Will Trump seek asylum in Israel and Build the 3rd Temple?

[Timtofly]

You are saying that dozens of verses of scripture are not accurate, because one parable seems to tell a different story? You do realize that a parable is not actually literal, right?

Remember, you must always interpret less clear scripture in light of more clear scripture. Make the clear scripture your foundation, and then make the less clear scripture fit on top of that foundation. You're doing it the other way around. You're making the less clear scripture, the parable, the foundation of your doctrine, and that then forces you to explain away the really clear scriptures about death because they don't fit your understanding of the parable. That's backwards.

Do you mean the parable of Ecclesiastes? I agree. Jesus the Word of God was clearly explaining the parables of the OT writers.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Actually, to claim that "the dead know nothing", does not mean that the dead know nothing, is a ridiculous response.

No, it isn't. It's ridiculous for you to ignore the scriptures which show physically dead people as being conscious.

And pretending that those who believe what it literally says need "discernment" is kind of a joke, isn't it?

Not at all. When people try to read scripture no differently than they would read a newspaper or magazine article, it shows a lack of discernment. You are clearly making no effort to spiritually discern scripture and are instead making assumptions that it's supposed to all be read literally and straightforwardly. That causes you to contradict other scriptures.

This is not the kind of thing that you can claim is symbolic. It literally says the dead know nothing an praise not the lord.

But, what is the context of that? You seem to make no effort to see that. I told you the context and you're ignoring that.

Their plans perish and they lie prostrate. Those are many verses that say that, so anybody who ignores those verses and pretends that they don't really mean what they say, has no moral high ground to lecture those of us who actually believe they are true.

Don't really mean what they say...that's a childish approach to interpreting scripture. Read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 and tell me if that is the approach to interpreting scripture that Paul said we should use.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Actually, to claim that "the dead know nothing", does not mean that the dead know nothing, is a ridiculous response.

No, it isn't. It's ridiculous for you to ignore the scriptures which show physically dead people as being conscious.

And pretending that those who believe what it literally says need "discernment" is kind of a joke, isn't it?

Not at all. When people try to read scripture no differently than they would read a newspaper or magazine article, it shows a lack of discernment. You are clearly making no effort to spiritually discern scripture and are instead making assumptions that it's supposed to all be read literally and straightforwardly. That causes you to contradict other scriptures.

This is not the kind of thing that you can claim is symbolic. It literally says the dead know nothing an praise not the lord.

But, what is the context of that? You seem to make no effort to see that. I told you the context and you're ignoring that.

Their plans perish and they lie prostrate. Those are many verses that say that, so anybody who ignores those verses and pretends that they don't really mean what they say, has no moral high ground to lecture those of us who actually believe they are true.

Don't really mean what they say...that's a childish approach to interpreting scripture. Read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 and tell me if that is the approach to interpreting scripture that Paul said we should use.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What you and I believe is very similar, at least up to a point. We both believe that after death, we live on as spirits. However, this transition from physical body to spirit, that's where we differ.

You describe it as "the spirit leaves the body". I describe it as "the physical body is replaced with a spiritual body".

If you read 1 Corinthians 15 you should see that will not happen until the last trumpet when Jesus returns. It does not happen immediately upon death. That is not stated anywhere.

The problem with "the spirit leaves the body": It requires you to answer a complicated question, which I don't think you can answer. And the question is: What are you? Are you a body? If yes, then you would have to agree with "the physical body is replaced with a spiritual body" otherwise you would have to claim that you do not live on after death, and I don't think you are claiming that. If you say you are spirit, living inside of a body, then when the body dies, you don't die, because you are not the thing that died. Only your vessel died, because you are the spirit, not the body. If you say you are the combination of spirit and body, then you have a real problem because it would not allow the spirit and body to separate from each other, as both parts would have their own consciousness and that would require you to be two people. So that doesn't work. Any way you slice it, your consciousness determines what you are, because where your consciousness is, there you are.

You are not making any sense here. You are the one who somehow thinks that we can't exist and be conscious without a body, but that is simply not the case and not taught anywhere in scripture. You're trying to come up with convoluted ways to support your doctrine, but it doesn't work. Scripture portrays physically/bodily dead people as still being conscious. Explain how Jesus was talking to Moses and Elijah at His transfiguration if they supposedly knew nothing as you believe about those who are physically dead (or who were physically dead in OT times...your beliefs are hard to follow).

The reason why the body replacement theory makes sense: It allows us to understand what has changed since Jesus' resurrection. Something must have changed, otherwise what was the point of Jesus' death and resurrection? And when we look at OT scriptures, we can clearly see what has changed, and that is that in the OT the saints did not go to heaven upon death. Nowhere does it say that any saint went to heaven when they died, or that they went on to live as spirits when they died.

They went to what is called Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:19-31) and were conscious there just as the rich man in that passage was conscious in hell or Hades.

Instead, we see countless examples of the dead resting in the dust, with their fathers. These examples can not be denied.

That's just their bodies. Why do you continue to not differentiate between the body, soul and spirit? There's no reason for you to do that.

