Is 'soul sleep' doctrinal?

[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.

 

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. 

 

The word does mean house, he's using it as a metaphor. 

 

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. (2Co 5:1 KJV)

 

It"s the same word so it means the same both times. Either he means a physical building both times or he means a body both times you can't just change it.

 

You said, "He doesn't say he is desiring to have his present body overclothed." That's exactly what he said.

 

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. (2Co 5:3-4 KJV)

 

He said he doesn't want to unclothed but clothed upon. The Greek word that is translated "clothed upon" means to put on over.

 

 

Actually, the Scriptures don't say anything about mansion is Heaven. What Jesus said was in my Father's house there are many mansions (rooms). Jesus didn't refer to Heaven as His Father's house.

 

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

(Joh 2:13-16 KJV)

 

When Jesus spoke of His Father's house it was the temple. The many rooms were built like apartments for the priests when they were serving at the Temple. Jesus told the apostles that they would be reign with Him

 

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mat 19:28 KJV)

 

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:6 KJV)

 

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Rev 5:9-10 KJV)

 

Here is Ezekiel's description of the Temple

 

3 And he brought me thither, and, behold, there was a man, whose appearance was like the appearance of brass, with a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed; and he stood in the gate.

4 And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew them unto thee art thou brought hither: declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel.

5 And behold a wall on the outside of the house round about, and in the man's hand a measuring reed of six cubits long by the cubit and an hand breadth: so he measured the breadth of the building, one reed; and the height, one reed.

6 Then came he unto the gate which looketh toward the east, and went up the stairs thereof, and measured the threshold of the gate, which was one reed broad; and the other threshold of the gate, which was one reed broad.

7 And every little chamber was one reed long, and one reed broad; and between the little chambers were five cubits; and the threshold of the gate by the porch of the gate within was one reed.

8 He measured also the porch of the gate within, one reed.

9 Then measured he the porch of the gate, eight cubits; and the posts thereof, two cubits; and the porch of the gate was inward.

10 And the little chambers of the gate eastward were three on this side, and three on that side; they three were of one measure: and the posts had one measure on this side and on that side.

11 And he measured the breadth of the entry of the gate, ten cubits; and the length of the gate, thirteen cubits.

12 The space also before the little chambers was one cubit on this side, and the space was one cubit on that side: and the little chambers were six cubits on this side, and six cubits on that side.

13 He measured then the gate from the roof of one little chamber to the roof of another: the breadth was five and twenty cubits, door against door.

14 He made also posts of threescore cubits, even unto the post of the court round about the gate.

15 And from the face of the gate of the entrance unto the face of the porch of the inner gate were fifty cubits.

16 And there were narrow windows to the little chambers, and to their posts within the gate round about, and likewise to the arches: and windows were round about inward: and upon each post were palm trees.

17 Then brought he me into the outward court, and, lo, there were chambers, and a pavement made for the court round about: thirty chambers were upon the pavement.

18 And the pavement by the side of the gates over against the length of the gates was the lower pavement.

19 Then he measured the breadth from the forefront of the lower gate unto the forefront of the inner court without, an hundred cubits eastward and northward.

20 And the gate of the outward court that looked toward the north, he measured the length thereof, and the breadth thereof.

21 And the little chambers thereof were three on this side and three on that side; and the posts thereof and the arches thereof were after the measure of the first gate: the length thereof was fifty cubits, and the breadth five and twenty cubits.

22 And their windows, and their arches, and their palm trees, were after the measure of the gate that looketh toward the east; and they went up unto it by seven steps; and the arches thereof were before them.

23 And the gate of the inner court was over against the gate toward the north, and toward the east; and he measured from gate to gate an hundred cubits.

24 After that he brought me toward the south, and behold a gate toward the south: and he measured the posts thereof and the arches thereof according to these measures.

25 And there were windows in it and in the arches thereof round about, like those windows: the length was fifty cubits, and the breadth five and twenty cubits.

