Is 'soul sleep' doctrinal?

[other one]

 

 

 

KJV  Psalm 30:9 What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth? (Psa 30:9 KJV)

 

The fact that this has been run into the ground and debated on is enough to walk away from.

They use like five six different names to describe one place..hell/sheol/hades/grave/gehenna/pit.

That's sad to me, and unfortunately it's the person's belief system that choose what word they like.

 

The problem is they're not all the same place. That's why people get confused. Sheol and Hades are the grave. Gehenna is the Lake of Fire and what most people call Hell.

 

 

and what's the pit describing in OT and NT.

 

Tartarus.....   that's where the angels who took for themselves wives before the flood are locked away till judgment day

[Guest DRS81]

The problem is they're not all the same place. That's why people get confused. Sheol and Hades are the grave. Gehenna is the Lake of Fire and what most people call Hell.

 

OT Hebrew word Sheol - Place of the dead/grave

NT Greek word Hades - Place of the dead/grave

NT Greek word Gehenna - Hell

NT Lake of fire - Final Hell

Ok, there's something I don't understand. If Gehenna and the Lake of fire are two separate destinations in time and Gehenna comes first, then wouldn't Mark 9:45-46 speak of the souls burning in hell? For example, Mark 9:45-46 didn't say "than with two feet to be thrown into the lake of fire." No, scripture said hell which is Gehenna. (Mark 9:45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’) This passage is not talking about the lake of fire, it's talking about Gehenna/Hell. And ironically it says where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. Gehenna and the Lake of Fire are not the same. Gehenna is a temporary hell...then comes the lake of fire. Prove to me that Gehenna is the lake of fire.

[Guest Butero]

 

I am going to agree with Butch on one thing.  Commentaries are not the end all.  They can be wrong, but the opinions in the commentaries are just as valid as those Butch is giving.  Lets start here for a moment Butch.  I gave you an interpretation of scriptures you gave to me.  I stated that when the Bible says the dead cannot praise God or that they sleep, it is speaking of the body, and the Spirit goes to heaven or hell.

That’s correct. However, you added the word body. David didn’t say my body. The Scriptures don’t differentiate between body, spirit, and soul. Here’s what I posted.

KJV  Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. (Ecc 9:5 KJV)

KJV  Psalm 30:9 What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth? (Psa 30:9 KJV)

8 Thou hast put away mine acquaintance far from me; thou hast made me an abomination unto them: I am shut up, and I cannot come forth.

9 Mine eye mourneth by reason of affliction: LORD, I have called daily upon thee, I have stretched out my hands unto thee.

10 Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah.

11 Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction?

12 Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?

13 But unto thee have I cried, O LORD; and in the morning shall my prayer prevent thee.

14 LORD, why castest thou off my soul? why hidest thou thy face from me?

15 I am afflicted and ready to die from my youth up: while I suffer thy terrors I am distracted.

16 Thy fierce wrath goeth over me; thy terrors have cut me off. (Psa 88:8-16 KJV)

 

Notice David said when “I” go down to the pit. He didn’t say when my body goes down to the pit. You’re making a distinction that David didn’t. Also this was his body only then it mean that what constitutes the man David is only his body because you guys are saying that it is only the body that goes to the grave and that the ghost live on apart from the body. So, if this is speaking of his body he is saying that what constitutes him as a man goes to grave, not that it lives on after death.

 

Also, your interpretation presumes that man has something in him that lives on after death without proving it. That question is at the heart of the issue.

 

 

 

A commentary happens to agree with me.  I agree that doesn't mean your opinion becomes invalid, but there is no reason for me or anyone else to accept your view over ours or the commentary.

What I’m giving you is Scripture. What does a man consist of? I gave Gen 2:7. What happens to a man when he dies I gave Ecc. 3. This is not my commentary, it’s Scripture. I’m not interpreting anything these are clear statements from the Scriptures themselves. It’s not me you’re disagreeing with.

 

 

 

I gave you as evidence the story of the rich man and Lazarus.  You chose to reject it, but that doesn't make me wrong.  It just means we disagree.

