicrous. The 70th Week was fulfilled way back during the time of Christ and has nothing to do with events at the end of time. It was JESUS who "made a covenant with many for one week" and "in the midst of the week caused the sacrifices and oblations to cease", and "the people of the prince that shall come and destroy the sanctuary and the city" either refers to the soldiers of Roman prince Titus or the Jews of Prince Jesus, but this prince is certainly not some "last 7 years Antichrist". Both Futurism and Preterism are JESUIT ideas which were sent into the world by the Papacy to counter what the Protestants were teaching from the Bible: Historicism. Any Historicist website will easily confirm what Wikipedia fails to mention in their description of Futurism.

 

[kerwin]

I assure you that the eschatology of Futurism was unknown to this planet before the mid 16th century. The idea was born out of the mind of Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera because the Protestant Reformers, enemies of the RCC, had begun teaching "Historicism" years earlier - an eschatological interpretation which condemned the Papacy (union of RCC and the State) as "Antichrist" which turned the RCC upside down as many Catholics fled from her to join the Protestants.

Ribera introduced Futurism which for the first time began to teach that the 70th Week of Daniel's 70 Weeks was cut off and sent down to the end of time as "the last 7 years" in which the Antichrist, tribulation, Armageddon, etc. was to take place, leaving a 2,000+ year "gap" between Calvary and the end of time. Of course, this idea is ludicrous. The 70th Week was fulfilled way back during the time of Christ and has nothing to do with events at the end of time. It was JESUS who "made a covenant with many for one week" and "in the midst of the week caused the sacrifices and oblations to cease", and "the people of the prince that shall come and destroy the sanctuary and the city" either refers to the soldiers of Roman prince Titus or the Jews of Prince Jesus, but this prince is certainly not some "last 7 years Antichrist". Both Futurism and Preterism are JESUIT ideas which were sent into the world by the Papacy to counter what the Protestants were teaching from the Bible: Historicism. Any Historicist website will easily confirm what Wikipedia fails to mention in their description of Futurism.

I believe that Wikipedia article I read there was a mention of it in early writing but that it really took off after the Protestant Revolution. I would not call it a Jesuit even if it was a theory proposed by one Jesuit in a few of his published works. I have no idea what point of view the Jesuit organization on it. I also read an article on that particular monk and did find mention of it.

I am not really familial with the subject as I consider it one of the least important messages in Scripture so please give me some Scriptural references. Thank you!

 

[Born_Again]

Revived dead thread!!!! This is a fun topic!

 

[kerwin]

Revived dead thread!!!! This is a fun topic!

The thread has veered off into a dispute between before I entered it because I was interested in the Catholic-Protestant history of Futurism being discussed.

I am not sure why a thread on soul sleep was placed in Unorthodox doctrine as I thought that one was suffered as an orthodox doctrine. It is also an interesting but one Jesus resolved in his Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

 

[Phoneman777]

I have not raised or denied such a link. That is your false invention about my theology.

Jesuit Futurism and Dispensationalism share the same eschatological heretical framework, and the Jesuit chicken came before the D. egg.

 

[Phoneman777]

I believe that Wikipedia article I read there was a mention of it in early writing but that it really took off after the Protestant Revolution. I would not call it a Jesuit even if it was a theory proposed by one Jesuit in a few of his published works. I have no idea what point of view the Jesuit organization on it. I also read an article on that particular monk and did find mention of it.

I am not really familial with the subject as I consider it one of the least important messages in Scripture so please give me some Scriptural references. Thank you!

When Jesus spoke about the two men who built houses upon rock and sand, even a blind man can easily see that He was referring to was the unavoidable result of building our systems of belief upon truth or error.

If it can be shown that what is popularly believed today in evangelical ("Protestant") Christianity is actually based upon the shifting sands of twisted Biblical interpretation, is it not incumbent upon us to investigate this issue with the utmost concern and, if proven true, make the necessary changes to ensure that our beliefs are resting on the solid Rock of Scripture?

The simple fact is that from the birth of Protestantism in the 16th century, the Protestant Reformers identified the Papacy as the "Antichrist" of Scripture (an idea known as "Historicism") and the Papacy responded by attempting to deflect their accusations by producing two alternative doctrines which placed the Antichrist in the distant past (known today as "Preterism") and also the distant future ("Futurism"), essentially telling the world to "look to the past, look to the future, look anywhere but at us". These ideas were immediately and soundly rejected by the Reformers and for 300 years, Historicism was exclusively taught from every Protestant pulpit worldwide, but just in the last 100 years or so, Futurism began taking the place of Historicism and now Protestants everywhere are talking about an Antichrist which is yet to come on the scene. They've completely forgotten their roots and why so many millions chose death rather than accept the false, extra-Biblical ideas of the RCC.