26 And there were seven steps to go up to it, and the arches thereof were before them: and it had palm trees, one on this side, and another on that side, upon the posts thereof.

27 And there was a gate in the inner court toward the south: and he measured from gate to gate toward the south an hundred cubits.

28 And he brought me to the inner court by the south gate: and he measured the south gate according to these measures;

29 And the little chambers thereof, and the posts thereof, and the arches thereof, according to these measures: and there were windows in it and in the arches thereof round about: it was fifty cubits long, and five and twenty cubits broad.

30 And the arches round about were five and twenty cubits long, and five cubits broad.

31 And the arches thereof were toward the utter court; and palm trees were upon the posts thereof: and the going up to it had eight steps.

32 And he brought me into the inner court toward the east: and he measured the gate according to these measures.

33 And the little chambers thereof, and the posts thereof, and the arches thereof, were according to these measures: and there were windows therein and in the arches thereof round about: it was fifty cubits long, and five and twenty cubits broad.

34 And the arches thereof were toward the outward court; and palm trees were upon the posts thereof, on this side, and on that side: and the going up to it had eight steps.

35 And he brought me to the north gate, and measured it according to these measures;

36 The little chambers thereof, the posts thereof, and the arches thereof, and the windows to it round about: the length was fifty cubits, and the breadth five and twenty cubits.

37 And the posts thereof were toward the utter court; and palm trees were upon the posts thereof, on this side, and on that side: and the going up to it had eight steps.

38 And the chambers and the entries thereof were by the posts of the gates, where they washed the burnt offering.

39 And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.

40 And at the side without, as one goeth up to the entry of the north gate, were two tables; and on the other side, which was at the porch of the gate, were two tables.

41 Four tables were on this side, and four tables on that side, by the side of the gate; eight tables, whereupon they slew their sacrifices.

42 And the four tables were of hewn stone for the burnt offering, of a cubit and an half long, and a cubit and an half broad, and one cubit high: whereupon also they laid the instruments wherewith they slew the burnt offering and the sacrifice.

43 And within were hooks, an hand broad, fastened round about: and upon the tables was the flesh of the offering.

44 And without the inner gate were the chambers of the singers in the inner court, which was at the side of the north gate; and their prospect was toward the south: one at the side of the east gate having the prospect toward the north.

45 And he said unto me, This chamber, whose prospect is toward the south, is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the house.

46 And the chamber whose prospect is toward the north is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the altar: these are the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to the LORD to minister unto him. (Eze 40:3-46 KJV)

 

When Jesus said that in his Father's house were many mansions, he was speaking of heaven.  He even said he was going to prepare a place for us.  He wasn't speaking of an earthly temple.  Why would he have to go away to prepare an earthly temple that already exists?  Paul makes it plain that the real him will exist outside his body, and he has a home prepared for him in heaven.  That is all he is speaking of when he speaks about being clothed in heaven.  He is speaking of leaving his earthly tabernacle (his body) and going to his new home (a mansion prepared for him in the Father's house in heaven.)

 

In that passage Jesus didn't say anything about heaven. He was talking to His disciples and said "My Father's house". They saw Him in the Temple and heard Him calling it His Father's house when He overturned the tables. There is no reason for them to think "My Father's house" is a reference to heaven. That idea is force onto the passage by Christians. He doesn't say anything at all about Heaven.

 

In Paul's statement he uses the word house twice in the same sentence and context. What is your justification for changing the meaning from a body to a building? There's no grammatical reason to do so and it breaks down the analogy that he is making. The only way it makes sense is if the word means the same both times. Also, how is a building, life?

How does a person put on a building and wear it?

[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.

 

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.

 

Another point about the definition. Aren't you assuming that the departed souls are alive? This definition says nothing about the departed souls being alive. If a soul is a person and we know when a person departs they're dead. We use that language today, the dearly departed. 

