Is 'soul sleep' doctrinal?

[Remnantrob]

Also, not sure if Butch mentioned this but Job 4:17 says:

 

Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?

 

If man is mortal that means he dies.  I've heard the opposite but scripture is saying otherwise.

[Guest Butero]

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?

I disagree that Jesus believed in soul sleep.  He was only speaking of Lazarus body.  His spirit was in paradise with Abraham and all the other departed saints.  What he was waking up was his body.  The real Lazarus was awake the whole time.  Anyway, I am posting from a tractor-trailer truck, and I don't have all my resources with me, like my Greek and Hebrew Dictionary, so I will try to deal with this matter in a more thorough manner when I get home, Lord willing.  Thanks again for answering my questions to you. 

[Guest Butero]

Also, not sure if Butch mentioned this but Job 4:17 says:

 

Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?

 

If man is mortal that means he dies.  I've heard the opposite but scripture is saying otherwise.

The physical body dies, but the spirit lives on.  It is the body that is mortal. 

[Montana Marv]

One aspect of "soul sleep" may be doctrinal. Jer 1:5 - Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.  We have no recognition of knowing or being aware God, but He first knew us.

 

Now go to Gen 2:7 - the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

Man becomes a living being when the soul is set into his body.  His flesh becomes dead when the soul is removed from the body.  The soul is what gives life to us in the flesh, the soul must be eternal.  Therefore the soul does not die or does not sleep, it exists.  To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.  Or, for others, to be absent from the body is to be apart from the Lord.  Which is where, but Hades, where the soul still lives.

 

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Remnantrob]

Ever wonder why when Lazarus came back from the dead he didn't say anything about how heaven was or get mad at Christ for bringing him back.  If I was in heaven and was called to come back to this miserable world and Jesus and I were as great friends as he and Lazarus I would have been asking why since I already where I want to be.

[Butch5]

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. 

Hi Butero,

 

 

I understand where you're coming from, and we all face that issue whether we're looking at church history or reading modern commentaries. How do we know what we're reading is true? One way to overcome this problem is to seek primary source as much as possible. And, if you have to use secondary sources verify the information. Let me say that it's time consuming but in my opinion well worth it. For church history I look to the writings of the earliest Christian. The writings are the Ante-Nicene Fathers. These are Christians who lived from the time of the apostles until about the time of the Council of Nicea 325. I don't usually go much beyond this because it was at this point where the church and state merged and you can see many changes coning into the church. When I look at these writing I evaluate them on several things. Those who knew and were taught by the Apostles get the most weight. There's a lot of difference between a writer saying the church believed this and a writer saying John told me this or Paul told this. These earliest writers many times are relaying actual teaching from the apostles, not something they learned from reading the Scriptures. These would be men like, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, (who is actually mentioned in Philippians), and Papias. Next in order is those who were taught by the disciples of the apostles, men like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. As I get further away from the source  I give less weight to an individual writer as things become more polluted as you get further from the source. However, that is not the end of it. When I see a writer talking about something and I want to verify it I look for uniformity and universality among all of the writers, and I also look at their geographical locations. If I see something written by one writer and no one else seems to be teaching this idea I'll figure that this is just something from the writer and not what the church as a whole believed. when I want to know what the church believed on a topic I look at all of the writers I can find on the subject to see if they are in agreement. I also look at them geographically to make sure that a teaching is taught all over the area of that time. If I see a doctrine that is being taught in Alexandria, but not in Gaul, or Rome, Or Jerusalem, etc. I'll conclude that this is not the teaching of the church but rather something peculiar to a specific area. I want to see as much universality of writers and geography that is possible. Once I've determined that a doctrine is most likely what the early church taught I then take that doctrine to the Scriptures to see how it stands up to the Scriptures. Does it fit with what Scripture teaches? Is there Scripture that seems at odds with the doctrine? It's only when I've determined that a doctrine was most like what was taught in the very beginning and fits with the Scriptures that I accept it. Even then I leave open the possibility for additional evidence.

