Thoughts on the 'annihilationism' Thread

[NewCreation435]

It's reincarnation, IOW. But there is almost nothing in Scripture to support that particular POV.

There is however evidence to support that reincarnation is not true such as these verses in Hebrews 9:27-28
27 "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."

Highlighting and underlining mine

 

[Pedrito]

Continued...(Continuing to address diversions, because as each diversion is addressed, it emphasises the thought that the diversion was supposed to defang.)

Me in Post #9, concentrating in particular on the diversionary shot at the Pharisees and their Scriptural beliefs found in Post #6, but also on diversionary tactics in general: Why is there such a need felt to adopt diversionary tactics to draw attention away from particular Holy Revelation (from the Great God of creation and salvation), instead of embracing it?

The response from atpollard in Post #12 commenced: Boredom, and then went on to state that I wander down “bunny trails”, followed by I find myself growing impatient for the actual point. In this case, what does anything in post #1 or post #5 have to do with annihilationism?...I think it is less about diversion and more a cry to "make your point" already.

==============================================================================================

I ask the Reader:
- Is it true that the following statements from Post #5 have nothing to do with (so-called) annihilationism?
- Is it true that those statements were not making a point?

The Pharisees accepted both the Law and the Prophets (the Protestant Old Testament) as being holy writings given by God to them. They believed that rescue from death would be by a future resurrection, as their holy writings indicated.

...there was no notion of consciousness after death.

They did understand that after the resurrection there would be some kind of worldwide judgement.

==============================================================================================

If those statements are not material with respect to “annihilationism”, and if they are not making a point, then I must seek to amend my ways.

If those statements are material with respect to “annihilationism”, and if they are making a point, then the statements in Post #12 (above) prove themselves to be purely tactical.

It seems that it is “unacceptable” for God’s Holy Revelation to appear to contradict cherished, Post-Nicene doctrines.

And whenever the plain statements are there, the need to revert to courtroom tactics is established.

 

[NewCreation435]

There is no diversion (as you call it). You mentioned 2 Timoty 3:14-17 in an earlier post which says

4 "You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

And the Pharisees did affirm the truth of Scripture and that it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. That is true. They believed in a resurrection of the physical body from the dead in the last day. Martha and Mary affirmed that when Jesus came and spoke to them at Lazarus grave before Jesus raised him. Jesus then referred to himself and the resurrection and the life.

Then you made a point in a later post that you believe the soul simply ceases to exist and then somehow is resurrected. I asked you to show scripture to support your view and you have not. If you want to prove your point to us then give us scripture that affirm a "ceasing of existence" of the soul. There isn't any in all of scripture. It simply isn't there.

 

[Pedrito]

jsimms, Post 23: Then you made a point in a later post that you believe the soul simply ceases to exist and then somehow is resurrected. I asked you to show scripture to support your view and you have not. If you want to prove your point to us then give us scripture that affirm a "ceasing of existence" of the soul. There isn't any in all of scripture. It simply isn't there.

Well, Stravinsk tendered in Post #10 of the ‘annihilationism’ thread: After death a person: returns to dust (Psalms 104:29), knows nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5), possesses no mental powers (Psalms 146:4), has nothing to do with anything on earth (Ecclesiastes 9:6), does not live (2 Kings 20:1), waits in the grave (Job 17:13), and continues not (Job 14:1, 2).

I plan to deal with the responses to those “disquieting” Scriptures in a later Post. (There is so much mounting up already.) Those responses warrant close inspection.

As for now, we’ll simply consider something that is commonly taught, and compare that with a thought offered in that same Post #23.

==============================================================================================

By the way, if the word “soul” as used in ...you believe the soul simply ceases to exist and then somehow is resurrected... refers to some kind of spirit life form independent of the human body (which it normally does within Christendom), then how can that (or any) spirit life form be resurrected? Was it somehow buried? Was it cremated? Was it lost at sea?The whole concept would be nonsensical. So how can I reasonably be asked to provide Scriptures to prove such an illogicality – an illogicality that it was stated I believe?