You gave it as evidence but your interpretation of it contradicts the Scriptures therefore it cannot be correct. There multiple reasons why it cannot be correct. For one thing the rich man is in Hades in the flames. Hades is not the place of burning that’s Gehenna. Hades is the grave. The rich man has a body and a tongue, ghosts do not. Why does the rich man have 5 brothers? Why does the rich man call Abraham father? Why is he adorned in purple and fine linen? Why is Lazarus named but the rich man is not named?  These are not trivial details they have significance to the story. How would your interpretation fit the context? Jesus is at a feast and chastises the Scribes and Pharisees. The parables before the rich man are speaking about the Jews and their unfaithfulness. Just before the story of the rich man Jesus says, ‘he who divorces his wife commits adultery’. This seems out of place unless you see it as a statement against the Jews. Again Jesus is saying they’re unfaithful. Then comes the story of the rich man. Did Jesus stop right in the middle of chastising the Pharisees to give his disciples a lesson on the after life and then turn his attention back to the Pharisees? That doesn’t make any sense. However, when we understand the as statement against the Pharisees it makes perfect sense.

Also, the story of the rich man isn’t evidence that the dead live on because it doesn’t teach that. That idea is inferred from it.

 

 

I referenced the people that were killed in Revelation, and you rejected that.  That doesn't make me wrong.

You’re interpretation of this passage also contradicts the Scriptures. Revelation uses figurative language at times. Again, look at the details. Why were the souls under the alter? What is the significance there? Here is the passage.

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: (Rev 6:9 KJV)

John was seeing a vision and saw the souls of them that were slain. According to Genesis a soul is a being with a body and the breath/spirit of God. Do you suppose that is what John was seeing? If you are claiming that this is their ghost, where does the passage say that? It doesn’t. Doesn’t that mean you’re bringing that idea to the passage rather than drawing it out of the passage? We know that Revelation uses figurative language at times. Let’s consider this could be figurative, do we see this kind of language elsewhere in Scripture? The Scriptures say that the Soul is in the blood. In Rev.6 it is the souls of the Martyrs that are under the alter. Who was the first martyr? It was Abel, Cain killed him because his sacrifice was accepted and Cain’s was not. What did God say to Cain?

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; (Gen 4:10-11 KJV)

If the soul is in the blood and the blood is crying out from the ground then the soul is in the ground. Isn’t this what we see in Rev.6, Souls crying out from the ground? Why are they under the alter. They were martyred, sacrificed. Isn’t that what the alter was for? The passage in Gen 4 is obviously figurative, I don’t think someone’s going to argue that the earth is a woman and opened a mouth to swallow up blood. I don’t think Abel’s blood was literally crying out to the Lord. I don’t think anyone going to make the argument that Abel’s blood is his ghost crying out from the ground, after all the ghost doesn’t go to the grave, right?

So, there’s no reason that we have to accept an interpretation that contradicts Scripture when these passage can be explained easily enough in a manner that is consistent with Scripture.

 

 

 

You see Butch, it is possible for people to have the same Bible and disagree, just like I disagree with you about the end of the wicked.  I don't believe they are destroyed.  Their torment is eternal.  Their worm dieth not.  I know you are going to disagree, and that is fine, but just as you have the right to reject a commentary, I have the same right to reject your interpretation and beliefs.

But again, you’re not rejecting me or my commentary. It is Scripture that said the wicked shall be destroyed. John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Joh 3:16 KJV)

It says perish not burn or be tormented eternally. I encourage you to search the Scriptures to find a place that says the wages of sin is eternal torment. There’s nothing there. There are a few passages from which that idea is draw, however, they can be understood differently and in a way consistent with Scripture. Another thing to consider is that sometimes when the Scriptures says something is eternal it doesn’t necessarily mean that the thing lasts forever, but rather that the results of the thing last forever. For example, Jude says that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the vengeance of eternal fire. However, the result of their burning is eternal.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jud 1:7 KJV)

Well, anyone can go over there and see that those two cities are not still burning. Peter said,

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; (2Pe 2:6 KJV)

He said the cities were turned to ashes. If they are ashes then they are not still burning. The result of their burning is eternal. No one is even really sure where those two cities were actually located. Jude says this is an example of eternal fire. So suffering eternal fire doesn’t necessarily mean that something burns forever, it can be that the results of the burning are forever.