If you'd like to know what is the Biblical evidence for Historicism and how Jesuit Futurism managed to take over as the dominant view held today by most everyone, I'm happy to provide that for you, friend.

 

[Phoneman777]

The thread has veered off into a dispute between before I entered it because I was interested in the Catholic-Protestant history of Futurism being discussed.

I am not sure why a thread on soul sleep was placed in Unorthodox doctrine as I thought that one was suffered as an orthodox doctrine. It is also an interesting but one Jesus resolved in his Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

You should know that proponents of the "immortal soul" doctrine insist that this is NOT a parable, for they know full well that it is a violation of the Laws of Hermeneutics to base a doctrine on an uninterpreted parable. Therefore, they insist that this is a LITERAL story in which two literal men die and their souls continue on, the one in the flames and the other in peace.

The problem is that there are too many elements in this story that are clearly symbolic. For instance, those who believe in the "immortal soul" teach that when we die our bodies rot in the ground while our "immortal souls" go into either eternal torment or to a blessed reward, but if that is the case, then why does Lazarus have a finger and the Rich Man eyes and a tongue? The Bible says that only in the resurrection of the just and the unjust do the dead receive bodies (the righteous man - a glorious body, and the wicked man - a vile body which is cast into the Lake of Fire and burned up). So then, is Jesus confused, or worse yet, is He teaching heresy?

I'd be happy to discuss every single point of this parable in Luke 16, to not only show you why it can't possibly be real experience, but also to show you that Jesus actually interprets the parable in Scripture!

 

[kerwin]

You should know that proponents of the "immortal soul" doctrine insist that this is NOT a parable, for they know full well that it is a violation of the Laws of Hermeneutics to base a doctrine on an uninterpreted parable. Therefore, they insist that this is a LITERAL story in which two literal men die and their souls continue on, the one in the flames and the other in peace.

The problem is that there are too many elements in this story that are clearly symbolic. For instance, those who believe in the "immortal soul" teach that when we die our bodies rot in the ground while our "immortal souls" go into either eternal torment or to a blessed reward, but if that is the case, then why does Lazarus have a finger and the Rich Man eyes and a tongue? The Bible says that only in the resurrection of the just and the unjust do the dead receive bodies (the righteous man - a glorious body, and the wicked man - a vile body which is cast into the Lake of Fire and burned up). So then, is Jesus confused, or worse yet, is He teaching heresy?

I'd be happy to discuss every single point of this parable in Luke 16, to not only show you why it can't possibly be real experience, but also to show you that Jesus actually interprets the parable in Scripture!

The flaw in your deductive reasoning is that Jesus uses a variation of a doctrine that is known to exist at the time. If that doctrine is false it follow would be a false teacher for using it.

In addition Jesus references the teaching again when he tells the thief "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise".

Hippolytus of Rome also refers to it in the third century which shows it had some staying power even as the church was pulling away its Jewish heritage.

Wikipedia has a article that covers the bosom of Abraham teaching.

I agree that some of it does seem to be symbolic but Jesus would not use a false teaching because that would legitimize it.

 

[kerwin]

When Jesus spoke about the two men who built houses upon rock and sand, even a blind man can easily see that He was referring to was the unavoidable result of building our systems of belief upon truth or error.

If it can be shown that what is popularly believed today in evangelical ("Protestant") Christianity is actually based upon the shifting sands of twisted Biblical interpretation, is it not incumbent upon us to investigate this issue with the utmost concern and, if proven true, make the necessary changes to ensure that our beliefs are resting on the solid Rock of Scripture?

The simple fact is that from the birth of Protestantism in the 16th century, the Protestant Reformers identified the Papacy as the "Antichrist" of Scripture (an idea known as "Historicism") and the Papacy responded by attempting to deflect their accusations by producing two alternative doctrines which placed the Antichrist in the distant past (known today as "Preterism") and also the distant future ("Futurism"), essentially telling the world to "look to the past, look to the future, look anywhere but at us". These ideas were immediately and soundly rejected by the Reformers and for 300 years, Historicism was exclusively taught from every Protestant pulpit worldwide, but just in the last 100 years or so, Futurism began taking the place of Historicism and now Protestants everywhere are talking about an Antichrist which is yet to come on the scene. They've completely forgotten their roots and why so many millions chose death rather than accept the false, extra-Biblical ideas of the RCC.

If you'd like to know what is the Biblical evidence for Historicism and how Jesuit Futurism managed to take over as the dominant view held today by most everyone, I'm happy to provide that for you, friend.