And as for ‘a "ceasing of existence" of the soul’, the Scriptures tendered by Stravinsk simply indicate that the existence of the human life form is terminated at death.

 

[NewCreation435]

jsimms, Post 23: Then you made a point in a later post that you believe the soul simply ceases to exist and then somehow is resurrected. I asked you to show scripture to support your view and you have not. If you want to prove your point to us then give us scripture that affirm a "ceasing of existence" of the soul. There isn't any in all of scripture. It simply isn't there.

Well, Stravinsk tendered in Post #10 of the ‘annihilationism’ thread: After death a person: returns to dust (Psalms 104:29), knows nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5), possesses no mental powers (Psalms 146:4), has nothing to do with anything on earth (Ecclesiastes 9:6), does not live (2 Kings 20:1), waits in the grave (Job 17:13), and continues not (Job 14:1, 2).

I plan to deal with the responses to those “disquieting” Scriptures in a later Post. (There is so much mounting up already.) Those responses warrant close inspection.

As for now, we’ll simply consider something that is commonly taught, and compare that with a thought offered in that same Post #23.

==============================================================================================

By the way, if the word “soul” as used in ...you believe the soul simply ceases to exist and then somehow is resurrected... refers to some kind of spirit life form independent of the human body (which it normally does within Christendom), then how can that (or any) spirit life form be resurrected? Was it somehow buried? Was it cremated? Was it lost at sea?The whole concept would be nonsensical. So how can I reasonably be asked to provide Scriptures to prove such an illogicality – an illogicality that it was stated I believe?

And as for ‘a "ceasing of existence" of the soul’, the Scriptures tendered by Stravinsk simply indicate that the existence of the human life form is terminated at death.

the resurrection is usually thought of in terms of the resurrection of the physical body. You are the one who came up with the phrase cessation of existence. It appears to be your premise in your remarks so far that the spirit of a person stops existing at the physical death of a person and then comes back to life later at a resurrection. So, I asked you for proof of this from scripture and you haven't answered. The "cessation of existence" idea was yours and as I have now said three times is not evident from scriptures.

 

[Pedrito]

(I must admit I do find it amazing sometimes when people quote Scripture or refer to it, apparently without realising what it is actually conveying.)

==============================================================================================

I have heard it proclaimed multiple times to grieving loved ones and friends, that the dearly departed one is better off now. They are (or their soul is) in Heaven. They are looking down on us, and that the grieving ones will be reunited with them in Heaven when they themselves die. The actual words used may differ, but the thought patterns are the same.

jsimms435 in Post #23 offered: They [[the Pharisees]] believed in a resurrection of the physical body from the dead in the last day. Martha and Mary affirmed that when Jesus came and spoke to them at Lazarus grave before Jesus raised him.

==============================================================================================

But what does that passage reveal about what Jesus had actually taught Lazarus, Mary and Martha when he spent time with them? Had they only talked about the weather and the Roman occupation? Might He have taught them spiritual truths?

In John 11, Jesus responds to Martha’s grief thus: 23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.

Martha, not realising that Jesus was about to perform a miracle, responds as she had been taught by Jesus regarding individuals reuniting after death. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Consider: Why didn’t she say in response to Jesus’ words, something like: “So what? I’ll see him long before that”? Why didn’t she think his “soul” was somewhere where it would be reunited with her “soul” some years thence when she died? And why didn’t the people ask Lazarus the obvious and sure-to-be-recorded question when he returned to life: “What was it like?”, as most people would today?

Because the whole idea was foreign to them. Totally foreign.

==============================================================================================

Next we’ll look at another Scripture passage that jsimms435’s offering relates to.


(And after that I’ll address some other Posts that are queued up for attention.)

 

[Pedrito]

It was jsimms435’s thought about Jesus, Lazarus and Martha, that prompted consideration of the passage hereunder. In retrospect, that passage about Jesus, Lazarus and Martha when looked at analytically (as opposed to through doctrinal filters), actually agrees with what God had revealed in His Holy Inspired Hebrew Scriptures – that human death is a cessation of existence.