 

Butch, you have given me a lot to try to answer, and it will be difficult to break it all down, but I will try my best.  You are correct that David doesn't say his body, but refers to the dead in a general sense, but I still hold to my original interpretation that he means his body.  When you find it convenient to hold to absolute literalism, you do so, but then you allow for things not being exactly as they appear when they suit you.  You just refered to Sodom and Gommorah, and how scripture says their burning is eternal, but then mentions them as being ashes.  I am not striving to look at the exact wording.  I am trying to get the correct interpretation, and just as you use that one example to show the exact wording isn't always what is meant, I would suggest that David was only referring to the body sleeping and not the soul.  The word hades is often used to indicate the grave, but not always, so I don't agree with you there. 

 

The rich man does have a spiritual body and he can speak.  Who says a spirit can't feel, and who says a spirit can't talk?  The Bible states that God is a Spirit, and those that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth.  Are you going to claim God has no tongue because he is a Spirit?  You are really going out on a limb there.  Why does the rich man have 5 brothers?  I suppose because his parents had other children besides him.  Why does the rich man call Abraham father?  I suppose as a sign of respect, as Abraham was the first Jew.  Why is Lazarus named and not the rich man?  I think it is a sign of respect for this faithful man, and less respect being shown to the unbelieving and uncaring rich man.  Jesus had been speaking many parables before he got to this one, so yes, it is very possible, and I would say likely, he did simply move on from one thought to another.  The purple and fine linen were to show the rich man's wealth.  They were status symbols.  Yes, Jesus did mention divorce and remarriage before this parable, but he had been teaching on many other things as well, so once again, I reject your interpretation.  I never claimed I had proven conclusively from this single parable the soul can live outside the body.  I used this as an example where it did.  I don't believe you have proven the soul cannot live outside the body. 

 

I completely reject your view of the passage in Revelation that it is figurative, and I flatly reject that my interpretation contradicts scripture.  It only contradicts your interpretation of scripture.  You gave me an example of Abel's blood crying from the ground as figurative to show that the passage in Revelation could be figurative.  That doesn't mean it is.  You use the argument that the passages about the body sleeping in the ground has to mean the person himself is sleeping because it doesn't come out and say just the body is sleeping, but you are fine calling things figurative when it helps you build a case.  I stand by everything I said about the interpretation of the rich man and Lazarus and the passage in Revelation.  The commentaries that were presented seem to take my position too.  All that means is others came to the same conclusions, so it is not like I came up with something off the wall.  All we have is your opinion verses my opinion and the differing opinions of others in this thread. 

 

I do have a question for you.  It seems like you and Remnantrob have an issue with protestants and Catholics.  First, do you know Remnantrob outside of WB, and second, are you a born again Christian?  I am trying to figure out where the two of you are coming from, since nearly everyone I know that is a believer is either a protestant or a Catholic.  There are a handful of Baptists that don't consider themselves protestants, but I know you are not preaching Baptist doctrine. 

[Butch5]

Butch, you have given me a lot to try to answer, and it will be difficult to break it all down, but I will try my best.  You are correct that David doesn't say his body, but refers to the dead in a general sense, but I still hold to my original interpretation that he means his body.  When you find it convenient to hold to absolute literalism, you do so, but then you allow for things not being exactly as they appear when they suit you.  You just refered to Sodom and Gommorah, and how scripture says their burning is eternal, but then mentions them as being ashes.  I am not striving to look at the exact wording.  I am trying to get the correct interpretation, and just as you use that one example to show the exact wording isn't always what is meant, I would suggest that David was only referring to the body sleeping and not the soul.  The word hades is often used to indicate the grave, but not always, so I don't agree with you there.

 

I take the Scriptures literally unless a passage suggests otherwise. The Passage in Rev. 6 suggests figurative language as an understanding that these are somehow alive without a body contradicts what is taught in the OT.

Genesis 2.7 says that God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath/spirit of life and man became a living soul. From that one can deduce that a living soul is made from two parts, a body, and the breath /spirit of God. Therefore a soul requires a body. If Re.6 is talking about souls under the alter that were killed and yet speaking they must be dead bodies that are speaking because according to Genesis without a body a soul doesn’t exist. That alone would prove that the souls under the alter are not a disembodied consciousness or ghost.  Everyone knows that dead bodies can’t talk therefore the only logical conclusion is that the passage is figurative.  Either way the passage doesn’t allow for disembodied consciousnesses.

 

Regarding David’s statement about the dead, there is nothing in the passage that differentiates between the body and the man. It seems that if one can exist apart from the body and the body dies then the real man is what exists apart from the body. I think this is what you believe, is that correct? If so this passage refutes that idea. David said when I go down to the pit. The “I” is what the man is. If there was a part that lived on apart from the body it would be the “I” that would live one after the body dies. However, David said that “I” was going to the grave. According to most Christians the “I” goes to heaven to be with God, not to the grave.