 

There are times, however, when one must use secondary sources. When I do this I want to know a little about the author. Is this someone I can trust to have done proper study? Did this guy really study this for himself or is he just writing what some else taught him? For instance, when I first began to study the early writers I was introduce to an author who teaches on these early writers. But, how do I know if he knows what he's talking about? Well, he uses primary sources. When he say Ignatius believed this. he quotes Ingatius saying it. I can them go back later and read what Ignatius said to make sure that the author is not taking Ignatius out of context. I also look at the authors motives what is driving his teaching, Is he making a lot of money or looking for fame, or is he doing for a search for the truth. I'm not saying that others aren't looking for the truth but rather what is their driving force. On reason I use secondary sources sometimes is to get an overview on a subject before doing the research I mentioned above.

 

Regarding a study of the Scriptures I think there are some things that come into play that many times we don't think about. You said, you've read the Bible several times and not come to the conclusions I have. One thing that comes into play is our preconceptions, we all have them. Let me ask you, do you know one Christian who came to Christ solely by picking up the Bible and never having heard of Christianity? I would guess you haven't. There are not many in America who have not been told what the Bible teaches long before they ever become a Christian. So, when they pick up the Bible to read it they already have preconceptions about what it teaches. When a person becomes a Christian they are taught by the church, Sunday School, and other Christians, usually well before they know the Bible well enough to form their own ideas from it. If one is taught that works play no role in Salvation and they are taken to Romans 4, Ephesian 2, and Titus 3 and shown selected verses that say one is not saved by works they see this a something the Bible teaches. Many will never investigate it because it's what the church or a friend taught them. Many time they're intimidated by the volume of the Scriptures and accept the teachings of those they perceived more studied than themselves. So, later on when they read these passages in the Scriptures their mind already "Knows" what the passage means. Many never look at it any other way. So one could read a passage for years and not realize that it may not actually be saying what they believe it is saying. 

 

It's hard to put our presuppositions aside and evaluate the Scripture based solely on what they say. But, I believe that's the only way to get at what the Scriptures really teach. There's been a lot of stuff added over 2000 years. 

 

In addition to my own studies I've gotten with a group who has sought to set aside those presuppositions and to look at the Scriptures for what they say. That includes looking at the original languages when necessary, Sometimes the grammar of a passage can make all the difference. I have to consider translator bias when looking at the Scriptures. I'm not saying that translators deliberately mistranslated the Scriptures. However, in order to translate a text you have to know what that text says. How a translator understands a text determines how he translates it. Let me give you and example. Suppose you have a translator that believes that there is something in man that lives on after death, now when he comes to Luke 23:43

 

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luk 23:43 KJV)

 

He translates it as you see above. This translation is grammatically correct and it fits his understanding of the passage. Now suppose you have a translator that doesn't believe that there is something in a man that lives on after death and that when a man dies he' dead. He would translate the passage like this.

 

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee To day, shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luk 23:43 KJV)

 

This translation too, is grammatically correct and fits the translators beliefs. However, the two translations are drastically different. By simply moving the comma on place to the right you dramatically change the meaning of the sentence. In the first translation, Jesus tells the thief that he will be with Jesus in Paradise the very same day. In the second translation Jesus is telling the thief that day, that he will be with Jesus in Paradise. The second translation does not require that they be in Paradise that same day the first one does. 

 

In the original texts there was no punctuation. The placement of the comma in this verse is solely up to the translator, he places it where he "thinks" it should go and where he thinks it should go is based on what he believes about what happens to a man when he dies. 

 

So, sometimes you really have to dig deeply into these passages to get at what they actually mean. It's this deep study that takes time. Being is a group that does this helps because you're not the only one digging up the information others are too and sharing it among the group. There is a pastor who does the bulk of the research because he has the most time and resources but everyone cooperates in the group. So I may dig up some info and someone else may dig up other info that I may have missed. 

 

But, the study is based in the Scriptures with the idea that God has revealed things to man over time and that He will not contradict previous revelation with later revelation. The idea is to trace doctrines and word usages through the Bible chronologically. In other words we don't look to Revelation to try to understand what David means by soul. We look at how the word is used from the beginning until Davids day. It's possible that later revelation will add to that but David didn't have that later Revelation so we don't use it to determine what David meant. Another thing we do is to look closely at the Scriptures to see who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and what is being spoken about. At first glance this may see obvious but you'd be surprised how many times simple things are overlooked or taken for granted. Take the word "we" for instance, many times Christians see the word "we" and include themselves in the statement made. In English the word "we" can be either inclusive or exclusive depending on the context. For instance suppose a friend and  I came to you and I said we need to leave. Am I saying  me and the friend need to leave or am I saying all three of us need to leave? It could be properly understood either way. and which must be determined by the context. If we were at your house one night that you had invited us to dinner, you would know that I meant me and the friend had to leave. However, if we were in burning building and the friend and I came to you and said we need to leave you would know I was including you in the statement. The context of the situation determines whether "we" is inclusive or exclusive. 