 

Let me ask you a question, do you believe that the ghosts of the dead are in the ground? Hades does mean the grave. Even if you say the ghost is alive Hades is still the grave. Is the Ghost 6 feet under in a pine box being tormented in flames?

 

Absolutely not.  The ghost or spirit of a person leaves their body when they die, and hades is a place where departed souls go.  It is either heaven or hell, depending on whether or not they are a Christian. 

 

If the soul goes to Hades, is it dead or alive? What is the spirit or ghost?

[Butch5]

 

 

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.

 

My first question is this, if they are teaching false doctrine and are not in the truth of God why do you believe when they tell us who wrote the NT. They way we know who wrote it s from them. If we can’t trust what they say then we have no way to verify that the Scriptures we claim are inspired were actually written by the writers whose name they bear.

Another question I would ask is this, Jesus came to bring the Gospel. He taught His apostles. His apostles went out and taught the Gospel that He taught them.  Did they succeed? You see, the prohibition on the use of violence was universally taught in the early church. No one writes in approval of the use of violence, and this is over the entire region. That means that if Jesus and the apostle did teach that violence was OK, everyone they taught either didn’t understand or totally rejected what they taught on the subject. Either way it would indicate that they failed to establish the Gospel. I think Jesus and the apostles were successful in their establishing the Gospel.

I don’t want to derail this thread so I’m going to post a bunch of evidence for the teaching. I will say this, everyone who supports the use of violence must seek support from the OT as there is nothing in the NT to support that idea.

I've written a paper on this subject that goes into both Scriptural support and the historical evidence for the doctrine. Should Christians use Violence?

 

 

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.

 

God is the judge, it’s His place to give life or take it, not ours. God told Israel when to go to war and when not to. What nation does He do that with today?

 

Actually, God did say that things would change when Christ came.

 

5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. (Isa 42:5-9 KJV)

 

Paul quotes this

 

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2Co 5:17 KJV)

 

Jesus said he didn't come to do away with the law but to fulfill it.  The Bible also states that God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  If it is sinful to go to war, that would make God a transgressor.  It is in NT times that Jesus will lead the saints into battle.  I completely disagree with anyone that would interpret scripture to show war as sinful.  It should be avoided, but military service is not wrong, and neither is killing in time of war. Revelation is part of the New Testament, so yes, there is an example of Jesus participating in a war at Armageddon. 

 

But, just because God is allowed to do something doesn't mean you and I are allowed to do it. God is allowed to judge men, we are not. You've alluded to the statement that God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Just because who He is doesn't change doesn't mean His methods don't change. Let me ask you, are Christians still under the dietary Laws of the OT? If not doesn't that mean God changed somethings. Is the new covenant identical to the old? If not doesn't that mean God changed some things?

 

What nation today is in direct contact with God that they would hear from Him to know whether they should go to war. We can read in the Scriptures what happened to Israel when they took it upon themselves to go to war.

 

As I said, God is the judge and creator, He has the right to give and take life. He said, 'all souls are mine.' What right does a man have to take a soul (life) that belongs to God?

Isaiah prophesied that when Christ came old things would pass and new things would be done. Can you make a case for war from the NT. Or, can you make a case for war from the OT that can be applied to the NT?

[Butch5]

 

...

 

It's hard to really take you seriously Butch when you don't even understand what born again means and that Jesus died for your sins and that Jesus is God. You would have to understand the basics of what the Bible is about in order to understand the deeper stuff. Please respond to post 70..

 

I would say the same 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. 

 

 

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. 

 

The word does mean house, he's using it as a metaphor. 

 

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. (2Co 5:1 KJV)

 

It"s the same word so it means the same both times. Either he means a physical building both times or he means a body both times you can't just change it.

 

You said, "He doesn't say he is desiring to have his present body overclothed." That's exactly what he said.

 

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. (2Co 5:3-4 KJV)

 

He said he doesn't want to unclothed but clothed upon. The Greek word that is translated "clothed upon" means to put on over.