 

Do you see why I’m saying your interpretation contradicts Scripture?

The rich man does have a spiritual body and he can speak.  Who says a spirit can't feel, and who says a spirit can't talk?  The Bible states that God is a Spirit, and those that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth.  Are you going to claim God has no tongue because he is a Spirit?  You are really going out on a limb there.  Why does the rich man have 5 brothers?  I suppose because his parents had other children besides him.  Why does the rich man call Abraham father?  I suppose as a sign of respect, as Abraham was the first Jew.  Why is Lazarus named and not the rich man?  I think it is a sign of respect for this faithful man, and less respect being shown to the unbelieving and uncaring rich man.  Jesus had been speaking many parables before he got to this one, so yes, it is very possible, and I would say likely, he did simply move on from one thought to another.  The purple and fine linen were to show the rich man's wealth.  They were status symbols.  Yes, Jesus did mention divorce and remarriage before this parable, but he had been teaching on many other things as well, so once again, I reject your interpretation.  I never claimed I had proven conclusively from this single parable the soul can live outside the body.  I used this as an example where it did.  I don't believe you have proven the soul cannot live outside the body.

Does the Bible say a spirit can have a body and a tongue? You see, it’s best to form doctrine based on what the Scriptures “do” say. We can form all kinds of doctrines on what the Scriptures don’t say. The Scriptures don’t say that Martians can’t be saved so it must be that they can, right?  There are two flaws in that statement. One is that it’s forming doctrine based on an argument from silence a logical fallacy and the second is that it just assumes that Martians exist without ever proving their existence.

 

The rich man had 5 brothers. The Livitical priesthood is ascribed to Levi, Levi had 5 brothers. This indicates that Jesus was referring to the priesthood. The rich man was dressed in purple and fine linen. The priests wore fine linen and purple was the color of royalty.  In Jesus’ day the priest acted a priest king since there was no king from the tribe of Judah. The rich man called Abraham father because he was a Jew, the offspring of Abraham. Lazarus is named and the rich man isn’t. Lazarus means, God help or God help me. These detail are rather explicit and unnecessary if one is just saying when you die there’s a part of you that lives on outside of the body. Notice where Lazarus went he went to Abraham’s bosom, what did that mean? It suggests a closeness with and acceptance by Abraham, just as we see with John leaning on Jesus’ bosom. What is the significance of being accepted with Abraham? To the Jews being with Abraham meant being in the kingdom of God. The Jews expected that they would receive the promises made to Abraham by being his physical offspring. Nicodemus thought this too and Jesus said to him that he must be born again. In other words, being a physical of spring of Abraham is not going to gain you access to the kingdom Nicodemus, you must be born again. So, being with Abraham is synonymous with being in the Kingdom. Consider what he Jesus had said earlier.

 

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mat 8:11-12 KJV)

 

Isn’t the rich man cast out? Doesn’t he see Lazarus sitting down in the kingdom with Abraham?

 

Also, as I said, if you take this as a actual event it creates problems. The rich man is in Hades and not Gehenna. It’s Gehenna that is the place of burning, not Hades. I believe if you look at Hades in the Greek OT it’s always the grave. Most Christians who believe in the existence a disembodied consciousness say that the wicked go to hell at death. Here you have the rich man in the grave not hell.

If you’re interested I can give you some links to some very good exegesis of this passage.

I completely reject your view of the passage in Revelation that it is figurative, and I flatly reject that my interpretation contradicts scripture.  It only contradicts your interpretation of scripture.  You gave me an example of Abel's blood crying from the ground as figurative to show that the passage in Revelation could be figurative.  That doesn't mean it is.  You use the argument that the passages about the body sleeping in the ground has to mean the person himself is sleeping because it doesn't come out and say just the body is sleeping, but you are fine calling things figurative when it helps you build a case.

 

No, I’ve given Scripture showing why they should be understood that way. You said that David was talking about his body, yet I gave Scripture showing that a man consists of a body and God’s breath/spirit. I’m not just assuming that David doesn’t simply mean his body. The Scriptures show that it can’t mean only his body.

