Is 'soul sleep' doctrinal?

[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. 

 

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, I would site baptism and the subject of works as two. My point is that the Protestant Church didn't go far enough when it sought to return to Biblical Christianity. Instead of going back to the beginning they only went as far as Augustine. By his day Christianity had vastly changed from the original teachings. I would site  two teachings as an example, war, the earliest Christians would not allow Christians to participate in war. 

 

I'm not. I believe there are doctrines on which the Catholic Church is correct and the Protestant Church is wrong. I would site baptism and the issue of works. My point is that the Protestant Church didn't go far enough on its return to Biblical Christianity, it only went back to Augustine. By his day Christianity had already suffered many changes and was not like the original teachings. I can give you a couple of examples. Take the subject of war both the Protestant and Catholic Churches allow the use of war yet the earliest Christians were adamantly against the use of violence. Here are a few quotes, I'll keep it short for space. Here is Ignatius, and disciple of John

 

Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye come frequently together in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and his “fiery darts” (Eph. 6:16) urging to sin fall back ineffectual. For your concord and harmonious faith prove his destruction, and the torment of his assistants. Nothing is better than that peace which is according to Christ, by which all war, both of aërial and terrestrial spirits, is brought to an end. “For we wrestle not against blood and flesh, but against principalities and powers, and against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places.” (Eph. 6:12)

 

Ignatius’ quote is important because it shows a very early understanding that Christians do not participate in war.

 

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 Justin Martyr 160 AD. we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies,

 

This is Clement of Alexandria around 195 AD

 

Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns.

 

Here is Tertullan around the same time.

 

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3 Tertullian 197 AD. If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands?

 

If you want more I can give them to you but this give a sample. Another topic would be the Trinity. The modern idea is that there are three persons which are one God. These three are co-equal, and co-eternal. The earliest Christians didn't believe that. Look at the creed that they agreed on in 325 AD.

 

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

 

They believed in one God, the Father. This is practically a quote from Paul. 

 

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:6 KJV)

 

When I look at what the earliest Christians believed and what is taught today, I sometimes wonder if it's even the same religion.

[Butch5]

 

 

 

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. 

 

Did Paul actually say he expected to immediately be present with the Lord at this death? In that passage he actually says that he is not wanting to be absent from a body. If you look at the entire passage carefully you can see that Paul was actually talking about having a corruptible body and an incorruptible body. In the "now" he has a corruptible one. However, when he puts on his incorruptible one he will be with the Lord. If we look back to the OT passages about the dead we see that the dead know nothing. If the dead know nothing, then one would be conscious one moment, then die and no nothing until they were resurrected. It would seem to them to be immediate even though time had passed. It would seem immediate because they know nothing of the time they were dead. We could easily understand Paul's statement that way. His is in a corruptible body and he wants to put on his incorruptible body which won't happen until he is in the presence of Christ. One moment he is in this corruptible body, then he dies and the next thing he knows he's with the Lord. There is something here that many misread. Paul "Didn't" say to be absent from the body "IS" to be present with the Lord, he said "I am willing" rather to absent from the body "AND" present with the Lord. There's a big difference there.

 

Paul is well aware of the Greek influences on the Corinthians and makes a point to deny an existence outside of the body.

 

KJV  2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. (2Co 5:1-9 KJV)

 

His argument is that he doesn't want to be unclothed (without a body) but rather "Overclothed" with the incorruptible body. He says "that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

 

The Greek word  translated clothed upon in verse 4 means to put on over.

 

1902 evpendu,omai ependuomai {ep-en-doo'-om-ahee}

Meaning:  1) to put on over

 

I used the word "Overclothed". He's saying that he does't expect to put of his flesh body and assume a new one later. He expects to put the new one, the incorruptible one, on over his existing body. He said that mortality my be swallowed up of life (or the incorruptible).

 

His argument actually argues against what many Christians claim from this verse. I used to this verse too to argue this point, however, after seeing it more fully have realized that it was actually saying the opposite of what I was claiming.

[saved34]

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.

 

That is an awful lot of speculation brother, Rem. Especially in light of clear scripture. Is there any other parable in scripture that uses specific names like this one? "Father Abraham", "Moses and the Prophets"? Christ being "the firstborn from the dead", never to die again, your speculation about Moses is definitely way off basis. There is coming a time when Moses along with all the other Saints will receive a glorious, new, indestructible body. Only Christ is Immortal right now. Only Christ has conquered death at this point. I'll take scripture over speculation any day of the week. 