Now let’s have a careful look at 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18:
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Paul wrote those words to comfort the grieving.

But notice: Is any mention is made of anyone being in Heaven after death? Is there any mention of continuing consciousness after death? Is anything said about souls being reunited before the resurrection?

What is clearly expressed is rescue from death by means of resurrection. And that idea was offered by the Apostle Paul to promote comfort! Why didn’t Paul say they were happy in Heaven, waiting for others to come? Why didn’t he say that his readers would be joining them there when they themselves died? Wouldn’t that have been even more comforting?

==============================================================================================

And don’t forget, Paul’s words are in the New Testament. As is the passage concerning Jesus, Lazarus and Martha.

Paul actually affirmed what had been revealed and documented beforehand in the Divine Hebrew Scriptures.

==============================================================================================

So could it be the statement in Post #15 [emphasis added to focus attention on a specific thought pattern]: "Sometimes death seems to be referred in the Old Testament to something similiar to what is called soul sleep today or a lack of conscious thought",

should be restated thus: "In both the Old and New Testaments, death is consistently portrayed as being a state lacking conscious thought."?

 

[atpollard]

Jesus' thoughts on 'death':

Luke 16:19-31 NASB
19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Luke 23:39-43 NASB
39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!” 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

 

[NewCreation435]

It was jsimms435’s thought about Jesus, Lazarus and Martha, that prompted consideration of the passage hereunder. In retrospect, that passage about Jesus, Lazarus and Martha when looked at analytically (as opposed to through doctrinal filters), actually agrees with what God had revealed in His Holy Inspired Hebrew Scriptures – that human death is a cessation of existence.

Now let’s have a careful look at 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18:
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Paul wrote those words to comfort the grieving.

But notice: Is any mention is made of anyone being in Heaven after death? Is there any mention of continuing consciousness after death? Is anything said about souls being reunited before the resurrection?

What is clearly expressed is rescue from death by means of resurrection. And that idea was offered by the Apostle Paul to promote comfort! Why didn’t Paul say they were happy in Heaven, waiting for others to come? Why didn’t he say that his readers would be joining them there when they themselves died? Wouldn’t that have been even more comforting?

==============================================================================================

And don’t forget, Paul’s words are in the New Testament. As is the passage concerning Jesus, Lazarus and Martha.

Paul actually affirmed what had been revealed and documented beforehand in the Divine Hebrew Scriptures.

==============================================================================================

So could it be the statement in Post #15 [emphasis added to focus attention on a specific thought pattern]: "Sometimes death seems to be referred in the Old Testament to something similiar to what is called soul sleep today or a lack of conscious thought",

should be restated thus: "In both the Old and New Testaments, death is consistently portrayed as being a state lacking conscious thought."?

You are badly mistaken. There are several references to the fact that there is consciousness of what is happening when a body of a believer dies. Both Jesus and Paul made reference to this.
Philippians 1:23-24
3 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

Matthew 22:29-32
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Do you see where God the Father refers to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in scripture over and over again? Jesus refers to them as living.

Also, if you notice in Matthew 17:3 Moses and Elijah appear during the transfiguration and they are fully aware of what is going on and that Jesus is going to have to suffer and die.

Eternal life doesn't start at the resurrection on the last day. For the believer, it has already started. We are promised eternal life and that promise starts here on earth. Your belief in a cessation of life is incorrect and not consistent with these scriptures. Nor the ones noted in the post before this one that atpollard mentions

 

[MennoSota]

Continued...(Continuing to address diversions, because as each diversion is addressed, it emphasises the thought that the diversion was supposed to defang.)

Me in Post #9, concentrating in particular on the diversionary shot at the Pharisees and their Scriptural beliefs found in Post #6, but also on diversionary tactics in general: Why is there such a need felt to adopt diversionary tactics to draw attention away from particular Holy Revelation (from the Great God of creation and salvation), instead of embracing it?