 

Likewise, with the passage in Revelation, I gave Scripture showing why they cannot be disembodied consciousnesses under the alter. I’m not asking anyone to just accept my opinion. My opinion doesn’t mean anything. However, what I do expect is for Christians to honest with the Scriptures. That I will do, no matter what doctrine I have to rid myself of. I am seeking the truth of Scripture. I’ve was lead around long enough by the nonsensical doctrines of man. I got tired of the constant contradictions, this side saying one thing and the other saying another. Church’s teaching contradictory doctrines from the same Bible. I decided to put everything on the table and under the Scrutiny of the Scriptures. Whatever doctrines couldn’t stand got tossed.

 

If one believes that he Scriptures are without error and one has Scripture that contradicts what they say they their doctrine is wrong.

I stand by everything I said about the interpretation of the rich man and Lazarus and the passage in Revelation.  The commentaries that were presented seem to take my position too.  All that means is others came to the same conclusions, so it is not like I came up with something off the wall.  All we have is your opinion verses my opinion and the differing opinions of others in this thread.

 

We also have the Scriptures. I understand there are commentaries that agree with you. However, consider this, I don’t know where you stand on OSAS, but I’m pretty sure I could find commentaries that agree with both sides. If found 10 commentaries that agreed to the side that opposes your position on OSAS would that prove the position that opposes yours is correct?

 

As I said in another post for about 1000 years the Catholic Church was pretty much in charge of the Scripture in the west. Many people were illiterate and even if they could read likely didn’t know Latin. So, the overwhelming majority of Christians learned what they were taught by the Catholic Church. During the Reformation The reformers did change some things but they didn’t go back to the original doctrines in many cases. The idea of souls existing outside of the body came into the church around the 200 and over time spread. Once it came into the Catholic Church and the church came to power the doctrine was taught for about 1000 years. So, it’s no surprise that you are able to find commentators that agree with you. What I challenge you to do is to see if you can find the Scriptures “Teaching” that idea, you won’t.  There are a few passages that if you already have the idea could seem to support it, but, they don’t teach it, it has to be brought to the text.

I do have a question for you.  It seems like you and Remnantrob have an issue with protestants and Catholics.  First, do you know Remnantrob outside of WB, and second, are you a born again Christian?  I am trying to figure out where the two of you are coming from, since nearly everyone I know that is a believer is either a protestant or a Catholic.  There are a handful of Baptists that don't consider themselves protestants, but I know you are not preaching Baptist doctrine.

 

I was a Baptist when I first got saved, and remained a Baptist for about 15 years. I had pastor friend who was a Baptist and turned to the Presbyterian Church. I went to the Presbyterian church and after about 1 ½ year I began to listen to the NT on audio. I listened over and over and over. I just kept listening to it. The more I listened the more questions I had. The church was saying one thing and the Scriptures were saying the opposite. I questioned the pastors at the church and they couldn’t answer the questions. At first it wasn’t a big concern but as the questions became more and more and more and they couldn’t answer them and the Scriptures were saying the opposite of what the church was saying I began to doubt them. Couple this with the fact that the Presbyterian church was teaching things that were the exact opposite of what the Baptist church was teaching, and they were doing it from the same Bible I decided it’s time to find the truth. After all, we’re talking about eternal life, what’s more important than that?

I began a search for the truth. No doctrine was immune, if it couldn’t stand up to the Scriptures it was gone. I began to look at the earliest teachings of the church to see what was the first things that were taught. I began to look at the original languages, many times there are things in the original languages that can clear up misunderstandings in the English texts. I adopted a system of hermeneutics by which to exegete the Scriptures. I learned that understanding the historical setting in which the books were written helps one to understand what the author is dealing with. Understanding Jesus words from a Jewish perspective helps understand what he is saying many times. For instance, his statement to Nicodemus’ need to be born again. Nicodemus thought that his physical birth as a Jew gave him the right to enter into the kingdom of God and Jesus set him straight telling him he needed to be born again, he physical birth was not sufficient. All of these things go a long way to understanding the Scriptures

I don’t know Remnantrob apart from this forum and I don’t claim any denomination as I believe denominations are sin. They divide the body and Jesus prayer was that His followers would be one, denominations oppose that. I am simply a Christian seeking the truth of the Scriptures no matter what they say. I simply want the truth.