[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, I would site baptism and the subject of works as two. My point is that the Protestant Church didn't go far enough when it sought to return to Biblical Christianity. Instead of going back to the beginning they only went as far as Augustine. By his day Christianity had vastly changed from the original teachings. I would site  two teachings as an example, war, the earliest Christians would not allow Christians to participate in war. 

 

I'm not. I believe there are doctrines on which the Catholic Church is correct and the Protestant Church is wrong. I would site baptism and the issue of works. My point is that the Protestant Church didn't go far enough on its return to Biblical Christianity, it only went back to Augustine. By his day Christianity had already suffered many changes and was not like the original teachings. I can give you a couple of examples. Take the subject of war both the Protestant and Catholic Churches allow the use of war yet the earliest Christians were adamantly against the use of violence. Here are a few quotes, I'll keep it short for space. Here is Ignatius, and disciple of John

 

Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye come frequently together in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and his “fiery darts” (Eph. 6:16) urging to sin fall back ineffectual. For your concord and harmonious faith prove his destruction, and the torment of his assistants. Nothing is better than that peace which is according to Christ, by which all war, both of aërial and terrestrial spirits, is brought to an end. “For we wrestle not against blood and flesh, but against principalities and powers, and against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places.” (Eph. 6:12)

 

Ignatius’ quote is important because it shows a very early understanding that Christians do not participate in war.

 

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 Justin Martyr 160 AD. we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies,

 

This is Clement of Alexandria around 195 AD

 

Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns.

 

Here is Tertullan around the same time.

 

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3 Tertullian 197 AD. If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands?

 

If you want more I can give them to you but this give a sample. Another topic would be the Trinity. The modern idea is that there are three persons which are one God. These three are co-equal, and co-eternal. The earliest Christians didn't believe that. Look at the creed that they agreed on in 325 AD.

 

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

 

They believed in one God, the Father. This is practically a quote from Paul. 

 

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:6 KJV)

 

When I look at what the earliest Christians believed and what is taught today, I sometimes wonder if it's even the same religion.

 

Those are excellent examples.  Thanks.  The only problem I have with them is that they are teaching false doctrine.  We know that they cannot be in the truth, as God himself is the one that ordered his people into battle time and again in the OT.  If killing during time of war was wrong, that would make God guilty of wrong doing.  The Bible says he is the same yesterday, today and forever.  Jesus himself will lead an army into battle at Armageddon. 

 

I appreciate where you are coming from.  You have writings of early church figures that oppose the use of war, so you figure that means war is evil.  I don't see it that way.  I believe that doctrine actually goes contrary to things found in the Bible itself.  I don't believe that Jesus came and changed things in the new covenant like some do.  When he taught things about the OT, he was clarifying errors that were created by the religious leaders.  He wasn't doing away with the law itself.  He certainly wouldn't come against God for telling people to fight battles, like the one at Jericho. 

[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. 

 

Did Paul actually say he expected to immediately be present with the Lord at this death? In that passage he actually says that he is not wanting to be absent from a body. If you look at the entire passage carefully you can see that Paul was actually talking about having a corruptible body and an incorruptible body. In the "now" he has a corruptible one. However, when he puts on his incorruptible one he will be with the Lord. If we look back to the OT passages about the dead we see that the dead know nothing. If the dead know nothing, then one would be conscious one moment, then die and no nothing until they were resurrected. It would seem to them to be immediate even though time had passed. It would seem immediate because they know nothing of the time they were dead. We could easily understand Paul's statement that way. His is in a corruptible body and he wants to put on his incorruptible body which won't happen until he is in the presence of Christ. One moment he is in this corruptible body, then he dies and the next thing he knows he's with the Lord. There is something here that many misread. Paul "Didn't" say to be absent from the body "IS" to be present with the Lord, he said "I am willing" rather to absent from the body "AND" present with the Lord. There's a big difference there.

 

Paul is well aware of the Greek influences on the Corinthians and makes a point to deny an existence outside of the body.

 

KJV  2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. (2Co 5:1-9 KJV)

 

His argument is that he doesn't want to be unclothed (without a body) but rather "Overclothed" with the incorruptible body. He says "that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

 

The Greek word  translated clothed upon in verse 4 means to put on over.

 

1902 evpendu,omai ependuomai {ep-en-doo'-om-ahee}

Meaning:  1) to put on over

 

I used the word "Overclothed". He's saying that he does't expect to put of his flesh body and assume a new one later. He expects to put the new one, the incorruptible one, on over his existing body. He said that mortality my be swallowed up of life (or the incorruptible).