And when we accept the statement that "the dead know nothing", we can confirm that the dead, in those days, lost consciousness.

But that contradicts the fact that Moses and Elijah were conscious despite being physically/bodily dead. Jesus spoke to them. So, you don't know what you're talking about. You're ignoring examples of physically/bodily dead people being conscious because you have decided that the dead knowing nothing can only mean one thing. But, you failed to look at the context of that verse as I showed you (which you ignored).

Their bodies were not replaced with spiritual bodies.

No one's body has been replaced with a spiritual body except for Jesus so far. You are way off base on this.

The physical body was all they had, and so when they died, they actually died, just like God said "to dust you will return".

Where are you getting the idea that their physical body was all they had? You're just making things up here.

Today, it's different. Today, when you die, you get a new body instantly so you never have to experience the state of death, because Jesus gave us eternal life, but the old testament saints did actually experience the state of death because the new spiritual body was not yet available to them.

Where is this taught? Stop making claims without backing them up with scripture.

My doctrine fits perfectly with scripture.

Not even close.

Yours does not.

Yes, it does. You are lacking in discernment on this and need to ask God for wisdom about it (James 1:5-7). Why don't you try to tell Moses and Elijah that they knew nothing when they were dead whenever you see them. They will both get a good laugh out of that.

You have to pretend that all those OT verses don't really mean what they say. I don't have that problem. I can accept what they say, and make sense of it all.

They do mean what they say, but you don't understand what they mean. This type of argument is weak and pointless. This is what premils do when they say that us Amils don't let certain scriptures mean what they say. We have to discern what they mean. There's a scripture that says there is a beast with seven head and ten horns. Does that mean it's a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns? Of course not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you even know what a soul is? Cause you appear to be talking about "body, soul and spirit" as though they are three parts of a person, but that doesn't make sense if you use the biblical definition of soul. So, why don't you explain what a soul is and then we can determine if we agree on anything here.

John said he saw the souls of those who were dead. He didn't say he saw souls as if the word "souls" there is synonymous with people. So, he saw a part of those people called the soul even though they were physically/bodily dead.

Is this verse in your Bible?

1 Thess 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

How about this one:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Are you implying that the meaning of soul changes from Genesis as scripture goes forward? You are right. Based on Genesis I take the soul as being the whole person...a living being, the combination of dust and spirit(breath)...
KJV Genesis 2:7
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
.

Are you aware that words can have more than one meaning?

 

[Brakelite]

Are you aware that words can have more than one meaning?

Yes. But not when one tries to force a meaning which contradicts the rest of scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes. But not when one tries to force a meaning which contradicts the rest of scripture.

What does that mean? Do you think that words used in scripture can only ever mean one thing in all of scripture?

Revelation 6:9-11 and Revelation 20:4 refer to the souls of those who have died and does not refer to souls in terms of how the word soul can refer to a person. Why is that if people don't have souls that can be apart from their bodies?

Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:6-8), so he clearly understood that there is a part of us besides our bodies that can separate from our bodies and be present with the Lord. He struggled with determining whether he wanted to die and then be present with Christ, which he considered to be the far better option for himself or to stay alive so that he could continue helping people (Phillippians 1:21-24). How could he struggle with something like that if he didn't have a soul that would depart from his body when he died and go be with Christ in heaven?

 

[Freedm]

If you read 1 Corinthians 15 you should see that will not happen until the last trumpet when Jesus returns. It does not happen immediately upon death. That is not stated anywhere.

It's not explicitly stated that it happens immediately upon death, but it makes the most sense. And, as you know, I believe Jesus already returned, so my belief is in agreement with 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[Freedm]

They went to what is called Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:19-31) and were conscious there just as the rich man in that passage was conscious in hell or Hades.

That is obviously a parable. I find it confusing that you take a parable as being literal, but statements like "the dead know nothing", you claim are not literal. It's so backwards.

 

[Freedm]

Where are you getting the idea that their physical body was all they had? You're just making things up here.

I'm not making anything up. In fact, you are, when you claim that they had spirits because the Bible doesn't say they had spirits. Why are you making things up?

I'm simply going with what scripture says, which is that "dust you are, and to dust you will return". It doesn't get much clearer than that. God literally told us we were made of dust. He didn't say anything about a spirit. He said we are made of dust. He also said we would return to the dust, which means we lie in the earth. He did not say that we would float up to heaven as spirits. So I'm going with exactly what scripture tells us, and in fact what God himself told us. Why are you not?

 

[amigo de christo]

Yes. But not when one tries to force a meaning which contradicts the rest of scripture.

I have no idea what the two of you were talking about . ONLY that when i read THIS
IT HAD TO GET RESAID AGAIN . CAUSE THAT BE SPOT ON RIGHT . BUT NOT , KNOT , NOT when it tries to force
a meaning which contradicts the rest of scripture . PEROID .

 

[Freedm]

John said he saw the souls of those who were dead. He didn't say he saw souls as if the word "souls" there is synonymous with people. So, he saw a part of those people called the soul even though they were physically/bodily dead.

Is this verse in your Bible?

1 Thess 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

How about this one:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Those verses do not tell us what a soul is. Only Genesis 2:7 tells us.