[Guest DRS81]

Understanding Jesus words from a Jewish perspective helps understand what he is saying many times. For instance, his statement to Nicodemus’ need to be born again. Nicodemus thought that his physical birth as a Jew gave him the right to enter into the kingdom of God and Jesus set him straight telling him he needed to be born again, he physical birth was not sufficient.

 

Ok, so what does 'born again' mean to you? What is Jesus talking about here. Also reply to post 172.

[Guest Butero]

Hello Butch.  I am not going to address the meat of your last post till I get back home, because I don't have my Greek and Hebrew Dictionary with me.  I will need them to look more closely at some of the arguments you are making, so rather than do you a disservice of just saying I don't agree or I do agree with something, I want to examine it more carefully. 

 

There is one area I want to ask you about and that is your search to find out what the early church believed.  Where did you get that information?  How do you know any of it is true?  If I were to try and do the same thing you did, I wouldn't be able to just start with the Bible, but I would have to go to various books and web-sites, where people would tell me what the early church believed and where certain doctrines supposedly were introduced.  How would I know I could trust any of those things?  What I am having trouble with is trying to understand where you came up with your historical knowledge about the early church and what they believed.  What are your sources for that information?  You say you listened to the audio of the NT over and over.  I have read the Bible cover to cover 14 times, and 3 times with the Apocrypha from my 1611 KJV Bible, and never came up with the beliefs you have.  I have listened to the Bible on CD while traveling down the road 2 times, and not just the NT, but the entire Bible, and never came up with the beliefs you have.  I just have trouble believing you have come to your beliefs without the influence of something outside of scripture, and I would like to know what that is?  I would also like to know if you consider yourself a born again believer?  Thanks in advance, and I will try to get back to you on the rest of your post when I have had a chance to look at what you said more carefully. 

[Remnantrob]

 

The problem with what you are saying is that although you say you agree that commentaries aren't the end all you are using them to reinforce what you've been taught about death.  You just end up going in a circle when arguing.  If we say that the bible alone is authority then why rely on a commentary that is the opinion of someone who may be wrong?  Butch isnt asking for commentaries, he's asking for a simple thus saith the Lord.  When you do present scripture, he presents interpretation of that scripture with scripture.  His original premise that a soul is a body plus a spirit which you see in genesis quite clearly.  What continues to be added to the picture is that soul is somehow something else.  The Lazurus parable has been argued to the ground that it is just a parable and Jesus himself refers to death as sleep.  Why? Because when you sleep, you know nothing about what's going on around you until you wake up.  Same thing with death. you aren't aware of anything going on with the living until the judgement.  So if you see grandma in the middle of the night....just tell it get thee behind me satan because she is resting peacefully waiting for the Lord.

 

So, should Jesus have rebuked Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration? Speaking of Lazarus and Abraham, is there any other "parable" where our Lord used specific names like he did in the account of the rich man and Lazarus? Is it a coincidence that the man called Abraham "father"? Especially in light that the scriptures in many places call Abraham the father of us all? 

 

Hi Saved,

 

Jesus didn't have to rebuke them because they are in heaven body and spirit.  Elijah went up in a chariot of fire so he never died.  Moses did die but the book of Jude says that Michael fought with Satan over his body.  I can only conclude that because God loved Moses so much he missed him and decided to ressurect him early.  Moses was one of the few men that spoke to God face to face so I suspect that had a great relationship that God wanted to re-establish.  Moses was one of the great prophets of old and didn't get to go to the promiseland for one sin....getting angry at the people and striking that rock.  No one knew where he was buried but God and he came back for him. The other instance in the bible where it seems like someone came back from the dead, King Saul summoned dead Samuel and he came up from somewhere instead of down from heaven.  A lot of inconsistencies with that story as well.  Do you know that fallen angels have the ability to transform themselves?  Just saying.

  Whether or not  specific names were used in the parable, it's still a parable.  I

[Remnantrob]

 

 

 

Here’s something for you to consider. Protestantism came out of Catholicism. It has its roots in the Catholic Church. The Catholic church was pretty much in control of the Scriptures in west  for about 1000 years. They could interpret the Scriptures however they choose to. So, it’s no surprise to see your commentators espousing Catholic doctrines.

Just because you found a few commentators who come to the Scriptures with presuppositions and impose them on their commentary doesn’t change the Scriptures. If quoted a bunch of Catholic commentators I’m sure I could get several that claim to prove the doctrine of Purgatory. However, that doesn’t make the doctrine true. What makes a doctrine true is having it “TAUGHT” in the Scriptures. Go through your commentaries and see where they give you Scripture proving that man can exist outside of the body.