 

 

Actually, the Scriptures don't say anything about mansion is Heaven. What Jesus said was in my Father's house there are many mansions (rooms). Jesus didn't refer to Heaven as His Father's house.

 

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

(Joh 2:13-16 KJV)

 

When Jesus spoke of His Father's house it was the temple. The many rooms were built like apartments for the priests when they were serving at the Temple. Jesus told the apostles that they would be reign with Him

 

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mat 19:28 KJV)

 

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:6 KJV)

 

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Rev 5:9-10 KJV)

 

Here is Ezekiel's description of the Temple

 

3 And he brought me thither, and, behold, there was a man, whose appearance was like the appearance of brass, with a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed; and he stood in the gate.

4 And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew them unto thee art thou brought hither: declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel.

5 And behold a wall on the outside of the house round about, and in the man's hand a measuring reed of six cubits long by the cubit and an hand breadth: so he measured the breadth of the building, one reed; and the height, one reed.

6 Then came he unto the gate which looketh toward the east, and went up the stairs thereof, and measured the threshold of the gate, which was one reed broad; and the other threshold of the gate, which was one reed broad.

7 And every little chamber was one reed long, and one reed broad; and between the little chambers were five cubits; and the threshold of the gate by the porch of the gate within was one reed.

8 He measured also the porch of the gate within, one reed.

9 Then measured he the porch of the gate, eight cubits; and the posts thereof, two cubits; and the porch of the gate was inward.

10 And the little chambers of the gate eastward were three on this side, and three on that side; they three were of one measure: and the posts had one measure on this side and on that side.

11 And he measured the breadth of the entry of the gate, ten cubits; and the length of the gate, thirteen cubits.

12 The space also before the little chambers was one cubit on this side, and the space was one cubit on that side: and the little chambers were six cubits on this side, and six cubits on that side.

13 He measured then the gate from the roof of one little chamber to the roof of another: the breadth was five and twenty cubits, door against door.

14 He made also posts of threescore cubits, even unto the post of the court round about the gate.

15 And from the face of the gate of the entrance unto the face of the porch of the inner gate were fifty cubits.

16 And there were narrow windows to the little chambers, and to their posts within the gate round about, and likewise to the arches: and windows were round about inward: and upon each post were palm trees.

17 Then brought he me into the outward court, and, lo, there were chambers, and a pavement made for the court round about: thirty chambers were upon the pavement.

18 And the pavement by the side of the gates over against the length of the gates was the lower pavement.

19 Then he measured the breadth from the forefront of the lower gate unto the forefront of the inner court without, an hundred cubits eastward and northward.

20 And the gate of the outward court that looked toward the north, he measured the length thereof, and the breadth thereof.

21 And the little chambers thereof were three on this side and three on that side; and the posts thereof and the arches thereof were after the measure of the first gate: the length thereof was fifty cubits, and the breadth five and twenty cubits.

22 And their windows, and their arches, and their palm trees, were after the measure of the gate that looketh toward the east; and they went up unto it by seven steps; and the arches thereof were before them.

23 And the gate of the inner court was over against the gate toward the north, and toward the east; and he measured from gate to gate an hundred cubits.

24 After that he brought me toward the south, and behold a gate toward the south: and he measured the posts thereof and the arches thereof according to these measures.

25 And there were windows in it and in the arches thereof round about, like those windows: the length was fifty cubits, and the breadth five and twenty cubits.

26 And there were seven steps to go up to it, and the arches thereof were before them: and it had palm trees, one on this side, and another on that side, upon the posts thereof.

27 And there was a gate in the inner court toward the south: and he measured from gate to gate toward the south an hundred cubits.

28 And he brought me to the inner court by the south gate: and he measured the south gate according to these measures;

29 And the little chambers thereof, and the posts thereof, and the arches thereof, according to these measures: and there were windows in it and in the arches thereof round about: it was fifty cubits long, and five and twenty cubits broad.