 

His argument actually argues against what many Christians claim from this verse. I used to this verse too to argue this point, however, after seeing it more fully have realized that it was actually saying the opposite of what I was claiming.

 

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, but I had things to take care of before I could look into your argument.  The house he is speaking of is not his glorified body.  He is speaking of his mansion in heaven that Jesus went away to prepare for the saints.  He is speaking of leaving his earthly tabernacle, (his body) and taking up residence in his home in heaven.  The Greek word translated house literally means a house.  It doesn't mean a body.  He doesn't say he is desiring to have his present body overclothed.  He is saying he is desiring to be absent from his body, and present with the Lord.  You have been saying you want someone to show you scripture that shows a person can be absent from this physical body and elsewhere.  I gave you one. 

[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. 

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.

 

The problem I see here is that we have to question whether or not someone being part of an early church makes there writing correct?  You have just mentioned the doctrine of infant baptism.  How do you know they are wrong on that, while you accept them as correct in other areas?  I give them the same weight I would any Christian author.  Only the Bible is inerrant. 

 

The one thing I wanted to look into is the Greek words for hell, as that has been brought up more than once.  From what I can tell, there is one Hebrew word translated to hell, and 3 Greek words translated to hell.  First is the Hebrew word for hell.

 

Sheol-  Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retrat), include. its accessories and inmates:- grave, hell, pit.

 

This is the word used throughout the Old Testament.  Now to the New Testament.

 

geena- a name of a place of everlasting punishment.

 

hades- Hades or the place of departed souls. grave, hell

 

tartaroo- The deepest abyss of Hades to incarcerate in eternal torment:  cast down to hell.

 

Every time you see the word hell in the OT, it is from the Hebrew word sheol.  In the New Testament, it is from one of the Greek words I mentioned, and in every case, those words can mean a place of eternal torment and punishment.  What those on the other side of this argument like to do is focus only on one part of the definition that means the grave. 

[Guest Butero]

 

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.

 

 

This is not correct.  The definition of Hades from the Greek Dictionary is...

 

The place (state) of departed souls:  grave, hell.

 

One area we have had questions over is the body, soul and spirit, so lets look at these definitions. 

 

body (soma) the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, lit. or fig.: bodily, body, slave.

 

soul (psuche) breath, i.e. (by impl.) spirit

 

spirit (pneuma) a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by anal. or fig. a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by impl.) vital principle, mental disposition, etc. 

 

The punishments of hell are forever.  Notice what it says in Mark 9:43-48

 

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:  it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:   Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off:  it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out:  it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:  Where their worm deith not, and the fire is not quenched. 

 

Hell is real, and a place of eternal punishment for the wicked. 

[Butch5]

This is not correct.  The definition of Hades from the Greek Dictionary is...

The place (state) of departed souls:  grave, hell.

 

What here has contradicted what I said? Hades is the grave not the place of torment that is Gehenna.

One area we have had questions over is the body, soul and spirit, so lets look at these definitions.

body (soma) the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, lit. or fig.: bodily, body, slave.

soul (psuche) breath, i.e. (by impl.) spirit

spirit (pneuma) a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by anal. or fig. a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by impl.) vital principle, mental disposition, etc.

 

Are you familiar with how Biblical dictionaries are made?

This isn’t really any different than the situation with the commentaries. I gave you Scripture show what a soul is. Can you show me anywhere in the OT where a soul and spirit are said to be one and the same. It doesn’t really matter if a dictionary says it if it’s not in Scripture. If the idea cannot be found in Scripture then it’s just the idea of the author.

The punishments of hell are forever.  Notice what it says in Mark 9:43-48

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:  it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:   Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off:  it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out:  it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:  Where their worm deith not, and the fire is not quenched.

Hell is real, and a place of eternal punishment for the wicked.

 

The results of the punishments are forever, not the duration.

[Guest Butero]

 

This is not correct.  The definition of Hades from the Greek Dictionary is...

The place (state) of departed souls:  grave, hell.

 

What here has contradicted what I said? Hades is the grave not the place of torment that is Gehenna.

 

 

One area we have had questions over is the body, soul and spirit, so lets look at these definitions.

body (soma) the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, lit. or fig.: bodily, body, slave.

soul (psuche) breath, i.e. (by impl.) spirit

spirit (pneuma) a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by anal. or fig. a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by impl.) vital principle, mental disposition, etc.

