Is 'soul sleep' doctrinal?

[Guest DRS81]

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?

 

If you want to know what the Bible teaches do word studies. It doesn’t really matter what the dictionaries and lexicons say if it’s not how the Scriptures use the words. Go to the Greek or Hebrew texts and follow a word through all of its occurrences and see how the Scriptures use that word then you’ll know what the word means in the Scriptures.

 

What Greek and Hebrew links do you refer too for word texts? Please look up wrath, eternal and destroy.

[Remnantrob]

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

 

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.

[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.

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

 

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.

 

I rarely use commentaries.  I was only stating that a commentary that was presented by someone else in this thread happened to agree with something I said.  In other words, my own conclusions were backed up by a commentary, but I rarely use commentaries to figure out anything, and I certainly did not in this thread.  I referenced scriptures, and I said my interpretation of those scriptures were at odds with Butch.  The commentaries have to be at least given the same weight as something I say or something Butch says, because it is someone's opinion, and after all, this is a message board where we give our opinions. 

 

As for the story of the rich man and Lazarus, some think it is a parable and others disagree.  I am not sure, but I am convinced that it depicts an accurate description of hell and paradise before the cross, and whether you agree or not, I am convinced that it shows that the soul or spirit continues outside the body.  The real person doesn't simply sleep in the ground.  Again, you can disagree all you want, and argue the point in the ground all you want, and I will continue to disagree with you.  My opinion is just as valid as yours and Butch's. 

[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? 

[Butch5]

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.

[Guest DRS81]

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.

[Butch5]

 

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.

[Guest DRS81]

 

 

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.

[saved34]

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?