30 And the arches round about were five and twenty cubits long, and five cubits broad.

31 And the arches thereof were toward the utter court; and palm trees were upon the posts thereof: and the going up to it had eight steps.

32 And he brought me into the inner court toward the east: and he measured the gate according to these measures.

33 And the little chambers thereof, and the posts thereof, and the arches thereof, were according to these measures: and there were windows therein and in the arches thereof round about: it was fifty cubits long, and five and twenty cubits broad.

34 And the arches thereof were toward the outward court; and palm trees were upon the posts thereof, on this side, and on that side: and the going up to it had eight steps.

35 And he brought me to the north gate, and measured it according to these measures;

36 The little chambers thereof, the posts thereof, and the arches thereof, and the windows to it round about: the length was fifty cubits, and the breadth five and twenty cubits.

37 And the posts thereof were toward the utter court; and palm trees were upon the posts thereof, on this side, and on that side: and the going up to it had eight steps.

38 And the chambers and the entries thereof were by the posts of the gates, where they washed the burnt offering.

39 And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.

40 And at the side without, as one goeth up to the entry of the north gate, were two tables; and on the other side, which was at the porch of the gate, were two tables.

41 Four tables were on this side, and four tables on that side, by the side of the gate; eight tables, whereupon they slew their sacrifices.

42 And the four tables were of hewn stone for the burnt offering, of a cubit and an half long, and a cubit and an half broad, and one cubit high: whereupon also they laid the instruments wherewith they slew the burnt offering and the sacrifice.

43 And within were hooks, an hand broad, fastened round about: and upon the tables was the flesh of the offering.

44 And without the inner gate were the chambers of the singers in the inner court, which was at the side of the north gate; and their prospect was toward the south: one at the side of the east gate having the prospect toward the north.

45 And he said unto me, This chamber, whose prospect is toward the south, is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the house.

46 And the chamber whose prospect is toward the north is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the altar: these are the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to the LORD to minister unto him. (Eze 40:3-46 KJV)

 

When Jesus said that in his Father's house were many mansions, he was speaking of heaven.  He even said he was going to prepare a place for us.  He wasn't speaking of an earthly temple.  Why would he have to go away to prepare an earthly temple that already exists?  Paul makes it plain that the real him will exist outside his body, and he has a home prepared for him in heaven.  That is all he is speaking of when he speaks about being clothed in heaven.  He is speaking of leaving his earthly tabernacle (his body) and going to his new home (a mansion prepared for him in the Father's house in heaven.)

 

In that passage Jesus didn't say anything about heaven. He was talking to His disciples and said "My Father's house". They saw Him in the Temple and heard Him calling it His Father's house when He overturned the tables. There is no reason for them to think "My Father's house" is a reference to heaven. That idea is force onto the passage by Christians. He doesn't say anything at all about Heaven.

 

In Paul's statement he uses the word house twice in the same sentence and context. What is your justification for changing the meaning from a body to a building? There's no grammatical reason to do so and it breaks down the analogy that he is making. The only way it makes sense is if the word means the same both times. Also, how is a building, life?

How does a person put on a building and wear it?

 

It is obvious Jesus wasn't speaking about the temple.  Why would Jesus say that in his Father's house there are many mansions if he were speaking of the temple?  What mansions are in the temple?  What was he going away to prepare for his followers?  The temple already existed in the natural.  What you are saying makes no logical sense.  It is obvious he is speaking of heaven. 

 

Paul is speaking of moving out of one residence into another.  He is describing his body as a residence, and saying he would leave that home and move into his new home that Jesus had prepared for him in heaven.  He clearly states that to be absent from the body would allow him to be present with the Lord.  Again, this shows it is possible to be outside the natural body and continue to exist.  It is just a comparison.  It is like Paul comparing life to running a race and only those that win getting a prize.  Is he speaking of a literal marathon?  Of course not.  If he were limiting the race to a single runner, only one person would be saved.  Is that the case?  Of course not.  It is an analogy.  In reality, the saints will be wearing white robes in heaven, and they will be dwelling in a mansion in the Father's house.  This is clearly not the earthly temple, which was destroyed.  Nobody will dwell in a mansion in that temple. 