The response from atpollard in Post #12 commenced: Boredom, and then went on to state that I wander down “bunny trails”, followed by I find myself growing impatient for the actual point. In this case, what does anything in post #1 or post #5 have to do with annihilationism?...I think it is less about diversion and more a cry to "make your point" already.

==============================================================================================

I ask the Reader:
- Is it true that the following statements from Post #5 have nothing to do with (so-called) annihilationism?
- Is it true that those statements were not making a point?

The Pharisees accepted both the Law and the Prophets (the Protestant Old Testament) as being holy writings given by God to them. They believed that rescue from death would be by a future resurrection, as their holy writings indicated.

...there was no notion of consciousness after death.

They did understand that after the resurrection there would be some kind of worldwide judgement.

==============================================================================================

If those statements are not material with respect to “annihilationism”, and if they are not making a point, then I must seek to amend my ways.

If those statements are material with respect to “annihilationism”, and if they are making a point, then the statements in Post #12 (above) prove themselves to be purely tactical.

It seems that it is “unacceptable” for God’s Holy Revelation to appear to contradict cherished, Post-Nicene doctrines.

And whenever the plain statements are there, the need to revert to courtroom tactics is established.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?

 

[MennoSota]

In both the Old and New Testaments, death is consistently portrayed as being a state lacking conscious thought.

Ezekiel shares a number of verses where the dead Kings of earlier Kingdoms wonder when Babylon, Tyre and Egypt will be punished. These souls are in the "pit" and very much conscious.

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

Jesus' thoughts on 'death':

Luke 16:19-31 NASB
19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Do you read parables literally?

Luke 23:39-43 NASB
39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!” 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

Why did they choose put the comma before "today" and not after it? There is no punctuation in Greek.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

Do you read parables literally?

Parable: a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
Allegory: a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.

Why would Jesus use spiritual lies to convey a "spiritual truth"?
All of Jesus' parables describe 'a farmer' or 'a woman' ... generic people in generic situations. The story of Lazarus describes a specific person by name. It does not have the characteristics of a parable, rather it completely agrees with Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross and Paul's later statements in his letters.

Why did they choose put the comma before "today" and not after it? There is no punctuation in Greek.

Because placing the coma after "today" makes Jesus sound like he is a complete idiot. Who starts a sentence with "I am talking with you this day, in order to tell you ..." it is self evident that you are talking today if the person is standing there listening to you. It is a Greek construct that is used nowhere else in literature. Greek uses other things (like masculine and feminine forms and singular and plural forms) to identify which words in a phrase go together. In English, that job of parsing sentences falls to punctuation. Those who translated it used the nuances of Greek to parse the meaning and render it in English punctuation. Notice that different teams with different backgrounds and different goals working hundreds of years apart all translated it with the coma before the word "today". If all the experts in Greek say that is where the coma belongs, maybe they are correct.

Or perhaps YOU are correct and Jesus, nailed to a cross, was speaking to another man nailed to a cross and wanted to emphasize that Jesus was speaking to him TODAY ... about them being together at some unknown future date ... Because nothing comforts a dying man like knowing that he is being spoken to right before he dies and is left to rot on a cross in a city garbage heap.

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

Parable: a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
Allegory: a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.

Why would Jesus use spiritual lies to convey a "spiritual truth"?
All of Jesus' parables describe 'a farmer' or 'a woman' ... generic people in generic situations. The story of Lazarus describes a specific person by name. It does not have the characteristics of a parable, rather it completely agrees with Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross and Paul's later statements in his letters.

That's one interpretation. It is set up and structured like a parable. "There was a rich man" etc. Ends with a moral lesson. Could be using popular afterlife imagery common among jewish people in this Hellenistic period, even if a bit off. The story of rich man and the steward seems to draw lessons in praise of a man's dishonesty but it would be inaccurate to conclude that jesus was endorsing dishonesty.