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.

You see. We do not have a soul. We are a soul.

So we are not three parts. We are simply one living creature, which is a soul.

 

[Freedm]

No. In scripture there are two uses of "soul". One is the person or their body, and one is the inner soul. I already gave scripture for that but you did not comment on what that scripture says. Care to now?

1Th_5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In Genesis the word translated as soul is Nephesh which means "a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion".

In 1 Thess 5 the word is Psuche which means "the vital breath, breath of life, (b) the human soul, (c) the soul as the seat of affections and will, (d) the self, (e) a human person, an individual.".

So in both cases, it can be translated as the individual, but notice that the Greek word used in 1 Thess 5 can also be translated as "breath of life", and that's the key. I believe the author of 1 Thess 5 was speaking of the breath of life because it makes sense in that context. You could separate the spirit and the breath from the body, but if the word is translated as "soul" it makes no sense because a soul is an individual person.

Think about it. If the soul is the body with life in it, then the soul and the body are the same thing, so it makes no sense to translate the word as "soul" in 1 Thess 5. It's simply a bad translation. It should be translated as "breath" or "breath of life". That way also it does not contradict Genesis 2:7.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm not making anything up. In fact, you are, when you claim that they had spirits because the Bible doesn't say they had spirits. Why are you making things up?

I'm simply going with what scripture says, which is that "dust you are, and to dust you will return". It doesn't get much clearer than that. God literally told us we were made of dust. He didn't say anything about a spirit. He said we are made of dust. He also said we would return to the dust, which means we lie in the earth. He did not say that we would float up to heaven as spirits. So I'm going with exactly what scripture tells us, and in fact what God himself told us. Why are you not?

You are not using all relative scriptures.

Ecc 12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The dust does go to the Earth but there is a spirit in man and it does go up to God.

"He did not say that we would float up to heaven as spirits."


I'm going with exactly what scripture tells us, and in fact what God himself told us. Will you agree with what this verse says or find a way to avoid it?

 

[Freedm]

I agree with your previous posts, but here, not do much. I do agree that there is a spiritual body awaiting those who die in the flesh. But that event of inheriting that promise is not realised until the resurrection.

I agree that the spiritual body is not realized until the resurrection. You and I just disagree on the timing of that resurrection. We agree that it happens at Jesus' return, but we disagree on the timing of that return.

 

[ewq1938]

It's simply a bad translation. It should be translated as "breath" or "breath of life". That way also it does not contradict Genesis 2:7.

Are you a Greek scholar? What scholarly basis do you reject the translation?

Scripture is clear there is a body and a soul and a spirit. You protest only because it goes against your beliefs but it is a valid translation of scripture.

 

[Freedm]

John said he saw the souls of those who were dead. He didn't say he saw souls as if the word "souls" there is synonymous with people. So, he saw a part of those people called the soul even though they were physically/bodily dead.

He did see a part, but again, this is the Greek word Psuche which means breath of life. He saw their breath, not their spirit. Using the word "soul" in this translation is misleading.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 tells us the breath of life returns to God who gave it. He gave that breath in Genesis 2:7, and when the people died (before Christ's resurrection) that breath of life returned to God who gave it. That is what John saw in his vision. The breath of life for all those who had died.

Let me ask you something. How you explain the difference between "soul" and "spirit"?

 

[Freedm]

Are you a Greek scholar? What scholarly basis do you reject the translation?

Scripture is clear there is a body and a soul and a spirit. You protest only because it goes against your beliefs but it is a valid translation of scripture.

You're looking at the English translation, but the book was not written in English. I'm not a Greek scholar, but I'm smart enough to recognize when the translators have used a word that either no longer means what it meant in 1600, or was just a poor translation to begin with.

You say "scripture is clear, there is a body and a soul and a spirit" but you can't even define what those things are. How can you say it is clear, when you can't explain it? At least I'm explaining it. You're just defending it, without knowing what it means.

 

[Freedm]

You are not using all relative scriptures.

Ecc 12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The dust does go to the Earth but there is a spirit in man and it does go up to God.

"He did not say that we would float up to heaven as spirits."


I'm going with exactly what scripture tells us, and in fact what God himself told us. Will you agree with what this verse says or find a way to avoid it?

Funny, it seems we both referenced that scripture at the same time. You'll notice that I did address that verse in my other post, and it supports my position, as you'll see. It's not the spirit that goes up to God. It is the breath of life. If you don't look at the meanings of the original words, you're going to be misled by your modern day understanding of the English words. You have to look at the original meanings.

The breath of life leaving the body, is the literal definition of death. Without life, you are dead. Obviously. On the other hand, the spirit leaving the body, is not death. It's a transfer. If a living, conscious spirit left the body, then the person would not really be dying. They would be moving from one body to another, so that's not death, so that doesn't make sense. That verse only makes sense if that which returns to God, is the breath of life. And Genesis 2:7 is very clear that God gave us that breath of life in the beginning. It never said he gave us a spirit. It said he gave us a breath of life. So that is what returns to God who gave it. It's the only understanding that makes sense.