[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.

 

Another point about the definition. Aren't you assuming that the departed souls are alive? This definition says nothing about the departed souls being alive. If a soul is a person and we know when a person departs they're dead. We use that language today, the dearly departed. 

 

Let me ask you a question, do you believe that the ghosts of the dead are in the ground? Hades does mean the grave. Even if you say the ghost is alive Hades is still the grave. Is the Ghost 6 feet under in a pine box being tormented in flames?

 

Absolutely not.  The ghost or spirit of a person leaves their body when they die, and hades is a place where departed souls go.  It is either heaven or hell, depending on whether or not they are a Christian. 

 

If the soul goes to Hades, is it dead or alive? What is the spirit or ghost?

 

It is the real person.  It is their personality.  It is alive, but the natural body is dead and in the ground returning to dust.  The soul and body will be reunited when Jesus returns at his second coming, and the body will be changed to one similar to what Jesus had after his resurrection. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

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.

 

My first question is this, if they are teaching false doctrine and are not in the truth of God why do you believe when they tell us who wrote the NT. They way we know who wrote it s from them. If we can’t trust what they say then we have no way to verify that the Scriptures we claim are inspired were actually written by the writers whose name they bear.

Another question I would ask is this, Jesus came to bring the Gospel. He taught His apostles. His apostles went out and taught the Gospel that He taught them.  Did they succeed? You see, the prohibition on the use of violence was universally taught in the early church. No one writes in approval of the use of violence, and this is over the entire region. That means that if Jesus and the apostle did teach that violence was OK, everyone they taught either didn’t understand or totally rejected what they taught on the subject. Either way it would indicate that they failed to establish the Gospel. I think Jesus and the apostles were successful in their establishing the Gospel.

I don’t want to derail this thread so I’m going to post a bunch of evidence for the teaching. I will say this, everyone who supports the use of violence must seek support from the OT as there is nothing in the NT to support that idea.

I've written a paper on this subject that goes into both Scriptural support and the historical evidence for the doctrine. Should Christians use Violence?

 

 

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.

 

God is the judge, it’s His place to give life or take it, not ours. God told Israel when to go to war and when not to. What nation does He do that with today?

 

Actually, God did say that things would change when Christ came.

 

5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. (Isa 42:5-9 KJV)

 

Paul quotes this

 

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2Co 5:17 KJV)

 

Jesus said he didn't come to do away with the law but to fulfill it.  The Bible also states that God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  If it is sinful to go to war, that would make God a transgressor.  It is in NT times that Jesus will lead the saints into battle.  I completely disagree with anyone that would interpret scripture to show war as sinful.  It should be avoided, but military service is not wrong, and neither is killing in time of war. Revelation is part of the New Testament, so yes, there is an example of Jesus participating in a war at Armageddon. 

 

But, just because God is allowed to do something doesn't mean you and I are allowed to do it. God is allowed to judge men, we are not. You've alluded to the statement that God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Just because who He is doesn't change doesn't mean His methods don't change. Let me ask you, are Christians still under the dietary Laws of the OT? If not doesn't that mean God changed somethings. Is the new covenant identical to the old? If not doesn't that mean God changed some things?

 

What nation today is in direct contact with God that they would hear from Him to know whether they should go to war. We can read in the Scriptures what happened to Israel when they took it upon themselves to go to war.

 

As I said, God is the judge and creator, He has the right to give and take life. He said, 'all souls are mine.' What right does a man have to take a soul (life) that belongs to God?

Isaiah prophesied that when Christ came old things would pass and new things would be done. Can you make a case for war from the NT. Or, can you make a case for war from the OT that can be applied to the NT?