Because placing the coma after "today" makes Jesus sound like he is a complete idiot. Who starts a sentence with "I am talking with you this day, in order to tell you ..." it is self evident that you are talking today if the person is standing there listening to you. It is a Greek construct that is used nowhere else in literature. Greek uses other things (like masculine and feminine forms and singular and plural forms) to identify which words in a phrase go together. In English, that job of parsing sentences falls to punctuation. Those who translated it used the nuances of Greek to parse the meaning and render it in English punctuation. Notice that different teams with different backgrounds and different goals working hundreds of years apart all translated it with the coma before the word "today". If all the experts in Greek say that is where the coma belongs, maybe they are correct.

Or perhaps YOU are correct and Jesus, nailed to a cross, was speaking to another man nailed to a cross and wanted to emphasize that Jesus was speaking to him TODAY ... about them being together at some unknown future date ... Because nothing comforts a dying man like knowing that he is being spoken to right before he dies and is left to rot on a cross in a city garbage heap.

All of this is based on your personal opinion of how you think the phrase "i tell you the truth today" sounds when translated into English. And yes maybe experts in Greek know exactly what is being said, or maybe (more likely imo) it's just a tradition to place it there.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Pedrito]

atpollard in Post #12: I don't think that Post #6 has anything to do with doctrines or creeds.

Albion in Post #13: Agreed. Asking "So what is your question?" hardly seems to amount to an "attempt(s) to suppress certain aspects of Inspired Scriptural Revelation."

The original quote from jsimms435 in Post #6 [emphasis] added]: So what is your question? They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time.

==============================================================================================

Now, what does the Reader think I was referring to when I stated: “Why do we see repeated attempts to suppress certain aspects of Inspired Scriptural Revelation?”?:
- “So what is your question?”
OR
- “They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time.”?

Isn’t it obvious that I was referring to “They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time”, and not the “So what is your question?” to which attention was drawn?

Wasn’t that flat world statement an attempt to undermine the Inspired “Old Testament” revelation regarding the nature of human death? (But ended up shooting the authors of the Nicene Creed in the foot?)

==============================================================================================

Now, what is the term used to describe drawing attention away from a statement of significance?


Is it not true that the statements in Posts #12 and #13 constitute an obvious and blatant example of the courtroom tactics that the author of Post #30 implies do not exist?

And can’t the use of implication to counter truth, in itself be classed as a courtroom tactic?

 

[NewCreation435]

atpollard in Post #12: I don't think that Post #6 has anything to do with doctrines or creeds.

Albion in Post #13: Agreed. Asking "So what is your question?" hardly seems to amount to an "attempt(s) to suppress certain aspects of Inspired Scriptural Revelation."

The original quote from jsimms435 in Post #6 [emphasis] added]: So what is your question? They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time.

==============================================================================================

Now, what does the Reader think I was referring to when I stated: “Why do we see repeated attempts to suppress certain aspects of Inspired Scriptural Revelation?”?:
- “So what is your question?”
OR
- “They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time.”?

Isn’t it obvious that I was referring to “They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time”, and not the “So what is your question?” to which attention was drawn?

Wasn’t that flat world statement an attempt to undermine the Inspired “Old Testament” revelation regarding the nature of human death? (But ended up shooting the authors of the Nicene Creed in the foot?)

==============================================================================================

Now, what is the term used to describe drawing attention away from a statement of significance?


Is it not true that the statements in Posts #12 and #13 constitute an obvious and blatant example of the courtroom tactics that the author of Post #30 implies do not exist?

And can’t the use of implication to counter truth, in itself be classed as a courtroom tactic?

Several posts with scripture have been given refuting your view that there is a cessation of existence as you put it yet you haven't answered any of those statements. Could you address those please?

 

[NewCreation435]

atpollard in Post #12: I don't think that Post #6 has anything to do with doctrines or creeds.

Albion in Post #13: Agreed. Asking "So what is your question?" hardly seems to amount to an "attempt(s) to suppress certain aspects of Inspired Scriptural Revelation."

The original quote from jsimms435 in Post #6 [emphasis] added]: So what is your question? They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time.

