Is 'soul sleep' doctrinal?

[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? 

 

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

 

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.  There was a gulf separating them. 

[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. 

 

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. 

 

You are coming from the standpoint that the Catholic Church is wrong 100 percent of the time, and that is not true.  Of course protestants will continue to hold to the elements of truth found in Catholic doctrine, and they will reject the things that are false.

[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.

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

 

 

DUST + BREATH FROM GOD = NEPHESH (living being, soul) Think of the example of a light bulb.

The bulb is like our body. The electricity is like the breath of God. Together, they make up energized light that sheds its brightness around it. Likewise, our body, without God's breath, is dark. We are alive because God puts life into us. Light Bulb + Electricity = Light Body (dust) + Breath from God (spirit) = Living Soul (living being, nephesh)

[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. 

 

 

DUST + BREATH FROM GOD = NEPHESH (living being, soul) Think of the example of a light bulb.

The bulb is like our body. The electricity is like the breath of God. Together, they make up energized light that sheds its brightness around it. Likewise, our body, without God's breath, is dark. We are alive because God puts life into us. Light Bulb + Electricity = Light Body (dust) + Breath from God (spirit) = Living Soul (living being, nephesh)

 

Here is where things get tricky with terminology.  I believe that man is a 3 part being:  body, soul and spirit, and that the spirit inside the body is the real person.  When a person dies, the spirit leaves the body, and the body sleeps in the grave.  The Christian is absent from the body and present with the Lord, like Paul spoke of.  He talked about how it would be better for him to depart and be in the presence of God, but for the sake of those he was leading, it was better he remain.  He had every expectation that if he died, he would immediately be in the presence of God. 

[Remnantrob]

Are animals in heaven/paradise?  Eccl. 3:18-21

 

¹⁸ I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

¹⁹ For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

²⁰ All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

²¹ Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

[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.

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

 

 

DUST + BREATH FROM GOD = NEPHESH (living being, soul) Think of the example of a light bulb.

The bulb is like our body. The electricity is like the breath of God. Together, they make up energized light that sheds its brightness around it. Likewise, our body, without God's breath, is dark. We are alive because God puts life into us. Light Bulb + Electricity = Light Body (dust) + Breath from God (spirit) = Living Soul (living being, nephesh)

 

Here is where things get tricky with terminology.  I believe that man is a 3 part being:  body, soul and spirit, and that the spirit inside the body is the real person.  When a person dies, the spirit leaves the body, and the body sleeps in the grave.  The Christian is absent from the body and present with the Lord, like Paul spoke of.  He talked about how it would be better for him to depart and be in the presence of God, but for the sake of those he was leading, it was better he remain.  He had every expectation that if he died, he would immediately be in the presence of God. 

 

Not sticky...just what you believe.  I can't agree because it's not what the bible says makes up a person.  A soul is the person not part of them.  I'll try to tackle the absent from the body statement later.  thanks for the response.

[Guest Butero]

 

Are animals in heaven/paradise?  Eccl. 3:18-21

 

¹⁸ I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

¹⁹ For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

²⁰ All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

²¹ Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

 

Look at your own passage.  "the spirit of man that goeth upward."  Where man and animal are the same is that the body of both dies and returns to dust, not the spirit. 

[Guest Butero]

2 Corinthians 5:6-8

 

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:  (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)  We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

 

That is pretty plain, and it shows that Paul believed and taught that it is possible to leave the body and be in the presence of God. 

[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. 

 

 

DUST + BREATH FROM GOD = NEPHESH (living being, soul) Think of the example of a light bulb.

The bulb is like our body. The electricity is like the breath of God. Together, they make up energized light that sheds its brightness around it. Likewise, our body, without God's breath, is dark. We are alive because God puts life into us. Light Bulb + Electricity = Light Body (dust) + Breath from God (spirit) = Living Soul (living being, nephesh)

 

Here is where things get tricky with terminology.  I believe that man is a 3 part being:  body, soul and spirit, and that the spirit inside the body is the real person.  When a person dies, the spirit leaves the body, and the body sleeps in the grave.  The Christian is absent from the body and present with the Lord, like Paul spoke of.  He talked about how it would be better for him to depart and be in the presence of God, but for the sake of those he was leading, it was better he remain.  He had every expectation that if he died, he would immediately be in the presence of God. 

 

Not sticky...just what you believe.  I can't agree because it's not what the bible says makes up a person.  A soul is the person not part of them.  I'll try to tackle the absent from the body statement later.  thanks for the response.

 

1 Thessalonians 5:23 shows that man is a three part being. 

 

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. 

 

What is sticky is that people will get mixed up when speaking of the spirit and call it the soul.  We use the terms interchangeably.  BTW, back to the early church writing issue, there is an interesting book called "The Apocolypse Of Paul" that was supposedly written by the Apostle Paul where he describes visiting hell and seeing people in varying degrees of torment.  I am not saying you can place that book even with the canon, or that Paul actually wrote it, but if we are going to build doctrine on what early church writings say, this should be included for consideration. 

[Butch5]

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. 

Hi Butero,

 

You're quite welcome. I agree that there is always the chance of being misled. That is why I said I look for universality both in person and geography. I then compare that teaching with the Scriptures, I don't simply accept it because it was taught early on. I am aware of the Gnostics and the doctrines they brought. As far as knowing who is valid and who is not I must rely on the evidence that I can find. Evidence from they're writings and the writings of their peers. I rely on Scholars and their determinations about the early writers. But the main thing is what they themselves say and how it applies to the church. I'm looking at them as history. What were the historical beliefs of the church in 150 AD or 250 AD. I then compare that to the Scriptures. I don't believe they correct on every point, one place I disagree with them is infant baptism. I can see from the writings that that idea doesn't appear in the writing until about 200 years after Christ.

 

Here is one very important fact that I have to mention. How do we know that the Scriptures we read were written by those whose name they bear? Mathew, Mark, nor John gave their names in their gospels. I'm sure you've heard about the gospels of Peter and Judas, how do we know they are not real? We know because the same early Christians that give us the writings also tell us who wrote the books. We know that it was the apostle Mathew who wrote the Gospel and not someone else named Mathew because the early Christian writers tell us it was him. So we have to be careful and not just write them off as wrong or irrelevant because in doing so we would be undermining our evidence that the Scriptures were written by those whose name they bear.