 

There is nothing in scripture that would ever make it wrong to go to war.  When Jesus was speaking of turning the other cheek, he wasn't speaking of nations, but individuals.  It is like the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."  That was part of the law of Moses, but it didn't mean in any instance.  If it did, it contradicted God's direct command to execute murderers in the same law, and it went against God commanding armies to go into battle.  Just as "Thou shalt not kill" didn't apply to military service or executions in the law of Moses, turning the other cheek doesn't apply to either.  That is just a false interpretation.  If it were so, no nation could stand up to brutal dictators.  They could simply walk in and take over everything.  The very notion is absurd. 

[Butch5]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

My first question is this, if they are teaching false doctrine and are not in the truth of God why do you believe when they tell us who wrote the NT. They way we know who wrote it s from them. If we can’t trust what they say then we have no way to verify that the Scriptures we claim are inspired were actually written by the writers whose name they bear.

Another question I would ask is this, Jesus came to bring the Gospel. He taught His apostles. His apostles went out and taught the Gospel that He taught them.  Did they succeed? You see, the prohibition on the use of violence was universally taught in the early church. No one writes in approval of the use of violence, and this is over the entire region. That means that if Jesus and the apostle did teach that violence was OK, everyone they taught either didn’t understand or totally rejected what they taught on the subject. Either way it would indicate that they failed to establish the Gospel. I think Jesus and the apostles were successful in their establishing the Gospel.

I don’t want to derail this thread so I’m going to post a bunch of evidence for the teaching. I will say this, everyone who supports the use of violence must seek support from the OT as there is nothing in the NT to support that idea.

I've written a paper on this subject that goes into both Scriptural support and the historical evidence for the doctrine. Should Christians use Violence?

 

 

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.

 

God is the judge, it’s His place to give life or take it, not ours. God told Israel when to go to war and when not to. What nation does He do that with today?

 

Actually, God did say that things would change when Christ came.

 

5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. (Isa 42:5-9 KJV)

 

Paul quotes this

 

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2Co 5:17 KJV)

 

Jesus said he didn't come to do away with the law but to fulfill it.  The Bible also states that God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  If it is sinful to go to war, that would make God a transgressor.  It is in NT times that Jesus will lead the saints into battle.  I completely disagree with anyone that would interpret scripture to show war as sinful.  It should be avoided, but military service is not wrong, and neither is killing in time of war. Revelation is part of the New Testament, so yes, there is an example of Jesus participating in a war at Armageddon. 

 

But, just because God is allowed to do something doesn't mean you and I are allowed to do it. God is allowed to judge men, we are not. You've alluded to the statement that God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Just because who He is doesn't change doesn't mean His methods don't change. Let me ask you, are Christians still under the dietary Laws of the OT? If not doesn't that mean God changed somethings. Is the new covenant identical to the old? If not doesn't that mean God changed some things?

 

What nation today is in direct contact with God that they would hear from Him to know whether they should go to war. We can read in the Scriptures what happened to Israel when they took it upon themselves to go to war.

 

As I said, God is the judge and creator, He has the right to give and take life. He said, 'all souls are mine.' What right does a man have to take a soul (life) that belongs to God?

Isaiah prophesied that when Christ came old things would pass and new things would be done. Can you make a case for war from the NT. Or, can you make a case for war from the OT that can be applied to the NT?

 

There is nothing in scripture that would ever make it wrong to go to war.  When Jesus was speaking of turning the other cheek, he wasn't speaking of nations, but individuals.  It is like the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."  That was part of the law of Moses, but it didn't mean in any instance.  If it did, it contradicted God's direct command to execute murderers in the same law, and it went against God commanding armies to go into battle.  Just as "Thou shalt not kill" didn't apply to military service or executions in the law of Moses, turning the other cheek doesn't apply to either.  That is just a false interpretation.  If it were so, no nation could stand up to brutal dictators.  They could simply walk in and take over everything.  The very notion is absurd. 

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. What God told Israel to do were direct commands from God. What nation is there today that gets direct commands from God?

[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.

 

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.