==============================================================================================

Now, what does the Reader think I was referring to when I stated: “Why do we see repeated attempts to suppress certain aspects of Inspired Scriptural Revelation?”?:
- “So what is your question?”
OR
- “They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time.”?

Isn’t it obvious that I was referring to “They also thought the world was flat and you could fall of it during that time”, and not the “So what is your question?” to which attention was drawn?

Wasn’t that flat world statement an attempt to undermine the Inspired “Old Testament” revelation regarding the nature of human death? (But ended up shooting the authors of the Nicene Creed in the foot?)

==============================================================================================

Now, what is the term used to describe drawing attention away from a statement of significance?


Is it not true that the statements in Posts #12 and #13 constitute an obvious and blatant example of the courtroom tactics that the author of Post #30 implies do not exist?

And can’t the use of implication to counter truth, in itself be classed as a courtroom tactic?

dp

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[Pedrito]

jsimms435 in Post #19: So your claiming that when a person dies they cease to exist and then they are resurrected at the last day, which if they cease to exist then how are they resurrected? Please back up what your saying with scripture. I don't see any evidence that what your saying is true in scripture and I've read it over numerous times in the last 34 years

And in Post #25 jsimms435 stated: the resurrection is usually thought of in terms of the resurrection of the physical body. You are the one who came up with the phrase cessation of existence. It appears to be your premise in your remarks so far that the spirit of a person stops existing at the physical death of a person and then comes back to life later at a resurrection. So, I asked you for proof of this from scripture and you haven't answered. The "cessation of existence" idea was yours and as I have now said three times is not evident from scriptures.

In Post #36 he said: Several posts with scripture have been given refuting your view that there is a cessation of existence as you put it yet you haven't answered any of those statements. Could you address those please?

==============================================================================================

Let’s see:

Stravinsk has already presented: After death a person: returns to dust (Psalms 104:29), knows nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5), possesses no mental powers (Psalms 146:4), has nothing to do with anything on earth (Ecclesiastes 9:6), does not live (2 Kings 20:1), waits in the grave (Job 17:13), and continues not (Job 14:1, 2).

Instead of those seven statements from Holy Scripture being welcomed and embraced as an integral part of God’s Holy Revelation to us, they were dismissively referred to as Jewish and not relevant to the Christian Gospel – even though the Apostle Paul said that they were relevant and gave an example proving they were, and even though Jesus Himself had taught the family of Lazarus the same thing (John 11:23-24). (They were so treated by a different Poster, but that is the general attitude of Christendom.)

If jsimms435 admits that those statements from Scripture are both indisputably relevant (being part of the Inspired Word of God) and that they contradict the post-Nicene “immortal soul” teaching, then I will be happy to provide even more statements from Scripture (and address those previously tendered in support of the immortal soul concept – reproduced below) . If not, then his statements quoted above are shown to be insincere, at the very least.


**** Didn’t Jesus Himself dictate that Holy things should not be exposed to ridicule? **** (Matthew 7:6)


==============================================================================================

The following Scriptures have been presented to date in support of the “immortal Soul” concept: Psalm 49:15 NASB, Psalm 139:8 NASB, Hebrews 9:27-28, Luke 23:39-43 NASB, Philippians 1:23-24, Matthew 22:29-32 and Matthew 17:3.

The Scriptures I have presented to date are Acts 23:6-8, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. And we mustn’t forget reference to what Jesus had taught Martha (see the Lazarus reference above).

==============================================================================================

And as for (a reference submitted in support of continuing consciousness after death), “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment", when do the creeds tell us that that judgement actually takes place?

- The Apostle’s Creed: “and he will come to judge the living and the dead.”
- The Original Nicene Creed: “From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.”
- The so-called Nicene Creed: “from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead. ;”
- The Athanasian Creed: “He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead.”

All those creeds state that the judgement takes place after the Return of Jesus – not before. (And isn’t that judgement also preceded by the resurrection from death?)


Perhaps we should thank jsimms435 for clarifying the matter so well.