 

I also believe that we'll come to a better understanding of the Scriptures if we realize that Jesus was sent to the Jews and as such it would benefit us if we tried to understand the Scriptures as the Jews of His day would have rather than trying to understand them in a 21st century culter

 

It's these methods that I use to approach the Scriptures, trying as best as I can to put aside presuppositions and simply let the Scriptures speak. I used to believe as you do about the rich man and Lazarus and the souls under the alter. It was these in depth studies that made me realize that there are problems with those interpretations.

 

In answer to your question, I am a Christian. I think different people have different ideas about what "born again" is. The term in Scripture is only spoken to Jews, It's not spoken to Gentiles. I believe the term refers to the fact that Jews are the physical seed of Abraham and had mistakenly believed that their entrance into the kingdom of God was based on their physical birth as Jews. Jesus corrected Nicodemus on this point. I think His statement is a reference to the resurrection. 

[Guest Butero]

Ever wonder why when Lazarus came back from the dead he didn't say anything about how heaven was or get mad at Christ for bringing him back.  If I was in heaven and was called to come back to this miserable world and Jesus and I were as great friends as he and Lazarus I would have been asking why since I already where I want to be.

He wasn't in heaven.  He was in paradise, which is a place in the heart of the earth.  I can't really remember the Bible recording any conversations by Lazarus after he was raised from the dead, so it doesn't surprise me that he didn't discuss his experience in the grave.  There are a lot of people that claim to have experienced life outside the body, and visits to heaven and hell at a time where they were briefly pronounced to be dead.  I am undecided on that, and whether it is real or not, but I don't find Lazarus not speaking about his experience very convincing.  Perhaps if there was a book of Lazarus, where he recorded his life story, we might? 

[Guest Butero]

Thanks Butch for being so candid with your response to me.  I will never knock anyone for seeking truth, even if it takes them outside the mainstream of understanding.  I have one concern I want to ask you about.  How do you know that the early writings you are reading are really the people they claim they are?  I have this large book called "The Other Bible" with numerous early texts attributed to early Christians, and a lot of them are frauds.  They are gnostics posing as early leaders in the church so they will be accepted.  In addition to that, it is possible that you could have disagreement on things among early church leaders, as they didn't have perfect understanding, and you are reading one man's opinion, but it may differ a great deal from the church at large.  One thing that would help me a lot is when you post references to what the early church taught, you show the source for that information, even if it is quotes from early church leaders.  If it is based on a historical book, you could say that your belief is based on a quote from a particular book.  I am trying to be open minded here, but I have read a lot of extra-Biblical books and since I can't be sure I am even reading a book by the supposed author, I take it with a grain of salt. 

[Remnantrob]

 

Ever wonder why when Lazarus came back from the dead he didn't say anything about how heaven was or get mad at Christ for bringing him back.  If I was in heaven and was called to come back to this miserable world and Jesus and I were as great friends as he and Lazarus I would have been asking why since I already where I want to be.

He wasn't in heaven.  He was in paradise, which is a place in the heart of the earth.  I can't really remember the Bible recording any conversations by Lazarus after he was raised from the dead, so it doesn't surprise me that he didn't discuss his experience in the grave.  There are a lot of people that claim to have experienced life outside the body, and visits to heaven and hell at a time where they were briefly pronounced to be dead.  I am undecided on that, and whether it is real or not, but I don't find Lazarus not speaking about his experience very convincing.  Perhaps if there was a book of Lazarus, where he recorded his life story, we might? 

 

Can you show me where paradise is in the heart of the earth in the bible?

[Butch5]

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

Hi Butero,

 

I just wanted to comment on a statement you made here, you said,

 

"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."

 

I agree in general that protestants have distanced themselves from the Catholic church, however, my question would be, how far? They distance themselves based on the doctrines they see as wrong, yet they accept the doctrines they agree with. After looking at what the early church believed I would suggest that the early church would distance themselves from both groups based on doctrines that both still have in common.