 

Another point about the definition. Aren't you assuming that the departed souls are alive? This definition says nothing about the departed souls being alive. If a soul is a person and we know when a person departs they're dead. We use that language today, the dearly departed. 

 

Let me ask you a question, do you believe that the ghosts of the dead are in the ground? Hades does mean the grave. Even if you say the ghost is alive Hades is still the grave. Is the Ghost 6 feet under in a pine box being tormented in flames?

 

Absolutely not.  The ghost or spirit of a person leaves their body when they die, and hades is a place where departed souls go.  It is either heaven or hell, depending on whether or not they are a Christian. 

 

If the soul goes to Hades, is it dead or alive? What is the spirit or ghost?

 

It is the real person.  It is their personality.  It is alive, but the natural body is dead and in the ground returning to dust.  The soul and body will be reunited when Jesus returns at his second coming, and the body will be changed to one similar to what Jesus had after his resurrection. 

 

What is the real person, the soul or the spirit? Which one do you claim lives on after the body dies?

[Butch5]

Butero---It is obvious Jesus wasn't speaking about the temple.  Why would Jesus say that in his Father's house there are many mansions if he were speaking of the temple?  What mansions are in the temple?  What was he going away to prepare for his followers?  The temple already existed in the natural.  What you are saying makes no logical sense.  It is obvious he is speaking of heaven.

 

They’re not mansions they’re rooms or chambers where the priest stayed during they’re service at the temple. Most of the English translations don’t use the word mansions. The place Jesus was preparing is a reference to their reigning with Him in the restored earth. He said they would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. He made that statement to His disciples. He didn’t say I’m going to prepare a place for every Christian who will ever live.

Here’s something else to consider about that passage.

 

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (Joh 14:1 KJV)

If He was talking about Heaven, and that’s where Christians go why is it necessary for Him to return so that they can be with Him? He didn’t say, I’m going to prepare a place so that you can come and be with me, He said, I will return so that you can be with me. There’s nothing in this passage that suggests Heaven, or that believers go there.

Paul is speaking of moving out of one residence into another.  He is describing his body as a residence, and saying he would leave that home and move into his new home that Jesus had prepared for him in heaven.

 

You break down his analogy by changing the meaning of house from a body to a building. Are you claim that Christian “Souls” will put on building and walk around as buildings in Heaven? Will these building be life and incorruptible? Are the building immortality?

Jesus didn’t promise anyone homes in Heaven

 

He clearly states that to be absent from the body would allow him to be present with the Lord.  Again, this shows it is possible to be outside the natural body and continue to exist.

 

No, it doesn’t. I gave another perfectly plausible explanation. Any passage that could be understood both way proves neither.

Christians read this passage wrongly.  He doesn’t say to absent from the body “IS” to be present with the Lord. He says, We are confident, I say, and willing rather to absent from the body “AND” present with the Lord. There’s a big difference. The second one does not require one to be immediately present wit the Lord. I could say, “ I am confident, I say, and willing to be absent from my house and present in Hawaii, that doesn’t mean the instant I walk out of my door I’ll be in Hawaii.

 

As I said, if God retrieves His spirit/breath at death and puts it back at the resurrection one would be present with the Lord when they received their new body.

It is just a comparison.  It is like Paul comparing life to running a race and only those that win getting a prize.  Is he speaking of a literal marathon?  Of course not.  If he were limiting the race to a single runner, only one person would be saved.  Is that the case?  Of course not.  It is an analogy.  In reality, the saints will be wearing white robes in heaven, and they will be dwelling in a mansion in the Father's house.  This is clearly not the earthly temple, which was destroyed.  Nobody will dwell in a mansion in that temple.

 

There are no mansions in Heaven. Jesus didn’t say anything about Heaven in that passage. This is why I said the group tries to put aside any presuppositions when coming to the text. If you study the Scriptures closely you’ll find that there is nothing in Scripture that says people go to Heaven when they die. That idea like the ghost is inferred from certain passages but not stated anywhere in the Scriptures.