It is a false prophet but I doubt it is even the false prophet spoken of in Revelations, much less the Antichrist. The Antichrist sounds like one man whom embodies the spirit of Belial.

 

[Phoneman777]

The flaw in your deductive reasoning is that Jesus uses a variation of a doctrine that is known to exist at the time. If that doctrine is false it follow would be a false teacher for using it.

In addition Jesus references the teaching again when he tells the thief "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise".

Hippolytus of Rome also refers to it in the third century which shows it had some staying power even as the church was pulling away its Jewish heritage.

Wikipedia has a article that covers the bosom of Abraham teaching.

I agree that some of it does seem to be symbolic but Jesus would not use a false teaching because that would legitimize it.

I. Jesus' use of Symbolism does not make Him a false teacher:
The only way Jesus would be a false teacher is if He meant to teach the account of Luke 16 as a LITERAL, but His use of SYMBOLISM is both prevalent and legitimate throughout His ministry. The only way this passage can be accepted as literal is if it is believed that:

• the dead receive bodies before the resurrection
• that the dead know things, feel things, desire things, etc.
• that the dead literally go to Abraham's literal bosom
• that a person completely engulfed in flame can carry on a lucid, thoughtful conversation
• that the dead wicked can converse with the living righteous

...all of which (and more which I could list about this passage) are completely in opposition to what the rest of the Bible teaches about the state of the dead. In Luke 16, Jesus took a flawed understanding of death held among the Jews (due to their having been corrupted by their unwise associations with the Greeks and their flawed Hellenistic concepts of death) and He incorporated it into a SYMBOLIC parable, the point of which had nothing to do with the afterlife.

II. Jesus nor the thief went to Paradise on the day He spoke those words:

Jesus spoke these words on the Preparation Day (Friday) and He died just before it ended at sunset when the new day, the Sabbath, would begin. He did not immediately go to His Father (whose Throne, according to Revelation 2:7 KJV and Revelation 22:1-2 KJV, is in the same place that the Tree of Life is: in Paradise) because on Sunday, He declared "I have not yet ascended to My Father" - His Father's throne being in Paradise.

Likewise, the thief did not go to Paradise on Friday. It is popularly taught that the reason for the breaking of the thieves' legs was so that death could be sped up by suffocation before removal of their bodies from the Cross. However, when the time came to take down the condemned, the time to make sure of their death had past and the only concern was to get the condemned down off the Cross before the fast approaching sunset and beginning of the next day - the Sabbath - and breaking their legs ensured their inability to escape. It is highly unlikely that death by suffocation due to broken legs would occur during the few remaining moments before the end of the Preparation Day and the commencement of the Sabbath. The thief survived until after the day Jesus spoke those words on the Cross had passed.

III. You will be with Me in paradise
So, what is the solution? Punctuation was not inspired by God, and the translators placed the comma where they thought it should go, based on the flawed concept of Roman Catholicism's false teachings of the state of the dead, but this placement is the cause of the confusion:

Take the comma out and we read: "I say unto you today you will be with Me in paradise"

Without the punctuation, Jesus' words can just as easily be understood as being, "I say to you this day while I'm hanging here on this Cross, wretched, condemned, and abandoned - you will be with Me in Paradise."

You should know that in the Septuagint, the Greek word for "today" (Samayron) is modified by the verb that follows it only about 50 times, but by the verb that precedes it over 170 times. Thus, the majority use of the word "today" in these cases suggest that it is likely that the word "today" is being modified by the verb that precedes it "I say".

 

[Phoneman777]

It is a false prophet but I doubt it is even the false prophet spoken of in Revelations, much less the Antichrist. The Antichrist sounds like one man whom embodies the spirit of Belial.

You can lead a horse to water. If you don't think that 300 solid years of Protestant theology identifying the Antichrist as the religious system in Rome is worth investigating, especially since the RCC is responsible for the popular idea today about Antichrist being just one man, then keep on looking for Antichrist to appear in the Middle East. You'll be among the "many thereby that go in thereat".

 

[OzSpen]

Jesuit Futurism and Dispensationalism share the same eschatological heretical framework, and the Jesuit chicken came before the D. egg.

Nowhere have I ever stated that I support Dispensationalism. Nowhere! Do you get it? :wub:

 

[kerwin]

I. Jesus' use of Symbolism does not make Him a false teacher:
The only way Jesus would be a false teacher is if He meant to teach the account of Luke 16 as a LITERAL, but His use of SYMBOLISM is both prevalent and legitimate throughout His ministry. The only way this passage can be accepted as literal is if it is believed that:

• the dead receive bodies before the resurrection
• that the dead know things, feel things, desire things, etc.
• that the dead literally go to Abraham's literal bosom
• that a person completely engulfed in flame can carry on a lucid, thoughtful conversation
• that the dead wicked can converse with the living righteous

...all of which (and more which I could list about this passage) are completely in opposition to what the rest of the Bible teaches about the state of the dead. In Luke 16, Jesus took a flawed understanding of death held among the Jews (due to their having been corrupted by their unwise associations with the Greeks and their flawed Hellenistic concepts of death) and He incorporated it into a SYMBOLIC parable, the point of which had nothing to do with the afterlife.