 

Are you familiar with how Biblical dictionaries are made?

This isn’t really any different than the situation with the commentaries. I gave you Scripture show what a soul is. Can you show me anywhere in the OT where a soul and spirit are said to be one and the same. It doesn’t really matter if a dictionary says it if it’s not in Scripture. If the idea cannot be found in Scripture then it’s just the idea of the author.

The punishments of hell are forever.  Notice what it says in Mark 9:43-48

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:  it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:   Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off:  it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out:  it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:  Where their worm deith not, and the fire is not quenched.

Hell is real, and a place of eternal punishment for the wicked.

 

The results of the punishments are forever, not the duration.

 

What is not correct is your definition of hades.  It was incomplete.  The full definition is "the place (state) of departed souls:  grave, hell.  You chose to leave out all but grave, and made out like hades could not describe the place the soul of the rich man was at, when clearly it can.  And yes, the punishments are forever.  I don't believe everyone has the same amount of torments for their transgressions, but all suffer to some degree for eternity.

[Butch5]

The problem I see here is that we have to question whether or not someone being part of an early church makes there writing correct?  You have just mentioned the doctrine of infant baptism.  How do you know they are wrong on that, while you accept them as correct in other areas?  I give them the same weight I would any Christian author.  Only the Bible is inerrant.

 

It’s because I look at they entirety of them. As I said, if I find universality of a teaching in both people and geography if figure it’s probably what the apostles taught. At that point I take it to the Scriptures to see if it aligns with Scripture. Take infant baptism, you don’t see anything in Scripture about infants being baptized. When we look at the earliest writers there in no mention of infant baptism. Suddenly in Alexandria we see the appears of infants being baptized. It’s localized at first thus it’s not from the beginning.

I believe there is reason to give the earliest writers more weight than just any Christian writer. The biggest reason that they were closer to the source. It took time for the faith to become polluted. Today you have almost 2000 for things to pollute the original teachings of Christ and the apostles. For some of then it was only 200-300 years and for some of them like Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome there was no time as they were taught directly by the apostles. They didn’t have to speculate about what the apostle meant they just asked him.

Additionally, they lived in the same culture as the apostles. Today Western Christians are trying to understand an Eastern culture with a Western mindset. That is a handicap. Also, they spoke the same language, they weren’t reading someone’s translation. They also understood the events of the day, the background against which the NT was written. Today you have Christians who will pick up the Bible and read a book, say Romans and have no idea of what was happening among the Roman Christians that Paul was writing to. They have 21st century mindset and apply it to a 1st century document. That one reason why I told you that the group looks at the Scriptures progressively. David didn’t have the Revelation that was given to John. So when David says something we need to understand it within the revelation that he had. We can apply later revelation or 21st century concepts onto the things David said.

The one thing I wanted to look into is the Greek words for hell, as that has been brought up more than once.  From what I can tell, there is one Hebrew word translated to hell, and 3 Greek words translated to hell.  First is the Hebrew word for hell.

Sheol-  Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retrat), include. its accessories and inmates:- grave, hell, pit.

This is the word used throughout the Old Testament.  Now to the New Testament.

geena- a name of a place of everlasting punishment.

hades- Hades or the place of departed souls. grave, hell

tartaroo- The deepest abyss of Hades to incarcerate in eternal torment:  cast down to hell.

Every time you see the word hell in the OT, it is from the Hebrew word sheol.  In the New Testament, it is from one of the Greek words I mentioned, and in every case, those words can mean a place of eternal torment and punishment.  What those on the other side of this argument like to do is focus only on one part of the definition that means the grave.

 

Not at all. Ok, your dictionary says that but it doesn’t mean anything if the Scriptures don’t teach it. Just like with the early church writers what they say doesn’t mean squat if the Scriptures don’t teach it.

 

The group I’m in has done extensive research in the Scriptures regarding the word, spirit, which in the Hebrew is either Ruach, or Neshemah, and in the Greek is Pneuma. We also looked at the word Soul, in the Hebrew it is Nephesh and in the Greek Psuche. We’ve looked at the words, Hades, Sheol, and Gehenna. Hundreds of passages were read. There wasn’t any place found in the OT that shoel required a meaning of a place where a disembodied consciousness or ghost goes. If we can’t find Scripture that requires an interpretation we shouldn’t be adding one that is not there just to fit our doctrines.

 

My question is which one do we go by the dictionary or the Scriptures?