 

Who are you referring too as catholic?

 

 

 

From what I read he said that Christian(protestants) came out of the Catholic church therefore are susceptible to having some of the doctrines trickledown into what the commentators believed and not necessarily sola scriptura.

 

You said Christians came out of the Catholic Church.  A couple of things here.  First, I would suggest the Catholic Church came out of Christians, as the church was around before the Catholic Church.  During the time of the reformation, people started realizing problems in the Catholic Church and broke away.  The people that write commentaries come from all different places, and most have no Catholic influence. 

 

That beings said, you just came against the Catholic Church as promoting false doctrine, and protestants for being influenced by Catholics.  If you are not Catholic, and you are not protestant, what exactly are you?  What church or group do you belong to?  Are you a Christian? 

 

 

You can suggest that Catholics came out of Christianity, and that would be true.  but then for the next 1000 or so years, the church was run by the pope.  Would it be your suggestion that Catholicism got the idea of worshipping saints and graven images from the early church?  Of course not.  The protestants came out of Catholicism and had to break away from a lot of their doctrines. (two of which still hover over orthodox christianity are sunday sacredness and immortality of the soul)

 

Not sure if you're asking me or Butch but I have mentioned in other threads that I am a protestant christian(sda).

[Remnantrob]

Is soul sleep doctrinal?  sure.  John 11:11-14 says:

 

¹¹ After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”

¹² His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” ¹³ Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.

¹⁴ So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, ¹⁵ and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

 

Jesus believed it so why shouldn't I?

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

Here’s something for you to consider. Protestantism came out of Catholicism. It has its roots in the Catholic Church. The Catholic church was pretty much in control of the Scriptures in west  for about 1000 years. They could interpret the Scriptures however they choose to. So, it’s no surprise to see your commentators espousing Catholic doctrines.

Just because you found a few commentators who come to the Scriptures with presuppositions and impose them on their commentary doesn’t change the Scriptures. If quoted a bunch of Catholic commentators I’m sure I could get several that claim to prove the doctrine of Purgatory. However, that doesn’t make the doctrine true. What makes a doctrine true is having it “TAUGHT” in the Scriptures. Go through your commentaries and see where they give you Scripture proving that man can exist outside of the body.

 

Who are you referring too as catholic?

 

 

 

From what I read he said that Christian(protestants) came out of the Catholic church therefore are susceptible to having some of the doctrines trickledown into what the commentators believed and not necessarily sola scriptura.

 

You said Christians came out of the Catholic Church.  A couple of things here.  First, I would suggest the Catholic Church came out of Christians, as the church was around before the Catholic Church.  During the time of the reformation, people started realizing problems in the Catholic Church and broke away.  The people that write commentaries come from all different places, and most have no Catholic influence. 

 

That beings said, you just came against the Catholic Church as promoting false doctrine, and protestants for being influenced by Catholics.  If you are not Catholic, and you are not protestant, what exactly are you?  What church or group do you belong to?  Are you a Christian? 

 

 

You can suggest that Catholics came out of Christianity, and that would be true.  but then for the next 1000 or so years, the church was run by the pope.  Would it be your suggestion that Catholicism got the idea of worshipping saints and graven images from the early church?  Of course not.  The protestants came out of Catholicism and had to break away from a lot of their doctrines. (two of which still hover over orthodox christianity are sunday sacredness and immortality of the soul)

 

Not sure if you're asking me or Butch but I have mentioned in other threads that I am a protestant christian(sda).

 

I was asking you, so thanks for clearing that up.  You are right in saying that the early church didn't teach us to ask statues of saints to pray for us, and they didn't have graven images in their houses of worship.  Then again, I have never been in any protestant church that set up statues of saints and taught us to ask them to pray for us.  The original church in Acts had fairly pure doctrine, after the Apostle Paul straightened them out, and the Catholic Church corrupted it.  The reformation was about turning back to the truth, so I am not convinced all protestants have taken the bad out of the Catholic Church.  I have seen some Catholic influence in some churches, like the United Methodist Church, but most protestants are very distant in their beliefs from Catholics.  As a matter of fact, many look at Catholics as a cult religion, so they go out of their way to distance themselves. 

 

So you are Seventh Day Adventist?  That helps me understand you better.