 

[NewCreation435]

jsimms435 in Post #19: So your claiming that when a person dies they cease to exist and then they are resurrected at the last day, which if they cease to exist then how are they resurrected? Please back up what your saying with scripture. I don't see any evidence that what your saying is true in scripture and I've read it over numerous times in the last 34 years

And in Post #25 jsimms435 stated: the resurrection is usually thought of in terms of the resurrection of the physical body. You are the one who came up with the phrase cessation of existence. It appears to be your premise in your remarks so far that the spirit of a person stops existing at the physical death of a person and then comes back to life later at a resurrection. So, I asked you for proof of this from scripture and you haven't answered. The "cessation of existence" idea was yours and as I have now said three times is not evident from scriptures.

In Post #36 he said: Several posts with scripture have been given refuting your view that there is a cessation of existence as you put it yet you haven't answered any of those statements. Could you address those please?

==============================================================================================

Let’s see:

Stravinsk has already presented: After death a person: returns to dust (Psalms 104:29), knows nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5), possesses no mental powers (Psalms 146:4), has nothing to do with anything on earth (Ecclesiastes 9:6), does not live (2 Kings 20:1), waits in the grave (Job 17:13), and continues not (Job 14:1, 2).

Instead of those seven statements from Holy Scripture being welcomed and embraced as an integral part of God’s Holy Revelation to us, they were dismissively referred to as Jewish and not relevant to the Christian Gospel – even though the Apostle Paul said that they were relevant and gave an example proving they were, and even though Jesus Himself had taught the family of Lazarus the same thing (John 11:23-24). (They were so treated by a different Poster, but that is the general attitude of Christendom.)

If jsimms435 admits that those statements from Scripture are both indisputably relevant (being part of the Inspired Word of God) and that they contradict the post-Nicene “immortal soul” teaching, then I will be happy to provide even more statements from Scripture (and address those previously tendered in support of the immortal soul concept – reproduced below) . If not, then his statements quoted above are shown to be insincere, at the very least.


**** Didn’t Jesus Himself dictate that Holy things should not be exposed to ridicule? **** (Matthew 7:6)


==============================================================================================

The following Scriptures have been presented to date in support of the “immortal Soul” concept: Psalm 49:15 NASB, Psalm 139:8 NASB, Hebrews 9:27-28, Luke 23:39-43 NASB, Philippians 1:23-24, Matthew 22:29-32 and Matthew 17:3.

The Scriptures I have presented to date are Acts 23:6-8, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. And we mustn’t forget reference to what Jesus had taught Martha (see the Lazarus reference above).

==============================================================================================

And as for (a reference submitted in support of continuing consciousness after death), “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment", when do the creeds tell us that that judgement actually takes place?

- The Apostle’s Creed: “and he will come to judge the living and the dead.”
- The Original Nicene Creed: “From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.”
- The so-called Nicene Creed: “from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead. ;”
- The Athanasian Creed: “He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead.”

All those creeds state that the judgement takes place after the Return of Jesus – not before. (And isn’t that judgement also preceded by the resurrection from death?)


Perhaps we should thank jsimms435 for clarifying the matter so well.

You are correct in saying that the concept of death in the Old Testament is different from the New. There is such a thing as progressive revelation. Those in the days of Job and David didn't have the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus or the apostles. They often phrased death in terms of Sheol, which at best is that the dead didn't have awareness of what was going on on earth and sometimes was viewed as a garbage dump. Fortunately, Jesus and the apostles clarified these views. Good biblical interpretation looks at all of the passages that deal with a subject and interprets it in the light of all of the passages and doesn't just take a select group of them as you have.

Instead of getting your concept of hell from Job, which is probably the oldest book in the Bible. Interpret your views in light of the whole of scripture. Instead of discounting the passages that I have and others have given you. Job's understanding of death was far different from ours because he was largely living in a time of ignorance without any scripture to back up his claims. That is highlighted by his learned friends ignorance of the ways of God and their trying to condemn him because he was suffering. they thought that a person who was blessed of God would not suffer as Job did.

I am going to start another thread on this subject if you want to learn more.