II. Jesus nor the thief went to Paradise on the day He spoke those words:

Jesus spoke these words on the Preparation Day (Friday) and He died just before it ended at sunset when the new day, the Sabbath, would begin. He did not immediately go to His Father (whose Throne, according to Revelation 2:7 KJV and Revelation 22:1-2 KJV, is in the same place that the Tree of Life is: in Paradise) because on Sunday, He declared "I have not yet ascended to My Father" - His Father's throne being in Paradise.

Likewise, the thief did not go to Paradise on Friday. It is popularly taught that the reason for the breaking of the thieves' legs was so that death could be sped up by suffocation before removal of their bodies from the Cross. However, when the time came to take down the condemned, the time to make sure of their death had past and the only concern was to get the condemned down off the Cross before the fast approaching sunset and beginning of the next day - the Sabbath - and breaking their legs ensured their inability to escape. It is highly unlikely that death by suffocation due to broken legs would occur during the few remaining moments before the end of the Preparation Day and the commencement of the Sabbath. The thief survived until after the day Jesus spoke those words on the Cross had passed.
...

It is not the symbolism that I am but rather the environment is an environment taught as the environment of Sheol by the religion by the God-fearing and there imitators at that time. It is a historic pre-first-century teaching. This is a from a Historyextra article called "A Brief History of the Afterlife" and appears to go by the historical theory that the description Jesus used evolved from and earlier doctrine where both the wicked shared an equivalent fate.

Whether in Greece of the seventh century BC or in the ancient Israel of the same period, the fate of the dead was the same whether they were good or evil – a shadowy half-life in Hades beneath the Earth or its Hebrew equivalent Sheol. But by the time of the Christian era, there were two foundational narratives about the afterlife in western thought already weaving in and out of each other. In both cases, the vice or virtue of the deceased determined their fate. On the one hand, there was a narrative built around the anticipation that life will continue immediately after the death of each of us. At the point of death, it was thought, the soul will be weighed in the balance, be judged according to its virtue or vice and be sent to the bliss of Abraham’s Bosom (paradise) or be cast into the pit of Hades.

This is what New World Encyclopedia says about it in their entry in Sheol. Like my previous source they follow that the teaching evolved over time.

However, following the period of the Babylonian Exile (sixth century B.C.E.), the Jews began to embrace a more punitive view of hell, which was known as Gehenna. This word derived from Gei Hinnom (the valley of Hinnom described in Josh. 15:8, 18:16; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; Neh. 11:30), a place where children were sacrificed to the Canaanite god Moloch, and where fires were kept burning to consume the corpses and rotting garbage.

Thus, the notion of the afterlife and the concept of hell evolved and changed throughout the Hebrew Bible.

My point is that it was a teaching based on Scripture that existed at and before Jesus' mortality and if it were he would not have legitimized it using it. The fact it may or may not contain symbolism is irrelevant.

 

[kerwin]

You can lead a horse to water. If you don't think that 300 solid years of Protestant theology identifying the Antichrist as the religious system in Rome is worth investigating, especially since the RCC is responsible for the popular idea today about Antichrist being just one man, then keep on looking for Antichrist to appear in the Middle East. You'll be among the "many thereby that go in thereat".

You really need to keep up with divergent opinions about the Anti-Christ. I have heard of it being speculated about him in many nations including the U.S. and Germany.

Emperor Hadrian did a lot of stuff associated with the Anti-Christ though he probably was not the one spoken of as the Worthless one.

As for me, I am not even sure the Son of Belial is a male.

 

[Phoneman777]

Nowhere have I ever stated that I support Dispensationalism. Nowhere! Do you get it? :wub:

I sure do, and sorry if I failed to acknowledge that. I'm just giving reasons I believe Dispensationalism should be wholly rejected, whatever flavor of the week it may be because they all incorporate a Jesuit Futurist version of eschatology.

But also, take the "age of law" versus the "age of grace" - I can't buy into that either. It asserts the "age of law" Old Covenant people were saved by works apart from faith, and that "age of grace" New Covenant people are saved by grace and are freed from any obligation to obey God. Works has never been the mechanism by which we are saved - which is Grace through Faith - but the evidence proving we have been saved by Grace through Faith.